Guys you're trying to argue with onimushulala and wookie...

That's why I said "in good faith". You have federal agents ordering telecoms to perform certain wiretaps under FISA and/or FISA court warrants. Suing or prosecuting them for cooperation would be like suing your mother because she let cops claiming to have a warrant search your belongings.

The latest revised bill does not grant blanket immunity to telcos -- something Obama did clearly say he opposed. Instead, it gives the FISA court -- a US district court in special session -- a means to grant immunity to a "person" if it can be proven that the "person" was under the impression that "he" was authorized to cooperate by the President or DOJ. The current compromise language compels the FISA court to make such a grant.

It's called "discussion". Sometimes it happens on internet.

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

"Obama" replied to "my e-mail":

What grave threats?

Same mentality that left us so vulnerable at the turn of the millennia.

And I believe, for one, that no man or woman should waiver so much in it as most Americans have.

3. Permission for a professional athletic club to assign a player to the minor leagues or release a player from the club, granted only after all other clubs have been given the opportunity to claim the player and have not done so.