Here is what our Democratic Presidential Candidate has to object to:

[midnight]

House Democratic leaders heralded the bill as a “bipartisan compromise” because instead of giving blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program, it would route the grants of immunity through a district court. As long as the companies could demonstrate to a judge that they were instructed to spy on Americans by the Bush administration they would be spared the trouble of litigating more than 40 pending lawsuits , even though they initiated the surveillance without legally required warrants.

“This is an astonishing giveaway,” Feingold said. http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/feingold-farce-wiretap-deal-could-be-hiding-impeachable-offense/

[katandmoon]

1. Too late, he's already attached his lips to the asses of Pelosi/Reid

[bain_sidhe]

2. Here's my idea of a compromise position...

OK, give the telecoms immunity if they received an "order"--but don't concede the legality of the order. Thus, the question becomes, was the order legal? Investigating this would require the same disclosure of the actual order given, the person who "gave it," and all internal written justifications by which they gave it. If after that review, the order was determined not to have been a legal order under the Constitution, the person who gave the order can, and should, be prosecuted.