Immunity for Warrant-less Wiretaps?

I've read three recent articles about the warrant-less wiretaps and this is another case where our system of checks and balances seems to be threatened:

Newsweek ran a story, by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, on MSNBC.com titled: Case Dismissed?
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to know about 

Glenn Greenwald pretty much repeated the story titled, “Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking” on Salon.com.

And the New York Times also ran a related story, by James Risen, titled Warrantless Wiretaps Not Used, Official Says.  Why can't the FISA court be adapted and why is there so much pressure to immunize everybody from any form of judicial oversight and responsibility for past actions?

Since when are we supposed to trust only one branch of our government to protect our interests?

As for the telecom companies, remember, Qwest Communications stood up to the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretapping when the other communication companies rolled over.

If there is anything I believe in, it's accountability.

The Diplomatic Surge

Below is a link to an op-ed contribution to the Sunday, August 19, 2007 edition of the New York Times titled "The War as We Saw It" by BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY.

What is significant about this piece is that these men are still actively serving in the US military and were still deployed in Iraq when they wrote it. This raises some obvious issues about active members of the military making political comments and I think that is an important dialog to have. Irrespective of that point, I believe these men -- with their boots on the ground -- provide important insight and perspective on the situation in Iraq.

Whether you want us to surge on or wind down in Iraq, I think we should consider what these men have to say based on their personal experiences.