Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Thursday he could not support a compromise on controversial electronic surveillance legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is also cool to the proposal, making it unclear how much support the legislation will get in the Senate. [...]

“I have said since the beginning of this debate that I would oppose a bill that did not provide accountability for this administration’s six years of illegal, warrantless wiretapping,” said Leahy. “This bill would dismiss ongoing cases against the telecommunications carriers that participated in that program without allowing a judicial review of the legality of the program. Therefore, it lacks accountability measures that I believe are crucial.”

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) said what other liberal Democrats are saying privately: Democrats "capitulated" to the White House.

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation," Feingold said. "The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the president’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. "

Here's the link to Senator Feingold's complete statement on the FISA bill passed by the House. A statement from Obama opposing this "capitulation" by Democratic negotiators would be nice. Here's some other reactions from around the net:

The Nation

The phrase "cave-in" can get thrown around too often. Legislation requires compromise, and activists are pretty much never completely happy with anything that actually manages to make it through the proverbial sausage factory. That said, this FISA compromise really is a cave-in.

The ACLU

This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans' communications. The court review is mere window-dressing –- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole –- "exigent" circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.

The New Republic

It's pretty clear that the question of whether the telecoms end up having to pay damages is something of a sideshow. The lawsuits are such a big deal mainly because they appear to be the last remaining way of airing the details of the program in court and ascertaining whether it violated the law. (No individual can demonstrate that they were a target of the surveillance, and courts have ruled that such a demonstration is necessary in order for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge the program.) That's off the table now, which is quite disappointing. The government will at least have to document to the courts the assurances it provided to telecoms, which is a plus. But according to the text of the legislation (pdf--scroll down to page 91), the courts will be prohibited from releasing any documents whose publication the attorney general declares would threaten national security. So you can bet that none of them will ever see the light of day, and there will be no informed public debate on the legality of the program. All in all, the Democrats pretty much caved on the question of judicial review of the wiretapping program.

It must be bad if TNR calls it a cave-in by the Democrats.

And CQ Politics

is claiming it's all the fault of the Blue Dog Democrats.

A potential revolt by a group of Democrats pressed party leaders into compromising on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules that could come to a House vote by week’s end, a top Democrat said Wednesday.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

The current immunity language differs very little from the proposal that was debated in February and March, according to Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- which is arguing the leading case against the nation's telecoms.

"The current proposal is the exact same blanket immunity that the Senate passed in February and that the House rejected in March, only with a few new bells and whistles so that political spinsters can claim that it actually provides meaningful court review," Bankston said.

It appears we have three parties. The Republicans (who march in lock step regardless of whether they are considered centrist, radical or maverick), Liberal Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats. Actually, add another group to that list: Chickenshit Democrats. I think that covers it, don't you?