Long before I moved to California, Dianne Feinstein earned my ire for her pro-gun control stance. (Note that "pro-gun control," as used by the gun control lobby, doesn't mean "enforcing stricter gun laws," but rather "outlawing guns or making them really, really hard to obtain.")

Then I moved to California and was forced to write letters to her, as I did earlier this week. She disappointed me by being one of only two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of Judge Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. This made me upset: how, in the face of all that we have seen over the last several years, could she vote for a candidate who would not take a firm stance on torture? But even more troublesome was his stance on executive power; Mukasey does believe that some heretofore unknown "inherent" power to break the law exists in Article II of the Constitution. Where does this power exist? Ostensibly, if you play Article II backwards, you can hear the words saying, "By virtue of the fact that the president is granted the power to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president is permitted to ignore statues that infringe upon his duties to lead the armed forces, especially in times of war, though there is no guarantee that this is necessarily the case. These duties consist of, but are not limited to: foreign and domestic spying; suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; torture, even when in violation of domestic and international law; legislative authority; and judicial authority. Oh, and by the way, Paul is dead."

I find it strange that Article II, written in 1787, would predict Paul McCartney's death, but hey, when you play things backward, strange things happen.

But Friday, Dianne Feinstein earned my eternal ire, and just as I was about to write her another letter. Feinstein is in favor of legal immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's illegal, poorly-justified, warrantless wiretapping program:

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

She endorsed a recent statement by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security."

This is not a case of innocent telephone companies being bullied by the big, bad Bush administration. These companies voluntarily helped the administration engage in domestic surveillance. The telecom companies' lawyers claim that they were assured by the administration that the activities were legal, and furthermore, their own legal departments said that the activities were legal. "We thought it was legal!" was their claim.

But the claim falls flat when you consider that Qwest, after reviewing the administration's request, refused to comply because, in its opinion, the request was illegal! Since at least one phone company realized that what the administration was asking was illegal, the assertion that phone companies were only trying to help is invalid. If at least one company realized the plan was illegal, then it would have been possible for other companies to realize it was illegal. Perhaps they just thought they would never be caught. Perhaps they hoped that their compliance would lead to favorable legislation -- this could be a sort of in-kind campaign donation.

Feinstein, though, says that she is open to suggestions, including the suggestion that lawsuits can go ahead, with caps on damages.

That's a fine idea! (And I'm serious about this.) We don't need to litigate the phone companies out of business; rather, we just need to rule against them to (1) get a precedent set to say, definitively, phone companies may not voluntarily comply with requests for information. The US Code is clear about this, anyway, but apparently we need to say it a few times before it sinks in. Also, (2) punitive damages that are great -- but not too great -- will get the message through that violations of the law will not go unpunished. This plan is fine, but a blanket immunity only lets the administration know that it can break the law without consequences.