I haven't seen this rebuttal of the the need for immunity described as cogently any place else

This story is more than a news story: it is a combination of news about an impasse, and a proposal for a way to break the impasse.

This piece digs below the administrations advocacy of telecom immunity and presents a sober argument for an alternative proposal. Good historical context.

the solution offered here to the secrets within the secrets, within... . which the bush administration seems master of, seems very sound, and also relatively easy as the model is already in place. I would have liked more information about whether or not this has already been proffered by senators and what has been the reaction there. a good explanation with real information of why there is still debate over telecom companies immunity.

This story analyzes the behind the public reasons for possible motivations for the administration's actions. As such, it is bound to be biased. It makes a proposal that meets what the administration says it needs, supporting the claim that those public needs may not be all there is. Any story that continues to raise alarms about unchecked government behavior is important and worth reading.

Wow! I thought I knew a lot about this topic. But this article taught me some new things--and made some very sensible suggestions. Very insightful and provided a lot of background detail to explain the proposals. I love articles that respect my intelligence as a reader, and this one does.

Stated another way, the issue here is not so much the protection of state secrets as the abuse of the system by the executive branch. I find the telecom defense unconvincing since they were well aware of available means to verify the government justification for secrecy. In conclusion, however, the authors provide an excellent 3-point solution for future cases, even if they leave this current outrage unresolved.

Maybe the issue over telecom immunity will force reforms that prevent abuse of the state secrets privilege.