From the NY Times, editorial page (you won't see this level of criticism from FOX GOP Appreciation Channel, eh?):
This provision [to dismiss pending lawsuits] is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable. Democratic lawmakers said they reviewed the telecommunications companies’ cooperation (by reading documents selected by the White House) and concluded that lawsuits were unwarranted. Unlike them, we still have faith in the judicial system, which is where that sort of conclusion is supposed to be reached, not in a Senate back room polluted by the politics of fear.
Just as The Nation foretold, Congress is proving inept at managing the Secret War.
Who decides? It's probably a hard thing to decide as a blank slate issue.
I tend to think that secrecy is not required as much as some think it is. People can support giving up freedoms, mostly insofar as they openly know what they are giving up.
In other words, the price for indemnity, if it should be accorded at all, is spelling out in some detail the parameters of the program(s). Part of the case against indemnity might be that it destroys the proper incentives of at least one party in the process to be vigilant against corruption or abuse.
THE CASE FOR SECRECY IS HARDLY PROVED
As for as catching criminals, law enforcement appear to have done fairly well against the mob, and they all knew not only that they could be "wire tapped" but even police procedure, because they often had people on the inside.
Therefore, one might easily conclude, "too much secrecy" with this indemnity request. Indeed, it does look like a cover for the White House.
