I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.

Senator Obama has made a strong statement about the attempt to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies in the latest update to the FISA bill. I can't try to pick the Senator's fights -- there are so many -- but I want to briefly use this space to highlight what I think some of the implications are in this issue, and why it's so important to stand firm in opposition.

It's clear that extraordinary measures have been taken to gain access to private communications in the name of security. It's also clear that some modernization of surveillance is absolutely necessary considering the revolutionary changes of the electronic age. It is critical, however, that we make every effort to protect our privacy, because without it we are fundamentally redefined as a society, and our liberties are shockingly constrained in ways many of us may not be sufficiently aware. There are reasonable approaches to incorporate sufficient oversight into the surveillance effort without compromising efficiency in any way, and there no longer appears to be any legitimate disagreement about this point.

The recent updates to FISA legislation include measures to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who agreed to cooperate with the aggressive surveillance techniques employed by the current administration. Senator Obama opposes this, and fellow Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd has vowed to filibuster if necessary to prevent it.

Why is this so important?

(1) This is how we communicate with each other, so it's not just about the 4th Amendment, but #1 as well, and we need to be very clear about where to draw the line regarding any infringements.

(2) We see time and again the heavy cost of failure to examine our behavior, particularly our behavior in stressful times, and we avoid such self-examination at our peril.

I don't dwell on what sort of punishment might be imposed on companies who overstepped the line. I do think about the dangers of not knowing about what lines were crossed, what harm was done, and what we can learn about ourselves so we can do better. I see no need for vindictiveness, but I do believe we must have a reasonable level of concern regarding safeguards to our lifelines to each other. If we relax our vigilance here, we have failed ourselves in a really fundamental way.

Thank you, Senator, for speaking out! Congress absolutely must stand firm against demands that we embrace a troublingly incurious attitude toward these questions. This is certainly where the line has to be drawn. The enormous power of modern communication technology requires enormous care to ensure its responsible use, and the responsible consciences of its providers.