A good-enough spy law

But what's most objectionable to some Democrats is a provision that provides telecommunications companies accused of past wrongdoing the right to have their cases reviewed in district court. If the court finds the companies received written legal requests from the president or attorney general to provide crucial information, then civil lawsuits would be dismissed. Going forward, the new process would also protect the companies from litigation.

These are all sensitive issues for civil libertarians and national security experts alike. But the bill strikes a fair balance. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential candidate, said it was a close call but he had decided to endorse the bill. As he explained, the bill won't allow the president to "suggest that somehow there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."

The rest of the party should follow Obama's lead. Clearly, the intelligence community cannot succeed in the war on terrorism -- cannot really connect the dots -- without help from the private sector. Congress must protect those companies so they can and will help, when it's necessary.

Without such protection, phone and Internet companies, if they cooperated at all, would do so on a case-by-case basis, with their own lawyers exercising lawyer-like caution. In the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the "possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation." That was a conclusion that reached across party lines, as does the compromise bill.

This should not be a partisan political question. Those on both sides of the issue are equally patriotic. Opponents rightly want to assure that the privacy of citizens is not put at risk. Proponents are right too in seeking to ensure the continued cooperation of the telecommunications industry in the war on terrorism.

The compromise bill satisfies both sides: Under congressional oversight, it puts the responsibility for past surveillance squarely on the administration, where it belongs, and allows the courts to determine the legality of these actions.

In this case, the government should be held responsible, not private industry.