This, Sen. Reid, is how it's done

And if you can't do it, then perhaps you ought to get out of the way and let someone who believes in upholding the Constitution of the United States be majority leader.

Amid deep and growing divisions among Senate Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) last night abruptly withdrew legislation that would have changed surveillance law and granted the nation's telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from lawsuits charging they had violated privacy rights.

Democratic leaders had hoped to complete an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before recessing for the year, since the current law governing the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is set to expire in early February. But in the face of more than a dozen amendments to the bill and guerrilla tactics from its opponents, Reid surprised his colleagues when he announced there would not be enough time to finish the job.

"Everyone feels it would be in the best interest of the Senate if we take a look at this when we come back," Reid said, acknowledging the time crunch he faces in the "last hours" of this congressional session and the hefty number of agenda items remaining.

The disputed measure would have placed the warrantless surveillance program under secret court supervision, but the most heated controversy surrounded the White House's efforts to legally shield phone companies that had been helping the National Security Agency listen in on telephone and Internet conversations.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) -- a presidential candidate who returned from Iowa Sunday night to fight the measure -- quickly claimed victory after the bill's withdrawal, and he again vowed to "utilize all the tools available" to block passage once Reid calls it up in January.

"He blinked," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said of Reid. "It's clear that this was not going to be easy. On the one hand he wanted to rush this process and think he could strong-arm everybody to giving up their rights as senators. They threw sand in the gears."

How sad is it when a Senator has to filibuster his own party's bill because his party leadership is so cowed by a president who on a good day has the support of only one in three Americans? Isn't it time that the Democrats stopped buying into the Republican meme that to ensure continued freedom for Americans is somehow "putting the rights of known terrorists ahead of the safety and security of Americans", as the NRSC said when House legislation did not contain immunity for Big Telecom?

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush explained the motivation for the attacks as "They hate our freedom." Given his penchant for projection, you have to wonder at this point who the "they" was to which he was referring. Because if "They hate our freedom" is why this country was attacked, then this president and his party have been giving "the terrorists" exactly what they want ever since. Because NSA data centers in telecommunications company outposts that sweep up the telephone and internet activity of every person in this country is hardly conducting surveillance on "known terrorists" -- unless you believe that every American in this country is a potential terrorist.