Disappointing doesn’t begin to describe the latest showing by Senate Democrats in the recently passed surveillance bill. The bill fails at both protecting privacy standards and holding the government accountable by law, marking the ever-sinking depths of Bush administration policy and Democratic complicity.

The surveillance bill provides near-blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in warrantless wiretapping, despite attempts by elected officials to appear both tough on security and supportive of civil liberties.

Though amended from its original proviso, which ensured the immunity of the companies complicit in breaking federal law, the bill now requires the dismissal of suits brought against telecom companies after official “authorization.”

Such authorization could be issued from a number of officials and approved by no specific method or authority. This broad inclusion of various official authorizers makes the approvals dubiously hollow.

Once presented with a document of authorization, a judge will be required to dismiss the case. In this way, the bill requires the judiciary to bestow legal legitimacy to actions they do not evaluate.

Though the Bush administration argues that the prosecution of telecom companies endangers national security, it is more likely it fears that legal suits might reveal the scope and size of Bush’s illegal and warrantless surveillance practices.

The bill marks a regression in the maintenance of civil liberties. While the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the previous legislation that shaped surveillance law, required individual applications for separate wiretapping cases and provided for retroactive authorization 72 hours after surveillance, the new bill authorizes entire surveillance programs, granting the executive branch extensive wiretapping privileges.

The programs, which will last one year, will also be obscured from judicial review. The new system allows for only the attorney general (part of the executive branch) to certify that the program is within the confines of the law.

As an indication of the Democratic leadership’s continued malfunctioning, Barack Obama supported the bill, saying, “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”

Not only does his statement rely on the false dichotomy of security and privacy, assuming that the enforcement of one requires the weakening of the other, it seems to tacitly acknowledge the undue power the bill gives to the executive branch. However reassuring Obama’s promises may be, someone should remind him that an aptly crafted security bill shouldn’t require careful monitoring. Rather, through the checks and balances allowed by the separate branches of government, monitoring should be implicit.

Likewise, his statement rests upon a brave assumption that he will be the next president. Who would perform the monitoring duties if his Bush-like opponent, John McCain, were elected?

Obama’s decision is a poor start to his national campaign. For someone who criticizes politics as usual, it shows a decisive lack of leadership and a pandering to the machinations of the party.

It would be naïve to believe that the maintenance of a strong security program would not affect a citizen’s privacy. However, the surveillance bill eliminates the checks and balances used to determine the proper situations in which the seizure of information is warranted.

The bill’s passing is embarrassing for the Democrats who backed it and sadly expected for the Bush administration, which pushed it through.

[Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]