The bill, passed 69-28, redraws important aspects of the United States’ aging surveillance law; its revisions will grant the government increased leeway in some areas and curtail its power in others. Its most controversial provision would also grant telcos like AT&T retroactive immunity from the throng of lawsuits they face, all of which complain about their role in integrating a secret, government-sanctioned wiretap into the country’s communications infrastructure.

After an identical version of the FISA amendments act passed the House of Representatives late last month, the bill’s opponents – spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union – launched a spirited, last-ditch offensive to see its telecom immunity provisions removed. Those efforts, the most notable of which included a revision that would have increased the difficulty of immunity’s requirements, ultimately failed due to a quick Senate rejection.

Further complicating matters was an edict from President Bush, who promised to veto any FISA legislation that failed to include an immunity provision.

There are currently about 40 lawsuits against American telecommunications companies concerning its wiretap program, all bundled together and sitting before a single U.S. District court. They will likely be dismissed if the bill’s criteria – which its opponent consider weak, and both sides predict will have little problems reaching – is met.

“This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning,” said President Bush, speaking in a brief appearance at the White House’s Rose Garden.

“The president broke the law,” stated democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, one of the bill’s opponents.

Its supporters carry a different tune, however. “This is the balance we need to protect our civil liberties without handcuffing our terror-fighters,” said republican Sen. Christopher Bond.

A number of political commentators noted democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s party-line-breaking vote in support of the bill, a move that he justified as unfortunate but necessary.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act,” he noted, referring to a stopgap measure that expired last February.

“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, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary.”

Both the EFF and ACLU vowed to continue their fight in court, shifting their focus to challenge the immunity provision’s constitutionality.

“It is an immeasurable tragedy that just after its return from the Fourth of July holiday, the Senate has chosen to pass a bill that betrays the spirit of 1776 by radically expanding the president's spying powers and granting immunity to the companies that colluded in his illegal surveillance program,” said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston.

“This so-called compromise bill represents a shameful capitulation to the overreaching demands of an imperial president. As Senator Leahy put it in yesterday's debate, the retroactive immunity provision of the bill upends the scales of justice and makes Congress and the courts handmaidens to the White House's cover-up of its illegal surveillance program.”

“This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant,” said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero. “This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

Both groups intend to challenge the bill, in the words of the ACLU, “as soon as President Bush signs it into law.”

The bill’s other provisions passed largely uncontested, included provisions that would prohibit government invocation of war powers in order to supersede surveillance rules, and allow the government to secretly eavesdrop for up to a week without a warrant, provided a warrant is obtained within a week.