Three powerful Democrats have circulated a "dear colleague" letter among their House colleages, arguing for a delay in acting on telco amnesty in light of new revelations

In a letter to lawmakers Thursday, panel Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, and two subcommittee chairmen, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Bart Stupak of Michigan, said claims by the chief of security at an unnamed wireless carrier that the company may have given a government entity access to all of its customers’ communications, justified further delay in considering the legislation. "Because legislators should not vote before they have sufficient facts, we continue to insist that all House members be given access to the necessary information, including the relevant documents underlying this matter, to make an informed decision on their vote," the trio wrote. Babak Pasdar, chief executive of a security firm who was hired to upgrade security at the unnamed telecommunications company, said he discovered a third-party security breach traced to a governmental office in Quantico, Va., home to a U.S Marine Corps base and the FBI Academy, the letter said. Pasdar’s allegations are similar to those of Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician whose claims support a lawsuit against the company being advanced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet privacy advocacy group.

The full text of the letter is available here [pdf].

Mr. Pasdar's allegations are not new to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but our attempts to verify and investigate them further have been blocked at every turn by this Administration. Moreover, this whistleblower's allegations echo those in an affidavit filed by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T. The merits of these claims have yet to be assessed by the Federal judge assigned to that case. Indeed, the court may not be able to assess them for quite some time, until the appellate courts finish sorting through threshold questions relating to the so-called "state secrets" doctrine. Should these defenses prevail, the court will dismiss the lawsuits out of hand before reaching any question of whether or how much money damages to impose. Even if the court permits the suits to go forward--long before any monetary award is evaluated--the court will have to determine whether the carriers did what the plaintiffs say they did. In the meantime, the carriers who did--and did not--participate in wiretapping without court orders or warrants, are prohibited from talking the Congress. The President will not let them. However, he continues to ask that Members of this body, other than the limited number to whom he has given drudging and belated access, to vote in the dark. Because legislators should not vote before they have sufficient facts, we continue to insist that all House Members be given access to the necessary information, including the relevant documents underlying this matter, to make an informed decision on their vote. After reviewing the documentation and these latest allegations, Members should be given adequate time to properly evaluate the separate question of retroactive immunity.

The Democrats lining up against telco amnesty continues to grow, from these three long-time, respected members to the newest Democratic Congressman, Bill Foster, to the group of Freshman Democrats who have been specifically targeted by the Republicans with robocalls and fearmongering.

This is not going to be an election year issue. The Republicans have done their worst against Democrats on the issue and it hasn't worked. There is no need to cave on telco amnesty.