Questions for Democratic wankers who support FISA

It is infuriating me that the spineless Democrats are not taking a stand on FISA and are actually putting their own political spin on how it's a "compromise" (read: "capitulation", as noted elsewhere in the blogosphere) and a good thing. Here are several key questions I had been thinking myself, but not in such clear terms:

Daily Kos: Betting it all on criminal wiretapping prosecutions.

1. Why, if you believe there are or may be grounds for criminal prosecution, would you immunize against civil liability? What sense does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for people you're telling us should be or could be subject to criminal liability?

2. Going the path in #1 says, "Don't press your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take care of that for you. Maybe.

3. Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama administration to a major criminal investigation spanning eight years of the Bush White House's most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first official act, and have any of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?

4. The people promising you criminal prosecutions after '08 if you'll just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election are the same people who promised you effective "subpoena power" after '06 if you'd just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election.