Reply #99: I can read just fine - I disagree with what you think it means and...

[OHDEM]

whether or not it matters in this instance.

First off, you're both assuming that the administration in power in 2002 respected the rule of law, seperation of power and Constitution despite all evidence to the contrary. Remember - these are people that ignored our own laws and the Geneva Conventions to detain POWs illegally AND torture them. Not to mention that they outed a CIA agent because her husband questioned them and then had a scapegoat commit perjury to get off.

Second, thinking back to 2002, even questioning that President on his "War on Terror" was called "Giving comfort to our enemy" which is treason. Not that anyone was quilty of treason for questioning the government, but that admin and their press arm were certainly SAYING IT WAS. It was an intimidating time.

Further investigation into that part of the Constitution:

The last sentence of the Clause provides Members of Congress with two distinct privileges. Except in cases of "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace," the Clause shields Members from arrest while attending or traveling to and from a session of their House. History reveals, and prior cases so hold, that this part of the Clause exempts Members from arrest in civil cases only. "When the Constitution was adopted, arrests in civil suits were still common in America. It is only to such arrests that the provision applies." Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76, 83 (1934) (footnote omitted).

Since . . . the terms treason, felony and breach of the peace, as used in the constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the operation of the privilege all criminal offenses, the conclusion results that the claim of privilege of exemption from arrest and sentence was without merit. . . .

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0606_ZO.html

Interpreting the Constitution isn't always so simple.


I also came across this and wonder if it's a warning?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dojleaks.html

Again, I think it's important to remember what things were like right after 9/11 when public opinion was strongly behind Bush and his "War on Terror" and the GOP used it as a hammer on anyone who dared question them.

On edit...It looks like the above decision exempts the protects from activities not of a legislative nature. As I said, not simple.