Specter and Leahy on Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms...

[bridgit]

Run time: 01:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7DpLZHbTg   Posted on YouTube: October 16, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 17, 2007 By DU Member: bridgit Views on DU: 784

 

[wtmusic]

1. Y'know, f*ck "retroactive immunity" for anything

How about some "proactive responsibility"!?

[bridgit]

2. works for me...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. You know...

I have a feeling that these days, The West Wing's most important room is the one with the 55 gallon kit drum of Resistol Hat Glue and the cases of small brown paper bags.

[ooglymoogly]

4. The fact they are even asking for retroactive immunity is an insult

to our collective mind. That they are asking for immunity for something they obviously did that was against the law and they won't even tell us what it is stupefying. We should make a dartboard of any treasonous backstabber who votes for this immunity for it will be clear they are not working in the interests of the American people.

[bridgit]

5. agreed...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. It's unconstitutional. As Hell.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress, says:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

"Ex post facto" means retroactive law. It works either way; an action previously legal may not be made illegal, and an action previously illegal (in this case wiretapping) may not be made legal.

I learned that because I was awake in Constitutional Law class. This is real basic legal stuff, folks.

I was glad that Keith Olbermann asked John Dean about ex post facto laws in discussing the wiretapping on his show. That was the first question I had too, and I'm not nearly the Constitutional scholar that John Dean is.


But then, to quote Fred Nietzsche, "What are morals to sons of God?".

:banghead: :banghead: