Immunity from Breaking the Law (FISA discussion "a national damn embarrassment")

[enough]

by Hunter at dailykos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/24/171836/135/876/442554

snip>

There's only one constituency in America that wants this absurdly broad and transparently asinine immunity legislation: the people who broke the law. And lo and behold, I imagine every person and company in America would love to have an after-the-fact declaration of immunity for whatever they've done that was illegal. Enron, Blackwater... the list could be endless. But in nearly all cases, we're not stupid enough to give it to them: we recognize laws exist for a reason, and recognize the even more audacious notion that laws should actually still exist even for the powerful among us.

Why Senators like Rockefeller, Bayh, Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, McCaskill, Nelson, Nelson, Carper, Landrieu, Inouye, and Johnson can't figure this out implies nothing but pandering and corruption. Why other members of our party are not standing more forcefully with Dodd to denounce this obvious abuse is similarly insulting.

It is offensive in the extreme that we are having to battle our own government and members of our own party -- including Harry Reid, who inexplicably has tried to shove this immunity-laden bill down the Senate's throat for some time now -- over this very simple premise. You don't pass legislation that says illegal acts are legal if you're "important" enough, or "connected" enough, or have enough lobbyists.

I understand why the Republican Party continues to push these premises -- as the party dedicated towards doing whatever the most powerful American companies want, good or bad, it's predictable behavior. But the Democratic Party should at least pretend at a higher sense of integrity. It's shameful and embarrassing, from Rockefeller to all the others, and all involved parties should pick themselves up and figure out where their basic sense of national ethics has gone. If you're not willing to stand up for the most central principles of constitutional government -- the rule of law applies equally to all parties -- at least have the common decency not to actively thwart it on the behalf of those that may petition you for exactly that.

snip>

[thunder rising]

1. You'd think that would be the CW of the Congress that supposedly represents the people

[mirrera]

2. kick

[kelligesq]

3. OP says it all! SUGGESTION: CANCELyour ATT or VERIZON account -

make them pay one way or another., They want immunity so that the 30 cases cant proceed to court and make them pay big $ for violating their privacy .

Therefore make they pay by losing lots and lots and lots of subscribers to their
services.

You have the power of the dollar. Apparently that's all you have as an American
citizen, cause as the OP says, we dont have the law anymore.

[enough]

4. AM kick. Something to think about besides candidates.

[MiniMe]

5. But, but, they were just being patriotic

I actually heard Kay Bailey Hutchinson argue that on the Senate floor yesterday. They should have immunity because they were just being patriotic. I didn't know that it was patriotic to commit a crime.

[NoFederales]

6. It's bad enough Obama and Clinton cannot be bothered to participate

in Senate duties, but Missouri Senator McCaskill-D, winning a close vote over Jim Talent-R really is pathetic. Missouri Republicans are some of the worst offenders of civil liberties, guilty of high corruption/cronyism. The list of Bond, Ashcroft, Blunt, Talent, and others should be a hit parade for criminality.

Many people put high hopes on McCaskill helping get Missouri out of the depths of the political sewer, but I guess she found something she likes down there. I'll be shoveling some stuff her way............

Is there no hope for Integrity and Accountability?

NoFederales

[hvn_nbr_2]

7. I just realized something important about telecom immunity

It's NOT about protecting the telecoms! It is about keeping cases from being heard in court.

The fascist regime has silenced all critics from within the administration, has neutered the CIA and Congress, has purged opposition from the military, and owns virtually all media. The only way for any truth to be heard is for private citizens to bring lawsuits and have evidence heard in open court. Although they control the courts generally, they can't be sure of controlling every judge in every court and some court somewhere will allow a case to be heard. Unless they remove any possible grounds for a suit.

Oh sure, it's an added bennie to give their rich buddies at the telecoms, but the real importance to Bushco is keeping information away from the public.

[warren pease]

8. Legal opinions? Doesn't this violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution?

It's an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by the Constitution, which says:

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

Here's a definition from Wiki:

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retrospective law, is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retrospectively.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation...

And there's this brief definition from the 'Lectric Law Library.

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

Given all the above, how can this sleazy piece of unconstitutional shit even be up for a vote?

Then again, Section 9 also says:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

And look how well that's coming along these days.


wp

[MasonJar]

9. Yes, DU, put your money somewhere else; that is the only language these

mosters understand. I paid extra money to get rid of Verizon and I am dispensing with AT&T the first of February *(soonest that Insight and I could connect up for the switch.) Also, we must call and recall Dodd and Reid and especially Rockefeller.