MOSCOW - The Russian government under Vladimir Putin has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/10/13/ap4216943.html
h/t Atrios

I pity The Onion. You really just can't make this stuff up.

If you will give your permission, I'd like to reproduce that whole comment at my blog, with attribution of course.

No problem as far as I am concerned, but be sure to read the small print at the bottom of the Salon page where they claim that everything posted on their site is their property and you reproduce it at your peril.

But it is an AP feed and ABC News also has it: <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3726309>.

Does anyone know what the punishment for this "crime" might be? To be extraordinarily rendered, perhaps?

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.      — USC 18 I.115 § 2385

But that's only if you're a Democrat. If you're a Republican, you can count on having your sentence commuted, your conviction overturned, or getting a full pardon.

Several people have questioned earlier whether granting amnesty falls into the category of ex post facto laws. The answer is no, nor is it a bill of attainder, both of which are prohibited by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3). However, the legislature is getting into very iffy territory here. The objection to bills of attainder is that it amounts to legislative punishment. This is a usurpation of the power and duties of the Court as it is the courts' job to determine guilt or innocence and when guilty to assign punishment. James Madison's take on this in Federalist 44 was:

Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters.

Thus, while legislative amnesty for crimes committed may not be a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law, it is certainly a law "impairing the obligations of contracts" as its primary purpose it to eliminate the civil liability of the corporations that have abrogated their contracts with their subscribers by providing information that their subscribers contracted with them to keep private to the government without proper authority.

So not only is the legislature encroaching into the territory of the judiciary, the prohibition of which is the intent of the no bills of attainder provision, but it is clearly a violation of the principle of not "impairing the obligations of contracts". It would seem that there is clearly a basis for a court challenge to such legislation, and, considering the nature of the legislation's encroaching on the prerogatives of the judiciary, one that the courts might be inclined to hear and consider favorably.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are Nixon on steroids. Only this time the press, the Congress and the American people are indifferent, too preoccupied with the 21st century version of Roman "bread and circuses" to notice they're losing something precious, that is very, very difficult to win back.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

How much more of this is it going to take before the people decide to exercise their right?

Be still my heart.
— (~~~~)

The first suggestion you've made that I can heartily endorse.

wholesale laundering of multiple felonies by multiple corporations, likely involving hundreds of lawbreakers.

It is not criminal liability that worries them. Any prosecution would have to be brought by the Justice Department and they're the ones who authorized it in the first place.

What has them running scared is the civil liability, the bringing of civil suits by those who can show that their contractual right to privacy has been breached and that they have suffered thereby. Considering the numbers of people doubtless involved, this could mean millions if not billions in lawsuits. This is threatening to hit them where it will hurt: In the corporate coffers and in the shareholder's bottom line.