Letters to the Editor
-
The solution is simple
The constitution permits what McConnell wants, but it's not a legislative function. It sounds exactly like a pardon. All the president needs to do is to publish a pardon, listing the companies involved, and the actions that are pardoned, and then they can't be sued.....
-
Civil Liability
Presidential pardons do not provide immunity against civil liability.
-
A simple answer
What possible reason is there to protect anyone -- including telecom companies -- with a special law enacted to declare that they are relieved of all accountability for illegal behavior?
It's written into the Bush DNA, that's why.
-
Let's Try This From Another Angle
So the admission is now on the table, to serve as the icing on the multi-layer cake of proof that bush, cheney, gonzales, rove, ashcroft, et. al have broken the law and committed multiple felonies.
And yet elected members of Congress, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, are publicly and specifically refusing to perform their Constitutional duty to impeach public officials who break the law.
That means that each and every member of Congress who refuses to sign on to the current bills calling for the impeachment of bush, cheney, gonzales, etc. is in violation of his/her oath of office and subject him/herself to impeachment.
In Kentucky, we have a special investigative branch of the Kentucky State Police called the God Squad that steps in when local police and sheriff's departments are corrupt or failing to perform their duty of protecting the citizenry.
Congress is failing to do its job as the Article One First and Most Important Branch of Government.
Who will be the first to demand impeachment of faithless members of Congress?
-
Glenn, could you explain please...
...why this isn't prohibited by Article I?
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
This is the second time for this stuff, there was a retroactive immunity clause in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as well. What does ex post facto mean if it doesn't mean this kind of law?
-
Constitutional questions
Yellow Dog:
That means that each and every member of Congress who refuses to sign on to the current bills calling for the impeachment of bush, cheney, gonzales, etc. is in violation of his/her oath of office and subject him/herself to impeachment.
Actually, impeachment is for officers of the executive branch, as well as judges, not for members of the legislature. They can be voted out, however.
Ondelette:
Ex post facto only applies to laws creating crimes and punishments that can be applied after the fact. What they are doing is protecting themselves against such punishment by clearing their records, and then any reversion of such crimes under a later Congress/administration cannot punish them for what was (technically) not a crime again.
Of course, that didn't stop Nuremburg.
-
What changes? This isn't a Friedman Unit
The administration will simply use the same Terrorist fear-mongering rhetoric and Democrats will respond in exactly the same way. Why would anyone think it will be any different in six months?
We would be six months closer to an election.
The spineless Democratic candidates should have six months of continuous phone calls and e-mails explaining how they will not be supported in said election if they capitulate again.
Of course I don't think that will happen, but that's what should happen. I think my district (Stark) is covered -- how about the rest of you people?
-
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
I am not a lawyer, but I think that means you cannot do something, have that outlawed and then be punished for doing it before it was made illegal.
-
A bill of attainder
Is a law passed specifically for or against a single individual. Of course we do that all the time in effect and no one really cares that it's unconstitutional.
-
But the premise of Glenn's argument...
...is that the rule of law is injured no matter which way an ex post facto law works: whether it punishes behavior that wasn't criminal when it was done, or whether it makes unpunishable behavior that was criminal when it was done.
-
Big Bananas
If I were a telecom--I'd be pretty pissed after being suckered into doing GW's dirty work and then not getting the legal cover I was promised.
I wonder if a telecom could take on the administration for this kind of thing?
Ya know--get BIG TELCO to do OUR dirty work for a change...
It would be nice to watch an 800 pound, banana-crazed gorilla rampaging through Washington...
-
JBinMO
I am not a lawyer, but I think that means you cannot do something, have that outlawed and then be punished for doing it before it was made illegal.
Correct, basically. The prohibition on ex post facto laws is generally understood to bar the imposition of liability for past acts which, at the time they were undertaken, were legal.
Bills of attainder really are legislative acts designed to identify one person or group and declare them guilty for past acts (rather than doing what the legislature is supposedt o do - criminalize behavior and then have courts decide if a defendant is guilty of breaking the law).
-
Bad laws...
are a fact of life and this one was way over due for a change. It's yet to be determined if the admin broke the law, regardless of Glenn's fervent need to bring down Bush.
-
Fraud Guy: Thanks and Rats
Actually, impeachment is for officers of the executive branch, as well as judges, not for members of the legislature. They can be voted out, however. - Fraud Guy
Yeah, that voting thing is working like a charm. Phooey.
-
After all we've seen...
After all of the Bush regime's lies, stonewalling, and hostility to any form of congressional oversight, Wittes' presumption of a benign justification for Bush's illegal domestic surveillance is hopelessly naive at best.
Rather than granting the telecoms a retroactive amnesty, they should be considered co-conspirators for violating FISA.
-
Enabling the Bush Administration
After reading Wittes excerpt from Febuary. I can't help but think that it was his report from Bagbad. His statement I've been inside the super-duper secret court rings of the hollow sound of "I've been there, have you? Therefore I approve. I agree Glenn it is these serious people that we should be paying attention to.
footsore
-
Immunity: not just for telecoms?
An earlier proposed version of the immunity provision was posted by sysprog on May 21:
Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.
When I read that, I didn't get the feeling that this was an attempt to protect only the telecom companies. I thought they were trying to provide immunity for everyone in the process, from the DOJ hacks who cooked it up and approved it to the intelligence folks themselves. After all, they are "persons" and in discussing the information would necessarily "provide" the information to one another. By selling Congress on the concept of telecom immunity, they would also keep themselves out of jail.
Am I reading too much into their underhandedness? Is that possible?
Keep in mind a sizable portion of DOJ management was ready to resign rather than approve the activities.