The Constitution only bans laws which render illegal acts which, at the time they were undertaken, were legal. It doesn't prohibit laws that do the opposite.

-- GlennGreenwald

Thanks for the response Glenn. What about in civil cases?

Can the government make damages disappear by retroactively redefining them?

Thanks!

Glenn, you wrote:

"If your point is that retroactive immunity for telecom companies would not technically result in immunity from criminal prosecution for Bush officials, that is certainly true."

That was my point. I'm glad, if unsurprised, we agree that it's true.

You cautioned:

"But as a practical matter, prosecution for warrantless surveillance crimes is already a remote possibility."

Why? Isn't FISA legislation sound? How can the successful prosecution of crimes against established law be a "remote possibility"? I really, REALLY don't get this. From what does this remoteness of possibility derive?

You further demur:

"Having the Congress essentially endorse what happened by shielding the telecom companies from liability would make that prospect, as a practical matter, more remote still."

'More remote still'? But as you noted: "retroactive immunity for telecom companies would not technically result in immunity from criminal prosecution for Bush officials." So, wherein does the "practical" remoteness of possible liability you cite occur?

Once again, I'm not being facetious. The legal nuance here escapes me.

...which provides, I think, that re-consideration can be requested only by a Senator voting "no," so it's common where the majority will lose a vote for one Senator who supports it to vote "no").

Reid has done this on several votes and bills, as leader. Exactly as Glen says, in order to table the vote--so it can be brought up again.

They came pretty close this time. Sad day in the senate. One of many.

and that includes Ron Paul, although his position on the war is spot on. The Democrats are largely spineless and are scared of their own shadow, but in the absence of a third party with a viable chance of winning the presidency, there's no alternative to the Democrats if we wish to regain the democracy we lost under Bush/Cheney. The worst Democrat is infinitesimally better than the "best" Republican.

Will someone please explain to me why (other than their usual spinelessness) the Senate dems are not FORCING the repugs to carry out their threat to filibuster?

I have wondered the same thing. Especially on this bill. The democrats could make hay with the concept that republicans were blocking the senate from giving proper breaks to our troops.

I can offer two reasons why Reid won't do it, fwiw. First, there are other democratic amendments they want to get to (Reid-Levin is one)--and a true filibuster would halt those in their tracks. Second, forcing filibuster would represent an "escalation" in warfare in the senate, which might make it even more difficult to get anything passed.

This latter thing, if true, is the frustrating part.

General Petraeus,a.k.a. General Betrayus is an honorable man trying to do a difficult, no IMPOSSIBLE job.

As I said in yesterday's letter: AND CONGRESS?

At least the Roman Senators who stuck it to Julius Caesar on the Ides of March were trying to preserve the Roman Republic. This Congress is not even capable of VOTING to preserve the American Republic.

And in these circumstances Democrats have the gall to sneer at General Betrayus!

If there is indeed a "good" reason why the Democrats are "capitulating" like this, perhaps it would serve them well to let us know what those "good" resons are, so those of us who "support" them don't sit around bitching about what wimps they are all the time. I mean, if they're going to go to the trouble of filling my inbox with emails, they could include an email addressing some of these issues, for once.

Why you can't understand the difference baffles me.

You baffle us all, tiberius. Perhaps you should stick to something you're better known for, like pedastry.

There are people who want to do us harm. They parry and feint, and if we let down our defenses, or even if we don't, eventually strike a blow.

You've just described the history of the United States since its founding, friend.

Pray, tell us why these days are more perilous than before? Because you and yours are simply too scared to think straight?

My impression is the opposite. While I don't belittle Risen's investigative prowess for breaking the original NSA surveillance story, I have found his reporting on the legal and legislative aftermath to be pretty bad.

I agree that Risen's knowledge of the nuts and bolts of FISA is nowhere near, say, Dan Eggen's, who I think is a really good reporter. I just mean that Risen is smart enough not to confuse some low-level speculation from Congressional aides for something more certain. As I said, I think he might have a goal here that infects the reporting -- I've definitely seen him issuing what sound like alarmist cries over Democratic capitulation, even some anger of it (in one recent article, he wrote that Democrats were clearly driven by fear, something you don't see stated that explicitly).

I just think, regardless of what I think has been his sloth in following some of the legislative and political details, there is likely some genuine threat of Democrats agreeing to retroactive liability based on what he wrote. I think his reporting is at least trustworthy enough to conclude that.

Sysprog posted something at the end of yesterday's thread that touches on your question...

http://tinyurl.com/2ltc2s

Perhaps whatever reasons the Democrats have, are ones they can't say out loud or put into print.

You'll notice, though, that there has been very little criticism (if any) of MoveOn's ad by any of the Democratic leaders.

I mean, if they're going to go to the trouble of filling my inbox with emails, they could include an email addressing some of these issues, for once.

-- orbitboy

I also get pissed off when I send a short email on a specific subject to my (rather useless Republicans, but I write them anyway) Senators and three months later get a snail-mail that completely misses my point. They are always two pages long and filled with B.S. platitudes about tangentially related subjects. You can tell they just want you to STFU.

I think they should be forced to have an open forum once a month with the unfiltered public. That would scare the shit out of them. They should have it at the local farmer's market so the public will have plenty of ripe "disapproval indicators" to throw.