The most astonishing and tragic aspect of the collapse of the American experience-our transition from corporatist democracy to fullblown fascism, has occurred without the American people even noticing. This resembles a house being robbed and emptied of all its contents while the occupants are asleep and when they wake up they just go about their business completely oblivious to what just took place. A friend of mind compared it to a woman being raped without even noticing it. The ignorance(vastly facilitated by the corporate media) and gullibility of the American public are truly unprecedented and astonishing.

What happened to the fact, in this discussion, that the telecoms and the Administration began this illegal turnover and spying in February of 2001? I still keep hearing this bogus claim that the telecoms began this cooperative lawbreaking after the 9/11 attack. That isn't true.

Isn't This Reverse Attainder -- and Unconstitutional?

I raised this point on Sunday:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/14/rule_of_law/permalink/0485b789e35f6f84c5a4a5bc0aa08f19.html

The letter of the prohibition on bills of attainder is to prevent legislative punishment. But the spirit of the prohibition is to prevent the legislature from bypassing the judiciary. This is Madison's summary from Federalist 44 (http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-no-44.html)

Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation 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. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society.

So while the reverse attainder is questionable, there is no doubt that "laws impairing the obligation of contracts" are indeed contrary "to every principle of sound legislation".

There is also no doubt that this legislation amounts to "legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights".

Whether that is unconstitutional or not is debatable, but it certainly contravenes the intent of the founders as explicitly stated by Madison.

Glenn, can something like this be declared unconstitutional by suing the GOVERNMENT for interfering? Could the ACLU literally try suing the Senate and the President for making this deal and, effectively, violating the separation of powers?

The telecoms are asserting they acted in good faith. But is one really acting in good faith when they know they are violating the law, but have received assurances they will not be held legally accountable, that, if necessary, legislation will be crafted specifically absolving them from legal accountability? This isn't good faith. This is the knowing nudge, wink, and nod of cronyism

in their constitutions. They should. It's the best way to hold them accountable until you can take the big corporate money out of politics (a first amendment issue) and elections are financed publicly. That's a long way off and there might need to be a constitutional amendment in quite a few states as well as the Big C.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

--JFK

Organized crime. America the Hostage. Eagle in a gilded cage. Just an aside, the Rockefellers always were grasping, greedy thugs. They count on the rest of us being chumps. All in all ... infuriating and, yes, oh so drearily predictable.

The EFF still doesn't know what is being done, nor will it after the case is done.

Anyone care to guess which it is? The fact what little is known, namely that the laws of the US have been knowingly violated and the Fourth Amendment guarantees have been ignored by the current Administration, doesn't seem to register with him.

Dear Senator,

I write to strongly urge you to reject the supposed “consensus” reached between Democrats and Republicans on the upcoming spy bill. The decision to grant Telecommunication companies immunity from prosecution for turning over to the Government, phone records of American citizens without warrant or probable cause, is horrifying in its ramifications and is in violation of the rights granted to us in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Just as I do not want the military to be funded without a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, I would greatly prefer no spy bill be passed if it must contain this provision. This is an unconscionable abrogation of our right to protection from illegal search and seizures as well as our right to address Constitutional over-reaching through the courts. The fact that the Democratic Senator spearheading this effort, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), has received huge amounts of money from the Telecommunications Industry make the immunity provision even more suspect and distasteful.

Do not support granting immunity to the Telecommunications companies in any way, under any circumstances.

Respectfully,

-Binx

for recalling a politician:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recall.pdf

to start a 50 state recall campaign? If well publicized, it would make 100 senators sit up and listen if 100 petitions were started for recall.

Only mentioning it because it is an option. Stop distinguishing between good and bad senators, just recall the whole lot, force the good senators to make noise, force the bad ones into the spotlight, maybe even succeed on one or two.

Another option would be a concerted effort to drop AT&T and Verizon: drop their service, divest in their stock, make lots of noise about it, start calling their large investors and telling them they will be exposed as funding espionage against the American people.

Another option might be to start a pledge campaign that people will wear a pin and pledge not to vote for a Democrat (if registered Democrat) or a Republican (if registered Republican) until all our rights are restored.

Does anyone know how to start a recall petition? I've never started a petition.