Letters to the Editor
-
Premeditated law breaking in the Senate
Like the Executive Branch, the Senate is about to knowingly break the law.
Watching the Senate Kabuki Theater this week, it is becoming apparent that the fix is already in. The Telecom immunity provision is a done deal. The Senate players are just going through their assigned roles, and most of them are performing quite well. Those opposed to immunity have presented very eloquent speeches, and those in favor (though repeating nonsensical arguments) have provided rather impertinent entertainment. All to let the public know that they are addressing this “serious” issue, when in fact they are just pushing it down the road.
There are approximately 40 illegal wiretap cases already in the courts in various stages of adjudication with Telecoms named as defendants. According to the Constitution, the Senate cannot retroactively enact a law that shields a defendant from prosecution after the validity of their case has already been accepted by the court (a basic principle of the separation of powers). I’m sure that this fact has been discussed at length in backroom meetings. It has even been brought up (and seemingly ignored) on the floor of the Senate during the course of the FISA proceedings. Yet, even though the Senate immunity proponents know their proposed actions are unconstitutional, it appears they are going ahead with them anyway.
The Executive Branch, of course, has already arrogantly ignored the law on this issue. Even though they knew they needed a warrant to conduct their earlier activities, they didn’t get one. The existing FISA law provided adequate flexibility to handle “emergency” surveillance actions that were needed after 9/11, and any outdated electronic surveillance issues could have (and would have) been immediately updated by Congress. The Administration chose to break the law anyway, primarily because a few in their organization simply “didn’t like” the FISA law. Imagine if we could all do that.
As we move closer and closer to becoming a banana republic it is important that we recognize who it is that is trampling on our constitutional rights. Whenever we see one of the immunity proponents on TV we should mute the sound and, in our mind, understand that what they are really saying to us is:
“Yes! That’s right! I’m breaking the law! Whatta you gonna do ‘bout it?”
-
Someone explain this to me.
So did Dodd go along with this "unanimous consent" agreement--and if so, why?
-
If Hillary Wins
She can use executive orders to correct some things.
-
Glenn (from the post)
The first of the many Democratic amendments to fail yesterday was Sen. Cardin's amendments to change the sunset provision of the current bill from 6 to 4 years. Needing 60 votes, it received only 49. Thus, whatever warrantless surveillance atrocity the Congress and President Bush jointly produce will -- unless re-visited -- endure through at least the next president's first term.
Just to clarify; AFAIK, unless there's Congressional rules prohibiting such things, any law that is passed can be repealed at any time with the same simple majority vote (providing the president signs it too).
I guess that "unless re-visited" covers that ... but I don't see that it would last that long if a new maladministration came in and started exposing abuses under the law; a concerted effort by the president and Congress might "re-visit" it under appropriate circumstances.
Cheers,
-
Ooops
Force of habit. "maladministration" should have been "administration".
Cheers,
-
Feingold said...
...something to the effect that retroactive immunity will be challenged in the courts. according to the first post, it's unconstitutional (I assume that's because it strips us of our right to due process).
So when congress caves, it may not necessarily render the lawsuits against the telecoms moot? Surely some judge with a basic understanding of the constitution will see that retroactive immunity is just plain wrong, and slap an injunction on it?
-
Honestly confused
Does anyone have a clue, or even a theory, as to why Dodd and the other "good guys" conceded to unanimous consent on these rules??
-
@pointus
Maybe so, but wouldn't it be nice if Congress would do its job and quit passing legislation that is obviously unconstitutional?
-
I believe you were missed?
There was some speculation that you stopped off to visit the local zoo.
I feared you would lose if you entered a stare-down contest with a baboon.
Forgive me, mea culpa.
Welcome back, and I'll shoo/hush.
-
What's next....
from the Senate? Why should they quit with FISA? How about one hundred years of immunity from general lawbreaking, environmental regs and liability suits for managed care corporations, and the drug and the oil companies? If the telecoms can get immunity, don't the others deserve something as well?
-
AHHHHHHHHHH!!!
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen! What's the point of requiring different vote-counts for different ammendments? Why not simply apply the highest standard to all of them? It's as if they're purposefully doing this ONLY to flaunt their disrespect for the rules of governance and the SERIOUS WORK done by our Congress. They are taunting any and everyone who opposes them.
I want to self-flagillate myself with the Scales of Justice.
-
Glenn ..
check out EmptyWheel today ... I am sure what you read will floor you(okay, maybe it won't because you've become as cynical as a lot of us are).
-
Lawless Bastards
The president has now admitted to torture. Yet the Senate goes about their business giving him more power and immunity.
Where is the outrage?
There are times I despair. This is one of 'em.
-
The ongoing FISA debate...
In rural America the term "A squeeze shoot!" means something?
Yes? What?
It means if you are trying to catch a wild untamed mutt-dog who chases a milk cow, the jittery moo-cow will still run but, the FICA-flopping scared bovine will still need a good veto?
What's that? a veto? Who knows. I'm no lawyer.
O, it means in good-common-peoples natural rural-lingo-jive,
the 'varmit' in question may need a legal healthy (deforming) attention and a serious healthy vet worming...serious. I am not cussing. Chute. Corner these bad beast at the corn-crib. Yes.
Fix the bad nasty rascals.
They are full of bad bunk!
The bad GOP 'critters' feed,
a better world 'pure' deadly,
GOP-goop-nasty killer-verbal-poison.
-
FISA
I suspect that Feingold's comments refer to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution that bans Congress from passing "ex post facto" laws. If "retroactive" immunity isn't an ex post facto law, I have no idea what is.
But, of course, those who oppose this will have to spend their hard earned dollars getting THAT adjudicated before they can resume their lawsuits against the telecoms. And you can bet the telecoms have their lawyers at the ready so that the moment Bush signs it into law, they'll be in court asking that the lawsuits be thrown out.