- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
... Why? Not because what they did was legal or justified, but because "these people did what they did under orders and with patriotism."
All true and correct, but a constitutional scholar ought to put a name to the principle: Sovereign Immunity.
This concept, derived from the "Divine Right of Kings", holds that any and all official government conduct is and ought to be free from any civil or criminal prosecution. If it's authorized by a government executive, it's legal.
Of course, this principle isn't mentioned in the Constitution, nor any U.S. law, but has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an accepted provision of British Common Law. It's the basis for "executive privilege" and "color of law immunity."
It is the "foot in the door" for evading "equal treatment under the law" for any act of any government official.
Pinning a label on the idea is important, to focus attention on a perverse and pervasive corruption of the rule of law. It is the key to modern dictatorship and tyranny.
