Current Observations Home Current Observations Home Current Observations Home
 

A Little Clarification on Immunization

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Just to clarify what the president is saying, when you read his demand that:
[A]ny bill must grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that allegedly helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.
What he's saying is that, yes indeed, U.S. telecommunications companies did break the law when they assisted the government in electronic surveillance without court order. How do I know this? Why else would you seek immunity? If you've done nothing wrong, why would you need immunity? He's basically admitting they're guilty of violating both federal law and the U.S. Constitution and now he's seeking congressionally-approved get-out-of-jail-free cards for tel-com companies.
 
"But, wait! It was done to protect us from terrorists!" you scream. I DON'T CARE. No one is permitted to run rough-shod over our laws and Constitution. We are a nation of laws, period. For Bush and his administration to ask--or even pressure--companies into breaking the law makes him no better than the terrorists he claims to be trying to protect us from. He's become a soft-dictator; nothing more. And he and all his friends need to be removed from office and criminal charges need to be brought against them for violating U.S. laws, international laws, and the Rights and Liberties of all mankind (not just Americans).
 
On a side note: I believe the reason Bush is looking for "immunity" is because he knows that to ask for anything else would be in direct violation of both federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Congress has no authority to authorize private companies to break the law and he knows it. Immunity is his only avenue... unless he pardons them as he leaves office. However, I would challenge any executive pardon that allows someone to infringe upon our Constitutionally protected Rights on the grounds that the Executive has no authority to pardon someone for violating the Constitution. If that were the case, then anyone could gain the presidency and act the tyrant for four years. Then he (or she) could pardon everyone on the way out the door and there wouldn't be a damned thing we could do about it.

1 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Then there's that statement in the Constitution (Article I. Section 9.):

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Retroactive immunization violates this rule. It's yet another provision in the Constitution that no one pays any attention to.

11:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger |

Syndication

|
|

Who Links
Here