US lawmakers pass wiretaps bill

[liberdave]

So now, phone companies are not held liable for helping (both past and future tense of the word) the Gov with warrantless wiretapping. This is really DOUBLEplusGOOD for the Bush Administration!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7466544.stm

Here is some updates on the case files of major telecom suits.
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

What we have here is the PERFECT example of an Ex post facto law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

[MaximumPain]

You didn't think they would get caught for this did you? Its only the constitution after all.

We may even see this little scenario: In the last hour Bush pardons every one, resigns, Cheney pardons Bush, they all move to Dubai with all of their errr our money.

Oh and nice to see you back Liberdave you were always one of the best posters on this site.

[Lightmind]

The Bush Administration seems to sepecialise in retro-active law-making.... these are bad signs.


We may even see this little scenario: In the last hour Bush pardons every one, resigns, Cheney pardons Bush, they all move to Dubai with all of their errr our money.

MP.... True words spoken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc).

[Freddy]

So now, phone companies are not held liable for helping (both past and future tense of the word) the Gov with warrantless wiretapping. This is really DOUBLEplusGOOD for the Bush Administration!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7466544.stm

Here is some updates on the case files of major telecom suits.
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

What we have here is the PERFECT example of an Ex post facto law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States
It is not an ex post facto law. From the wiki article you posted.

"The current debate over granting telecoms retroactive immunity for their part in warrantless wiretapping is one that does not invoke the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution."

[MaximumPain]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

Hmm lets check the 4th amendment of the constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So lets see it was illegal but now they have immunity. I guess we can just go wipe our collective ass' with that silly little document called the bill of rights. I think Liberdave described it perfectly.


It is not an ex post facto law. From the wiki article you posted.

"The current debate over granting telecoms retroactive immunity for their part in warrantless wiretapping is one that does not invoke the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution."

Im thinking that that Wiki entry was written by someone who has a dog in this fight.

[Nasik]

I think Freddy might be right - or at least the article he cited. Ex Post Facto law isn't triggered in the constitution unless it involves a criminal matter and not really applicable to civil situations. You can't be charged with committing a crime if at the time of its commission it was not illegal, similarily, you cannot be subjected to a more brutal punishment than what was prescribed at the time of the act; or you cannot be denied a defence that was previously available to you at the time of act.

So, it seems to be in place to protect those that potentially break the law, in their favor, as it applies to the Constitution. So, offering immunity doesn't trigger that, BUT - I agree with the general comment here - that is egregious to offer retroactive immunity for breaking the law, it renders the laws themselves useless, doesn't it. It is an abuse and if anything demonstates some serious concerns about the integrity of the DP for failing to represent the people who voted them in to do just that. It is utterly abhorent to me.