The Rule of Law

Perhaps I am burdened by being a lawyer and a believer in the constitution and the now "quaint" notion that we are a nation and a people bound by and committed to the rule of law. Perhaps it is difficult for me to come to grips with the this contemporary notion that the rule of law is situational and applies only when it serves our purposes.

Most of the mouth breathing citizens of this republic don't have the vaguest idea of the issues at stake in the telecom immunity bill which passed the US Senate yesterday. The Congress has done the bidding of the Bush White House, or rather the Bush White House has finessed the Congress in an action that goes to the very heart of why the administration is the most duplicitous and mendacious in our history.

So, some background: the telecom bill, FISA Amendments Act of 2007, provides to the administration and all involved, including domestic telecom carriers, immunity from prosecution for spying upon and eavesdropping upon the communications of US citizens. The eavesdropping was done without warrants. They were absolutely clear violations of the law and the constitution. The administration knew they were illegal. The administration knew that their actions could subject themselves to criminal prosecution and subject the telecom carriers to prosecution as well.
So, what did the administration do? They cunningly included the Democratic leadership in the house and the Senate in their plans. In the hysteria the prevailed post 9/11 the Democratic leadership bought off on the warrant less eavesdropping. To oppose those moves, either privately or publicly would have made them unpatriotic in the blustering eyes of the administration. So, they had no balls (or ovaries as the case may be) and supported the administrations private indiscretions and rape of the constitution.

Now, when the heat is on and the issue sees the clear light of day, the Senate (the House is voting today so lean on your Congressman/woman) supports the White House and passes this immunity bill. It seems counterintuitive that the Democrats would do that, but not when you understand that they were protecting not only the telecom carries and the White House; they were protecting themselves and their own as well.

As an analogy for the more dense among you, this is like the person who robs a bank, gets caught, and then has the law changed so that bank robbing is no longer a crime. Oh, you say, this is different. Think again please about the foundation of this nation and the sanctity of the rule of law.

Senator Dodd proposed an amendment that would have removed the immunity. It failed to pass with a filibuster proof vote of 67 Nay and 31 Yea with the ever tough Hillary Clinton not voting. Obama voted Yea. For the list of Senate voters so you will know who to never support again, see: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015