Immunity for Phone Companies is a Case of Ex Post Facto

[David Octavius]

As you know there is a great shot that the telecom immunity bill - which will grant carriers legal immunity for allowing the administration to illegally wiretap phones - will become law. Putting aside the details of the bill for a moment (and the utter lack of spine the Democrats have yet again shown to stand up for our rights), the main point is that a new law will pass that will say, in effect, that what the telecoms did was legal AFTER THE FACT.

This is ex post facto and is unconstitutional (Article I Section III). The notion of ex post facto was invented by the Romans (hence the latin name) - the first time they used it was to justify the assignation of 2 Senators. They (the other Senators) justified it by saying that it was the duty of the Consul (roughly equivalent of our Presidency) during war to "see to it that the Republic is defended from injury" - where have I heard that from before? In reality, they did to protect their own interests, the Grachi brothers was passing measures that benefited the poor at the expense of wealthy - they had to go.

Back to our time. Instead of using the legal apparatuses the government had - by obtaining warrants via secret courts quickly - they instead circumvented it entirely to use their power arbitrarily. Of course we have to take their word that the only option was to illegally wiretap but then why in 2007 the White House decide it will now use the secret courts to obtain warrants to tap US phones? Surely the danger is just as great as it was before? I don't buy that the it was congressional pressure, that never stopped them before and they have shown how to deftly get around it.

Rather conclude that it was not necessary to go the illegal route in the first place; that allowing humans to arbitrarily tap phones without justification was a waste of resources and time on following false leads, which ultimately meant we were NOT being protected as intelligently as possible. In the second place human beings in the highest position of power could use this weapon in secret to enrich themselves by tapping their political enemies (protecting their own interests) - something that is not without precedent and has been done many times in our history.

But the biggest fear ought to be the potential precedent this sets by allowing any branch of government to conduct affairs in secret outside the sphere of law and justify their actions later any way they wish - this ought to run a shiver down the spine of any person that still believes in the Republic.

[Phantom]

I don't know much about ex post facto, but my impression is that it only applies to criminal laws. Am I wrong? Missing something?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't know much about ex post facto, but my impression is that it only applies to criminal laws. Am I wrong? Missing something?

That is an interesting point. I take the broad interpretation and say that it applies to any laws that are passed after the fact to make an action that was illegal at the time legal now.

If what they did was so righteous, why must they cover their ass now? Just like that dumb saying by the neo-cons that it doesn't matter how much government invades our privacy, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.