Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."
What has term limits done for the presidency?
Prevented GWB from running again?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That isn't always the case. Killing a person is illegal, A cop telling you to pull the triger and kill the bad guy because he is killing others can be seen as not illegal. In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
The problem you having is that your taking moral offenses that are never legal and attempting to attribute it to something that under certain situations is perfectly legal. They call that a straw man argument which is based on a fallacy of all things presented being completely illegal. It is perfectly legal for the government to execute someone for a capitol crime, but it isn't legal to execute them for political expression and so on. Do you see a little difference there? Ok, Now when the executioner is presented with the same orders and documents that he would making the capitol offense legal but the offense was actually something that doesn't carry a capitol punishment, is the executioner liable for criminal activity? NO.. Why? Because he was working inside the legal framework that provides him with an exception to the not killing people laws.
So take your comparisons that you think make an illegal act illegal and put it in a real contrast or perspective. Try to tell me how a cop ordering me to pull through an intersection on a red light makes me guilty of a traffic offense of running a red light? Tell me how you can reconcile this with the fact that you want to use the same legal framework that allows these exceptions in order to prove your point and prosecute. You see, right or wrong, it just doesn't fit with reality.
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Hear that, Stephen Colbert? You can finally give in to those homoerotic urges, it's not really gay since you were doing it at gunpoint.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne