American Samizdat

Tuesday, September 04, 2007. *
You really want to take some time and wrap your mind around this one, and understand the astounding implications thereof, because, this may very well be one of the most important posts that I have ever posted at American Samizdat now or in the future, and how this plays out in the near future will determine for all just exactly where we really are as a nation and as a free country and democratic society. And may determine the boundaries of Democracy itself.

Indeed, threads/posts, discussions like this very well may, kill Americans!

Do yourself a favor and take some time to understand this and read the comments there such as this one:

I myself am taking various kinds of actions (and preparation) against a variety of governmental deeds (and future expected deeds) - in this case though you have direct suppression of the response.
That is, these folks brought a lawsuit over illegal violation of their civil liberties. Bushco wants to grant them immunity so those folks can’t sue them.
The beef isn’t that or rather isn’t just that the companies in question will go under, it’s that presidential orders were given to those companies ostensibly to fight terrorists.
So - is it a corporations responsibility to make sure orders from the highest levels of government are legal - given that they haven’t been run through the courts yet?
Or should they comply with the executive branch when the country appears to be under duress and give the benefit of the doubt that the orders coming from the executive branch are legal?
It sort of boils down to the “I was just following orders” defense.

But I’d have to split the difference between Wyden and Bond - you can’t grant blanket immunity because that destroys any chance of investigation into whether the original orders were legal or not and what the actual permutations were (who knew what, when?)
By the same token you can’t hold those companies liable for a crime when they reasonably believe they’re complying with what is essentially a law enforcing body.
If a cop tells you “Hey, help me pick this up, it’s evidence” and you help him load something into his police car and it later turns out you just helped him steal something, that’s a big problem.
It gets knotty if, at the time you helped him, it was in fact evidence and he only later decided to steal it.
And more tangled still if prior to this it was legal for him to take the thing home with him because the law was changed shortly before you helped him but now everyone realizes this ‘cops can take people’s stuff home with them whenever they want’ law might not be in the best interest of society.

What needs to be done here is, apart from support of the ACLU, to make sure the laws that created this situation are rescinded. That takes contact with your local senator, organization devoted to such a focus, lobbying perhaps, etc. etc. not the least of which is contact with the companies involved - obviously the change in the law would protect them from future lawsuits and, more importantly, ill will and bad pr and possible boycott by you and your group(s) etc. so I’m sure their people would want to know about that angle instead of taking it in the keister in the press and they might even help with their lobbiests.
The key is to get the momentum going that way no matter how the ball is rolling now or how big and heavy it looks.
Money, support, all that, easy as pie if you’re willing to examine all the elements rather than just get angry or partisan.

Or, y’know, you could just go at ‘em with guns and stuff.

(But hell, the time for that comes it’s crystal clear. It’s like knowing when you’re going to sneeze or have an orgasm, pretty unmistakable usually.)
posted by Uncle $cam at 5:31 PM
Post a Comment

Site Meter

Creative Commons License