WSJ reports:
Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.On the surface this doesn't sound too bad to me. But what this compromise will mean, if it's passed that is, is that Barack Obama will have the ability to interpret what is legal and illegal. And by the stroke of his pen he will be able to disregard laws he deems unnecessary or irrelevant to his powers. When looked at that way, I don't think the presidency should compel such legislative, executive and judicial powers to be solely his discretion. Our form of government just isn't designed that way. Terrorism or not. War or not. The president is bound by law. If not, then what exactly is it we are fighting to protect in Iraq and Afghanistan? Freedom, liberty and rule of law would be a complete mockery if those are your answers.
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment