We Need Immunity Because We Haven't Done Anything Wrong

[jackofallgeeks]

So, apparently Dick Cheney was on with Rush Limbaugh the other day. And
apparently he said things like, "People who don't want to -- I guess want to
leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big
company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our
request, and they've done yeoman duty for the country, and this is the
so-called terrorist surveillance program, one of the things it was called
earlier. ... We haven't violated anybody's civil liberties. It's in
fact a good piece of legislation." (Emphasis mine.)

To that I simply have this to offer: if there have been no civil liberties
violated, then why do we need retroactive immunity to criminal prosecution?
If no wrong has been done, then why are you afraid of being charged in
court?

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm a little bit torn on this issue. Were I in the position of one of the telecoms, and the government said, "look, we're the frikkin' U.S. government - give us your data," that's maybe not the point at which I would have tried to make constitutional arguments with them. I end up feeling like I mostly want to see the telecoms prosecuted over this stuff because I know that Cheney, Ashcroft, Bush, etc. aren't ever going to be...