The government should be allowed to lock up whomever they want, after all, they are the government, and anybody who questions that authority should probably be locked up also. They wouldn't be charging anyone with a crime if the accused wasn't guilty, so there's nothing to worry about. And anybody who doesn't support the government on this is guilty of treason.

And it sounds like the government doesn't even have to identify a suspect as an enemy combatant to relieve him or her of the rights granted by the constitution, they have the phone companies working for them now, and the Democratic congress to make this policy law.

OK, so I wasn't around in the 30's and 40's, but from what I can tell, that was the way it worked in Germany back then. And in the Soviet Union during the cold war. They had a very patriotic country, as people didn't question the government's right to detain, imprison, or execute anybody they wanted.

A nation is defined by the agreements that its' citizens live by, which are framed by the constitution. If we give up these agreements, we no longer are the same country. It's not the United States of America any more, it's a new country, just using the same name as the previous tenants. Kind of like when a company buys the assets of another company, and just uses their name and trademarks to sell different products.

And how is this good?

This is what many of our fellow countrymen seem not to get: if they can do it to someone, they can do it to anyone.

If the Democrats cave in to Republicrook pressure and grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution, I will be very, very upset. It's bad enough to have the Executive Branch run by arrogant fascists. If Democrats insist on being their enablers, we are truly lost.

How does the immunity status of the phone companies factor into this, exactly? I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I really can't imagine what a class-action lawsuit against someone who was "legally" required to supply information to the Feds is going to do to further the rights and freedoms of the public.

jeditoby wrote: "How does the immunity status of the phone companies factor into this, exactly? I don't mean to sound ignorant, but I really can't imagine what a class-action lawsuit against someone who was "legally" required to supply information to the Feds is going to do to further the rights and freedoms of the public."

Who said the phone companies were "legally" required to turn over records to the Feds? The Feds are legally required to get a warrant, the phone companies are supposed to see a warrant before they turn over records. If the government doesn't need a warrant, and the phone companies don't bother to ask if there is one, what freedoms do we have?

jeditoby,

If they were legally required to supply the information, then they have a watertight defense in court.

Why are they seeking blanket ex post immunity, then? Three possibilities. First, there was no legal basis for what they did, and they know it. Second, the administration does not want discovery and the like to reveal embarrasing events. Third, the government wants to ensure that, in the future, companies will comply with quasi-legal (or even illegal) requests by showing a willingness to immunize such behaviour now. None of these strike me as particularly legitimate.

As to the effect of lawsuits, maybe a successful one with large damages would make these companies think twice about breaking the law (if that is what they did--we don't have any idea what they did because it is still a state secret) in the future. Since I think breaking the law is a bad thing, I think that a successful lawsuit would be a good thing.

I've noticed that the Democrats are acting like they are being blackmailed. Or is this the old mafia "Plata o plumbo" technique in action? ("Accept my silver or get my lead.") There is something totally weird going on here.