Since I posted last, a bill has come before the Senate as reported by Reuters.

While this bill sounds good at first glance, a second look at the small print exposes the bill for what it is — a bail out for corporations who fear the cost of taking responsibility for the harm they have inflicted on workers and their families throughout the years. The general idea is good, but we need a bill NOT written to favor the companies who caused the problem in the first place. As the article mentions, there is a new bill before the House that might offer a better solution.

Here’s one for the law books. And how exactly will we be defining annoying?

Repeat after me: “All hail the Bill of Rights for saving our collective asses yet again!”

There’s been lots and lots of chatter lately about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but it wasn’t until this morning that I read Senator Kennedy’s excellent summary of “why Alito is so wrong for the job”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011902515.html. I specifically appreciate his comparison of Alito’s recent testimony against years of writings and judicial records.

Just to make it clear, the President of the United States “did in fact commit a felony”:http://cryptome.org/small-call.htm by ordering surveillance of US citizens without court authorization.

bq. There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane.

bq. There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the FISC — even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization.

bq. The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally.

If this goes without prosecution (or at least an investigation), it will be a clear signal that the rule of law no longer applies to the U.S. government. The fact that this is seen as just another “rule bending” by the President shows how far we’ve gone down that road already.

If you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying attention. Either way, read “Detainees Deserve Court Trials”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html, an outstanding opinion piece in today’s Washington Post.

bq.. As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.

As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel. Adel is innocent. I don’t mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist.

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.

p. This deserves to be read far and wide. I’m ashamed that my government is doing this in my name, and I want it stopped right now.