Why Telecom Immunity Is Bad, and A Digression

Currently, both the href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_passes_FISA_update_without_telecom_1115.html">House
and the href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/in-twist-senate.html">Senate
are leaning away from granting immunity to telecommunications companies
that were involved
in warrantless domestic spying.  



In an unrelated debacle, the State Department tried to href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004662.php">grant
immunity to Blackwater personnel who shot a bunch of Iraqi
citizens.  (Now the href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html?ex=1352696400&en=baf511f71e78f1fd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss">FBI
says that those Blackwater employees acted illegally.)



Although the two cases are not directly related, they share a common
theme: government employs a corporation to do something wrong, then
tries to shield the corporation (and its employees) from prosecution.
 



What would it mean, if this were permissible?  It would mean
that the government could exploit the considerable expertise available
in the private sector to do whatever shenanigans it wanted, while
corporations could make immense profit engaging in illegal
activity.  



In other words, it would be a step toward fusion of governmental power
and interest, with corporate power and interest.  



In different other words, it would be href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28619">a
step toward a fascist state.



In alternate other words, it would be a really bad idea.



One of the most fundamental principles of our system of government is
the principle of separation of powers.  Traditionally, this is
held to be the division of power between the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches of government.  However, on a more
abstract level, we see that any concentration of
power requires checks
and balances, regardless of how that concentration comes into
existence.  



It is a matter of some concern, when you see a government
systematically identifying all potential sources of power in a society,
then trying to either co-opt, or marginalize, each one.  We've
seen this Administration attempt to co-opt href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/06/steeplejacking.php">churches,
discredit scientists
and href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/06/1421208">academics,
and fuse with href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project">lobbyists;
really, they have done whatever they can think of to create a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597931/posts">permanent
Republican majority.  Why on Earth anyone
would ever
think it wise to give any group permanent power is
something I cannot comprehend.  And why the citizens would put
up with it...?