Snoop Dogs

We've been disturbed and disgusted at the number of Democratic Senators who voted for retroactive immunity from prosecution for the telephone companies that toadied up with the Bush admin and illegally aided the spying on American citizens without legal warrants. (You can check out the Democrats who voted "yea" on this, including Jim Webb of Virginia.)

Only a vote in the U.S. House has (so far) stopped this additional subversion of the rule of law. Our own 11th Dist. Congressman Heath Shuler voted WITH El Presidente on that bill, for which he's been properly (but inadequately) castigated. (And here.)

Now the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to challenge Sen. Liddy Dole has said she's okay with telecom immunity. Kay Hagan, we hardly knew ye!

Looking for some radical liberal Democrat to talk sense about governmental power and official spying, we found this:

Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers -- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?

We're told that September 11th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.

Who wrote that? Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, that's who.

Yet we are now being told by Fox News that Democrats want the terrorists to win because they refuse to endorse illegal snooping.