4 ms·

Room 641A

• rkagerer 2y ago
  ...the case was ... dismissed ... based on a retroactive grant of immunity by Congress for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government. I thought ex post facto laws were expressly forbidden by the Constitution (minus certain exceptions [1] that have arisen in case law over the years). Did it work in this case because it was a civil instead of criminal matter? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Sta...
  • amenhotep 2y ago
    Read a little further into your link and you'll find that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull gives a specific set of criteria for deciding whether a change is ex post facto or a retrospective "mollification". A grant of immunity clearly isn't included.
  • dialup_sounds 2y ago
    The law [1] didn't make anything newly illegal or legal for the telecoms, it gave the AG the ability to short-circuit the suits by proving to the judge that they (the telecoms) were just complying with the law, without having the details aired out publicly. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text -- Title II
    • rkagerer 2y ago
      ...without having the details aired out publicly. In a case that was so intimately relevant to the population?
      • dialup_sounds 2y ago
        Well, yeah. Having details of your classified foreign intelligence gathering operations exposed because somebody sued the phone company is for amateurs.
• hulitu 2y ago
  [flagged]