Enabling Tyranny Constitutional Incongruities PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07142008.html

I recently read that Brigette Bardot, now in her 70s, has been arrested as a hate criminal for complaining that Muslims in France slaughter sheep without first stunning them. The famous actress is known for her sympathy with animals, but the French government preferred to interpret her remarks as hatred for Muslims. Prosecutor Anne de Fontetts promised to throw the book at Bardot.

There are many incongruities here. The French are persecuting one of their own for taking exception to the practices of an alien culture. But then, perhaps this is just being broad-minded. What really jumps out is: if Bardot’s animal rights position makes her a hate criminal, what does French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s foreign policy position make him?

According to Information Clearing House’s running tally as of July 12, 1,236,604 Iraqis have been slaughtered as a result of the Sarkozy-supported US invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Bardot is a hate criminal under French law for complaining about how Muslims prepare their mutton, why isn’t President Sarkozy a hate criminal for supporting an American policy that has resulted in the deaths of 1,236,604 Muslims and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?

Such incongruities are everywhere. It is as if people are no longer capable of thought.

Last week the US Congress passed an ex post facto law that legalized the illegal behavior of telecommunication companies that enabled the Bush Regime to violate US law and to spy on Americans without warrants. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. But, alas, the US Constitution does not make campaign contributions, and telecommunication companies do.

[spanone]

1. k&r

[Bolo Boffin]

2. The retroactive immunity law was not ex post facto.

That is a specific legal term for a law making an act in the past a criminal one.

Decriminalizing an act in the past is not ex post facto, and is not unconstitutional. This is a matter of long-established law. Check out Calder v. Bull for the difference.

[HamdenRice]

3. Interesting post!

When you post things like this, keep in mind that it is very likely that unqualified, self-appointed non-expert "experts" are going to post nonsense responses. The telecom immuninity provisions have nothing to do with "decriminalization." Those provisions have to do with eliminating civil (not criminal) liability for the telecoms for assisting the administration in spying on private communications.