Y r sck fckng bstrd f y thnk tht th slghtr f pr, nncnt pgs s "wndrfl thng[]." Fr shm.

Oh crap... I think I may have misinterpreted your sincere amazement as sarcasm.

My apologies if this is so.

ZUZU, do you even read the content behind the links you post or just go off of supposition and the way you think things should be? Here's the United States portion of the wikipedia article you linked:

In the United States, private bills were common between 1817 and 1971. Now federal agencies are able to deal with most of the issues that were previously dealt with under private bills as these agencies have been granted sufficient discretion by the United States Congress to deal with exceptions to the general legislative scheme of various laws. The kinds of private bills that are still introduced include grants of citizenship to individuals who are otherwise ineligible for normal visa processing; alleviation of tax liability; armed services decorations and veteran benefits.

So yeah, you thought private bills were unconstitutional, but you were wrong. A bill to grant immunity would in fact be constitutional.

As a libertarian, I despise the warrantless wiretapping that went on. I'm fully convinced that they were unconstitutional.

However, I support the FISA bill: in no way would it "shred the constitution." The constitution itself simply protects us from government action. Statutes constrain private conduct which would infringe constitutional rights by providing for liability and remedies against private entities. It is the providence on Congress to provide or decline to provide remedies against private action. If Congress, as part of a duly democratic process, wants to give explicit immunity to the phone companies here, they may constitutionally do so.

All three branches of the federal government have a duty to uphold the constitution. The courts have a duty to strike down unconstitutional laws. Congress has a duty not to pass laws which it believes are unconstitutional. The executive branch has a duty to act in accordance with the constitution. If the executive branch willfully or ignorantly ignores the constitution, and enlists the help of private entities in doing so, the constitution does not demand that monetary remedies against those private entities be available. Congress can choose to foreclose the availability of damages here, and that's perfectly within their constitutional rights.

The remedies which the people have against this government misconduct and private complicity, which congress cannot take away, are the democratic process and a decision to not do business with those companies that helped the warrantless wiretap program. People can vote the executives responsible out of office (either directly or indirectly). People can get their phone service from a phone company that did not participate in the program, or from their local cable company. People can f=vote for legislators who would enact laws explicitly prohibiting and providing liability for this sort of conduct in the future.

Allowing liability for the warrantless wiretap program would not deter future misconduct any better than laws expressly prohibiting these programs in the future. Allowing liability would only accomplish two things. First, it would line the pockets of the trial lawyers who take multi-million dollar fees for representation in the inevitable lawsuits (while everyday citizens affected by the warrantless wiretaps would likely receive $10 long distance credits or some equally worthless settlement "prize.") Second, it would deter private cooperation with future secret government programs which actually are constitutional, hampering the government's efforts to protect us.

The warrantless wiretaps may well have been unconstitutional (I believe they were), but giving the phone companies immunity is not in any way unconstitutional. It does not shred the constitution. It's democracy in action; the constitution working as intended, and a sensible policy decision.

Saying that this bill would "shred the constitution" is reactionary nonsense.

#48:
"To be fair, the title should be, 'Man tasered after walking away when told to place his hands behind his back by a police officer who had cause to place him under arrest.'"

If you'll read my comment, this is probably still not resisting arrest in Utah. The driver was not told he was being placed under arrest, and the order to put his hands behind his back was simultaneous with having a gun drawn on him. It's simply a leap to say that the driver should quickly and reasonably realize he was being placed under arrest when he had no forewarning and the officer pulled a gun on him out of left field.

The driver, like any reasonable citizen, expected that the officer would announce the arrest, if that were the officer's intention, instead of suddenly shouting orders and drawing a weapon. The driver's not going to pause to think logically about what the officer's actions mean when they come as such a surprise. He's going to think, "Oh shit! Gun! This cop is insane!" "Reasonable care" cannot possibly be executed so rapidly in a surprise situation.

We all know what's coming when we watch the video, but the driver had no idea what was just about to happen.

Successful law enforcement which respects the rights of the citizens while adequately protecting the safety of law enforcement officers hinges on excellent communication.

That said, this cop is an idiot of the highest order. This video could be used in a training seminar on "How NOT to Arrest Somebody." The cop should have said "Sir, step out of the vehicle, turn around, and put your hands behind your back. Utah State Law allows me to arrest you for refusing to sign the ticket, whether the ticket is ultimately correct or not, and I am placing you under arrest ."

Instead, he simply said "Ok, hop out of the car." Of course, to the cop, the only time he's going to ask somebody to leave their vehicle is to arrest them or effect a lawful search of their vehicle. So maybe this means "I'm arresting you" in the cop's mind, but not the driver's. This is especially true because the cop immediately turned his back and started walking back towards his police car (and the signs).

Then the cop says "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" while the driver is facing him, and immediately draws his taser. The driver has, up to this point, no explicit notice that he's being arrested, just that a cop who invited him out the vehicle and turned his back to the driver a moment beforehand is now aiming a taser at him.

The guy, rather calmly, all things considered, turns around and starts to walk away. The cop tells him to turn around again! Which way does the cop want the driver facing? Towards the cop? Away from him? Who knows. Bring on the taser!

The problem here is that while it may be OK to use force if somebody is criminally resisting arrest, a taser is probably excessive force here, and it's not clear here that the driver was resisting arrest in the first place. Normally, we'd expect the cop to go for his handcuffs to make an arrest, and rely on a taser if he's met with physical resistance. This cop went straight for the taser, leapfrogging several levels in the standard escalation of force. As for resisting, the Utah statute says that:

"A person is guilty ... if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by ... [among other things, refusing to comply with a lawful order made to effect the arrest.]"

The driver certainly did not have knowledge that he was being arrested when he was asked to step out of the car. In fact, the officer fails to even use the word "arrest" until after he shoots the driver, the driver is on the ground, and the driver repeatedly states "Officer, I don't understand what you're doing." Finally, the officer retorts, "I'll tell you what I'm doing. I'm placing you under arrest."

Should the driver have known he was being placed under arrest? Watching the video, we can put the pieces together and say yes, but It's tough to say what "reasonable care" is when you unexpectedly find yourself with a gun pointed at you. The driver's arguably reasonable reaction to the taser here is not that he's being placed under arrest, but that the cop is batshit insane.

In sum, even forgoing the niceties of an explanation as to why the driver is getting arrested, one of the first things out of a police officer's mouth when he decides to arrest somebody should be "I am placing you under arrest." The cop here is a horrible communicator. He completely failed to grasp the differences in perception, legal knowledge, and expectations between himself and the driver. He did nothing to remedy those disparities, and everything to exacerbate them.