>In the news these days are stories about how our current >administration is desperately trying to protect telephone companies >from lawsuits that may be or are being filed as a result of their >illegal participation in monitoring and wiretapping activities.
I grew up being taught that "ex post facto" laws were prohibited by the Constitution (Article I, section 9). Or is this just another of those inconvenient truths? "Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation... in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law) But I suppose Bush could just issue them all pardons. ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
