Let's talk about immunity for a minute

The current administration wants immunity for the telecom companies who performed (probably illegal) wiretaps at the request of the government.

The administration has also made it clear that they want to leave torture (or things very like it) on the table during interrogation of terrorists.

The logic in both cases is similar. They don't want to punish people who are, in good faith, trying to stop terrorism. And they don't want people to delay, worried about the consequences, in time-critical situations.

I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility. That responsibility applies to individuals and to corporations. They have a responsibility to do what they believe is right. And they need to be willing to take the consequences if they turn out to be wrong. So oddly enough, my logic is very similar to that of the administration's—I just come to the opposite conclusion.

When the government shows up on your doorstep and asks you to do something, I believe that you have a responsibility to make a decision for yourself as to whether it is legal to do that thing. And if you decide that it isn't legal, you have to make a moral decision. "Is it worth it for me to break the law? Am I willing to take the risks that come with such a decision?" The government wants to relieve individuals of making moral decisions. I believe that is wrong. What could possibly be more immoral than telling people that they can do things that are wrong without having to suffer consequences?

I believe that when you believe lives are on the line, you should go right ahead and do whatever you feel necessary to get the answers you need. I also believe that if you turn out to be wrong, you should accept the consequences of that fact. I want you to stop and think about what you're doing, and whether it's worth it. Because we all know that if you don't have to think about it, you'll take the "safe" course and do the things you shouldn't do—just in case. And lest you say that they had no choice, I'll point out that when the government came calling to them, Qwest said, "No." And we all know how far "I was just following orders" is supposed to go as a defense.

"But wait!" I can hear my critics say. "How can we possibly punish someone who saved thousands of lives by breaking the law? That's not right!"

And I agree, it isn't right. Fortunately, we have a solution for that problem. It's called a presidential pardon. That's where the President puts his reputation on the line by pardoning people who broke the law, because he believes that they shouldn't be punished for it.

So, should we legalize torture? No. Should individuals in the government use torture? Only if they are willing to face the consequences.

Should the telecom companies testify under immunity for whatever it is that they did or didn't do? Absolutely not. If this administration truly believes that they did the right thing, they are free to pardon them after the fact.

Let's be serious. This isn't about saving the telecom companies from hassle. It's about trying to hide the fact that our government acted illegal. And why should we be surprised, when we see how amoral they want citizens to be when they make a request. The ends apparently always justify the means. And personal responsibility has lost all meaning. It's gone in government, and it's gone on the streets, where cars parade by with bumper stickers that read, "God Bless America" as though heaven were a prize awarded to the best country, not the best person.

Here's a list of the Democratic Senators who refused to stand up for responsibility. Please contact them and let them know what you think. It's not too late.

As posted on Facebook: