Kudos to Barney Frank

Last night on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman, Rep. Barney Frank broke ranks with almost the united rest of the Congress (both houses) to support the FBI search of the offices of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana.

I will say, as an aside, I understand that only a Democrat could have said this, because any Republican congressperson who stood up and defended the search would have opened themselves up to charges of partisanship, since with all the recent scandals involving Republicans, only a Democrat gets thus investigated. So I understand that there may be the odd Republican here and there who also disagrees but finds it prudent to remain quiet.

However, back to Rep. Frank. On the show, he touted the hypocrisy of the Congress to essentially support various sorts of warrantless searches of ordinary Americans (in the Patriot Act's provisions for warrantless National Security Letters and in their failure to show any real oversight or interest in the various NSA wiretapping scandals which have become public in the last few months) and then turn around and cry foul when a properly executed warrant-to-search is utilized on one of their own.

Apparently the Congress feels that they are no longer ordinary citizens, subject to the same rights and restrictions the rest of us are.

According to Congressman Frank, the justification most in Congress are using for claiming the FBI search was improper is some little known clause in the Constitution which grants members of Congress immunity from prosecution for things said on the floor of the Congress. What this means is that if, during the course of debate, a Congressman slanders someone, they can not be held accountable for it. While this may sound problematic, I can understand why. Congressional session is generally open, and Congressmen are as human as the rest of us and can make mistakes or possess faulty information. Imagine how much more slowly Congress would work if they were no longer willing to openly debate things, because any small mistake, slip of the tongue, or worse, true negative statement against someone with deep legal pockets, might lead to having to defend themselves on charges of slander.

Nevertheless, as Congressman Frank points out, it's quite a stretch to extend this protection to cover the offices of Congress people, of either political party. In his words, "I gotta tell ya, my office has never made a speech" on the floor of Congress or elsewhere.

Now, the underpinnings of some on the Left's complaint is the apparent selective enforcement, given the Abramoff scandals and others on the Right, this sort of tactic is only used when a Democrat is the target, and if a reasonable case can be made that this was politically targetted (and I'm not saying that it can be), that's definitely worth looking in to.

But so far, no one has presented me with any argument that justifies any Congress, particularly this one, so carefree when it comes to our privacy and civil liberties, crying foul because they've been subjected to oversight.

Liam.