Why has the liberal opposition gone almost silent on the new FISA bill? Does no vocal opposition mean they have changed their views on the seriousness of the terrorist threat facing this country or is the silence merely a political ploy to not be seen as soft on terrorists? Or does the proposal contain some requirements and procedures that would render it toothless against terrorists?
Let's hear from Leahy, Sanders and Welch if they support it or oppose it and why!
Senator Leahy's statement is here. He opposes the new bill.
Senator Sanders has this to say:
Wiretap Law “I happen to believe that with strong law enforcement, with a strong and effective judiciary, with a Congress working diligently, we can be vigorous and successful in protecting the American people against terrorism and we can do it in a way that does not undermine the constitutional rights which people have fought for hundreds of years to protect--the Constitution, which today remains one of the greatest documents ever written in the history of humanity,” Sanders told colleague during debate on House-passed bill that also would gave telephone companies immunity from about 40 pending lawsuits over their role in a Bush administration surveillance program instituted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “If we grant them retroactive immunity, what it really says to future presidents is, ‘I am the law because I'm the president and I will tell you what you can do and because I tell you what to do or ask you what to do that is, by definition, legal.’ “That is a very bad precedent,” Sanders continued.
I surmise he opposes the new law.
Representative Welch also opposes the new FISA law. His statement is here.
They all sound the same horn of 'accountability.' This reads to me as not much more than an anti-Bush political statement. None of them provide any insight into what the new law would actually do to change what they oppose. Instead they all want to see the telecom companies dragged into court and pay $millions, if not $billions, all because the companies did what the President asked them to do.
It's clear they are most interested in Bush-bashing while wrapping themselves in the mantle of protecting freedoms. My freedoms have not been infringed. I prefer to see our terrorist enemies and their collaborators stopped. Surveillance is a tool to do that. Why should I be afraid if I'm not a terrorist or a sympathizer?
8 comments:
Let's hear from Leahy, Sanders and Welch if they support it or oppose it and why!
Why don't you write to them and ask?
The three have never been bashful previously in the surveillance debates. I find their quietness on the issue out of character. If they have something substantive to say, they don't need me to prod them.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment is a bedrock principle I support. It turns, as a matter of legitimate diasgreement, I think on one's definition of 'unreasonable.'
The first responsibility of government is to protect it's citizens (Provide for the common defense. I believe that it is reasonable to determine by surveillance of electronic communications if terrorists or suspected terrorists are plotting to do me or others harm. The details of how this process happens are and should be subject to rational debate. However, with electronic communications, time is often essential to taking action. The machinery of the judicial process may not always be up to the task.
Conducting a witch hunt among the telecom companies, as many would do for political purposes is a position I disagree with.
People can debate "reasonable" but the second part is pretty clear...
"...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You need a warrent. You need probable cause.
You don't seem to understand that the government itself is a greater threat to the liberty of the people than any terrorist could possibly be.
Luckily the founding fathers did.
If you believe that our democratically elected government is a bigger threat to our safety and security than our enemies who have sworn to destroy our country by terror or any means possible, then you are believing a lie.
While it's true that we must be ever vigilant that our government does not impose unreasonable burdens upon us as a free people, I do not believe that electronic surveillance of known or suspected enemies of my country hurts my freedom. Conversely, it enhances it.
Perhaps you fear that your personal communications will become known to others. Get over it. In this electronic age, if you choose to communicate electronically, others besides the government have access to what you think should be private.
What's more disturbing to me is that some politicians pander to the people pretending to stand on a principle, when the reality is they seek to oppose the President for their own political ends.
For a rational argument opposing the recent Supreme Court decision granting terrorist enemy combatant detainees habeus corpus rights, see today's "My Turn" by Jim Goff in the Burlington Free Press.
Our Founding Fathers were right in establishing habeus corpus rights under certain reasonable circumstances for Americans, given the oppression they endured under British colonial rule. Habeas corpus should apply to Americans, not enemies of this country or their supporters.
Our Founding Fathers were right in establishing habeus corpus rights under certain reasonable circumstances for Americans...
"Certain reasonable circumstances?"
Have you even read the constitution?
Article 1, Section 9, Second Paragraph:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Obviously you consider any time there isn't a rebellion or invasion as "certain reasonable circumstances."
And yes. I believe the government is a bigger threat to the nation than a couple of people with box cutters, or whatever. That's a conservative belief. Conservatives are wary of the tyranny of big-government. You are cheering big government.
Your arguments don't seem to be based on any principle, or on an informed reading of our sacred founding documents. They seem to be based purely on fear and a willingness to hand over our freedoms in exchange for a vague and false notion of "security."
Ben Franklin said ""He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Besides, this post was about FISA and the Fourth Amendment- jumping back into a discussion of habeus corpus is a red herring.
That said, I appreciate you letting me have a say in your comments. I find your views both wrong and dangerous, but it's your blog, and I'll always try to be a respectful guest.
You have been respectful in your disagreement and I appreciate that. Now to your points...
Yes I have read the constitution and yes, Article 1, Section 9 deals with habeas corpus and, yes, that is a different issue than the Fourth amendment.
It's not my intent to confuse the issue and it really isn't a red herring. The two issues are related in my mind. These are both personal protections under the law that pertain to the security (broadly interpreted) of an American. In the case of habeas corpus, security in the sense of being 'safe' from arbitrary action, in this case, detention by government.
You would argue, I think, that FISA surveillance of communications without 'due process' is an invasion of personal freedom and your right to be secure in your communications. I would argue that in a time of war or grave threat which we now face, The prime duty of government to protect us warrants procedures that allow the government to perform surveillance under specific terms, conditions and limits that do not unreasonably restrict them from performing their duty.
You state: "And yes. I believe the government is a bigger threat to the nation than a couple of people with box cutters, or whatever. That's a conservative belief. Conservatives are wary of the tyranny of big-government. You are cheering big government."
You clearly don't see the threat of terrorism from radical Islamists. No, I am not a fan of big government. Government has grown far too big, mostly due to 'promoting the General Welfare.'
I want government to do its job extraordinarily well first and foremost in 'providing for the Common Defense' as its first priority.
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment