"October 25, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]:
"Thank you for writing regarding S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
"As you may know, the Protect America Act of 2007 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. It allows the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Attorney General to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information regarding people not in the U.S. for up to one year if they meet reasonable guidelines. This bill was introduced in its final form in the senate on August 1, 2007, and passed by the senate on August 3, 2007. I voted for the bill, as well as did 59 of my colleagues. The House of Representatives also passed the bill and President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2007.
"The issues you raise underscore the importance of maintaining the proper balance between ensuring our security and preserving our basic freedoms. I respect the president's constitutional obligation to protect the American people. In meeting this duty, the president requested that the NSA monitor international communications between known terrorists and individuals in the United States. The Attorney General, lawyers from the Department of Justice, and the NSA agreed that the president possesses the authority to direct this surveillance without the approval of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. At present, there is no evidence that this program targeted purely domestic communications or any communication not involving known members of terrorist organizations.
"I believe that the most important role of the federal government is to protect the physical security of U.S. citizens. As such, I believe that the threat of terrorism is one of the most pressing matters facing congress today. I believe that the FISA serves an integral role in our national security.
"When the reauthorization of FISA is again discussed in the Senate, I will certainly keep our views in mind. Thank you for informing me of your views. As an elected representative, I welcome all Utahns to share with me their concerns and priorities. Only through these conversations can I meet my obligation to represent all of my constituents.
"Sincerely,
Robert F. Bennett
United States Senator"
It's funny. He wants to protect us from terrorists, but we created the problem with our horrible foreign affairs policy. If we didn't meddle in other country's goings-on, we wouldn't upset them to the point of them wanting to terrorize us. We are the problem. Or rather, the government is.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Politician's accountability
Around the middle of July, I sent an email and made a phone call to both Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch urging them the vote against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which would expand the federal government's ability to illegally spy on American citizens. Both Senators voted in favor of FISA. Around the middle of August, not too long after the vote I sent an email to both senators voicing my displeasure:
"Dear Senator __________,
"I hope this email finds you well.
"I am writing you with great dismay due to your vote in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As a citizen of the great state of Utah, I have been happy with the freedoms we have in one of the best states in the nation. The citizens of the united States of America cannot afford to give up any more freedoms in the name of security. As my duly elected senator, I urge you to reconsider your stand on many issues, including FISA. I have talked with a great number of constituents who also feel the same way I do--in fact, I have not heard a single person who agrees with FISA. It seems the bill was slipped in under the radar since a lot of people I have talked to didn't even know it has already been voted on, possibly to avoid negative response from the public.
"Our nation was founded as a Democratic Republic (democracy: the governmental philosophy in which the people ideally have a high degree of control over political leaders. Republic: the type of government in which voters elect representatives to make the laws for the country). It seems that the people are losing control over the political leaders.
"In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I have not chosen to give up any liberty, it has been taken from me by my political leaders. You have chosen to give up our liberty, so do you deserve liberty or security?
"My friends and I are no longer sure we can count on you to protect our fundamental Constitutional rights and inherent freedoms as human beings and citizens of this great republic. Should we not see a turnaround soon we will be forced to look to someone else more dedicated to those principles we hold so dearly.
"Sincerely,
[name withheld to protect the innocent]"
I only received a response from Senator Hatch:
"August 15, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
"Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the recent legislation that Congress enacted to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (P.L. 110-55). I appreciate hearing from you.
"I supported this bill because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets - their plans and intentions - without them knowing we've got them.
"Let me share with you a quote that Director McConnell recently stated: "Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology."
"This law brings FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States.
"Again, thank you for writing.
"Sincerely,
"Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator"
Now, I'm confused. The second paragraph says that the advances in technology essentially made FISA obsolete, and the legislation brings it up to date. Yet the third paragraph talks about needing to obtain a court order to spy on people. Well, which is it? And why are we passing legislation on foreigners in foreign countries? Who are we to be messing with people that live outside the U.S.? Shouldn't we be passing legislation in their country rather than in our own? He also doesn't address the ability to spy (or eavesdrop, wiretap, etc.) on American citizens or others who are physically in the States.
We need to make sure our legislators have full accountability for their actions, both regarding the country and themselves. With that, I will pose the question that many people ask: Will it make a difference? Would reproaching or censuring, or even calling for their removal make a difference?
"Dear Senator __________,
"I hope this email finds you well.
"I am writing you with great dismay due to your vote in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As a citizen of the great state of Utah, I have been happy with the freedoms we have in one of the best states in the nation. The citizens of the united States of America cannot afford to give up any more freedoms in the name of security. As my duly elected senator, I urge you to reconsider your stand on many issues, including FISA. I have talked with a great number of constituents who also feel the same way I do--in fact, I have not heard a single person who agrees with FISA. It seems the bill was slipped in under the radar since a lot of people I have talked to didn't even know it has already been voted on, possibly to avoid negative response from the public.
"Our nation was founded as a Democratic Republic (democracy: the governmental philosophy in which the people ideally have a high degree of control over political leaders. Republic: the type of government in which voters elect representatives to make the laws for the country). It seems that the people are losing control over the political leaders.
"In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I have not chosen to give up any liberty, it has been taken from me by my political leaders. You have chosen to give up our liberty, so do you deserve liberty or security?
"My friends and I are no longer sure we can count on you to protect our fundamental Constitutional rights and inherent freedoms as human beings and citizens of this great republic. Should we not see a turnaround soon we will be forced to look to someone else more dedicated to those principles we hold so dearly.
"Sincerely,
[name withheld to protect the innocent]"
I only received a response from Senator Hatch:
"August 15, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
"Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the recent legislation that Congress enacted to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (P.L. 110-55). I appreciate hearing from you.
"I supported this bill because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets - their plans and intentions - without them knowing we've got them.
"Let me share with you a quote that Director McConnell recently stated: "Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology."
"This law brings FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States.
"Again, thank you for writing.
"Sincerely,
"Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator"
Now, I'm confused. The second paragraph says that the advances in technology essentially made FISA obsolete, and the legislation brings it up to date. Yet the third paragraph talks about needing to obtain a court order to spy on people. Well, which is it? And why are we passing legislation on foreigners in foreign countries? Who are we to be messing with people that live outside the U.S.? Shouldn't we be passing legislation in their country rather than in our own? He also doesn't address the ability to spy (or eavesdrop, wiretap, etc.) on American citizens or others who are physically in the States.
We need to make sure our legislators have full accountability for their actions, both regarding the country and themselves. With that, I will pose the question that many people ask: Will it make a difference? Would reproaching or censuring, or even calling for their removal make a difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
