Dear Senator,

You responded to my email to you on your vote with the following:  

<<
Dear Mr. Davis:

    Thank you for contacting me about the recent temporary changes made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
    
     Most everyone agrees our government must have the ability to monitor the communications of foreign-based terrorists.  However, I believe this can be done in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens.
    
     In the FISA debates before the August recess, I voted for a temporary, six-month fix to give Congress more time to craft a comprehensive measure that protects Americans’ civil liberties.  Once Congress takes the issue up again, I’ll work with my colleagues with an eye toward strengthening Americans’ rights to privacy.
   
     I appreciate your taking the time to inform me of your views, and don’t hesitate to contact me again in the future.
>>

My response to that is this: 

With exactly what data do you plan to review this temporary 6-month fix, Senator?  There will be no oversight.  You've gutted the Constitution, failed your oath, failed your constituents, failed America, and turned the USA into a secret police state with Big Brother listening-in, watching us, and reading our electronic mail.  It reminds me of exactly what we criticized the Soviets for doing to their citizenry.

Shame, shame, shame.

Perhaps it's your ambition that has betrayed your ethics, Senator. 

... From Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World- 14 August 2007
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22449

This Modern World: Republicans and Democrats

Dear Senator Nelson,

This is an addendum to my previous email on your vote to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Allow me to make it clear that I am quite familiar with the arguments that we are at war, that combating terrorism requires some laxity vis-a-vis Constitutional mandates.  But I say that if we give up the very Rights our Constitution guarantees us, then "the terrorists" have, indeed, won.  After all, we've been told all along that their aim is to destroy America.  It seems to me that our nation's Founders, in their great wisdom, foresaw the kinds of threats America would face in times to come.  They knew firsthand the face and deeds of an enemy overseas (King George), as well as what terrorists can accomplish (the patriots who staged the Boston Tea Party, who tarred and feathered and pole-axed the King's tax collectors-- and worse --were seen as terrorists by the English and their Tory allies in the colonies).  But what frightened our Founding Fathers the most was a President unchecked by Congress and unfettered by law (and the courts), a so-called Imperial President.

So, these arguments hold no water for me.  They are flimsy and emotional, rather than fact-based and logical.  Logic and fact dictate a Constitution undiminished, and a Congress that uses its powers of oversight, budget, checks to the Executive and Judiciary, investigation, and subpoena.  To have otherwise is not to have the America we say we are.

Sincerely,
Stan _______

Dear Senator Nelson,

As a lawyer (with a degree from the U of VA, no less), you must be familiar with the Constitution-- the very same Constitution you swore to protect and uphold.

It seems from your recent vote-- joining the Senate Republicans and President Bush --to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, you have forsaken both the Constitution and the American people, and given the President powers that were illegal only the day before.  Not only that, but you have willfully abrogated your powers of oversight—ceding them, instead, to an Attorney General who has perjured himself before Congress --at a time when this Imperial President must have his power checked (that's checked as in checks and balances-- another concept that seems to have escaped your attention, or, at the very least, your conscience).

Senator, if you think handing what little power you have over to the GOP is going to get you re-elected, then you surely must be considering switching parties.  A Republican in Democrats’ clothing gets you nowhere in this state—apparently, based on previous elections featuring other Republicrats (Jim Davis comes to mind), the voters of Florida prefer the real thing.

If you EVER want my vote again, sir, I suggest you vote traditional Democrat values and never forsake the Constitution again.

Sincerely,
Stan --------- (a very disappointed constituent-voter)
 

See below for what the papers have to say :
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Note:  Letter above included both the Houston Chronicle editorial (below), as well as the NY Times editorial (already published here in an earlier blog entry)

<< 

The Houston Chronicle

Editorial
Aug. 10, 2007, 9:21PM

Tapped out: Snooping law is bad legislation

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5045587.html

What's more frightening to congressional Democrats? The curtailment of American civil liberties and constitutional rights, or being thought soft on terrorism?

Clearly, the answer is fear of earning a soft-on-terrorism label. That explains the Democratically controlled Congress' passage of a sweeping wiretap reform that dramatically expands the government's ability to eavesdrop on Americans' calls and e-mails without court approval. Fifteen Senate Democrats joined 45 Republicans in voting for the bill; 41 House Democrats voted with 186 Republicans to assure its passage.

Lawmakers undertook this reform of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because the administration said the National Security Agency needed authority to listen in without a warrant on communications between persons — and not necessarily terror suspects — "reasonably believed" to be located outside the United States. The original legislation required approval of the special court to tap communications between Americans here and terrorist suspects abroad. Nowadays, telephone calls and Internet communications routinely transit domestic data networks even though they might take place between individuals abroad. Anti-terrorism officials said they needed to be able to nimbly tap into this trove of potential terrorist intelligence without having to be sure at least one party was on foreign soil.

It makes sense that intelligence officials should not have to wait for a judge to approve this sort of wiretap, but the court already allowed wiretaps to go forward while investigators garnered authorization after the fact. Now, NSA officials won't even need to take that perfunctory step. And they now can easily sweep transmissions that originate or terminate within the United States into their dragnet.

Every time Congress weakens wiretap oversight, the government can engage in warrantless spying on ever greater numbers of Americans. Neither Congress nor the public should roll over for this whenever the White House warns that terrorists are on the doorstep.

More troubling is the faint oversight required under the recently loosened provisions. Under the law, Alberto Gonzales, the widely mistrusted and scandal-plagued U.S. attorney, must annually inform the special court how the government is using the new law. But the act gives the court almost no room to challenge whatever eaves-dropping parameters Gonzales might choose.

Twice a year, Gonzales will have to tell the House and Senate committees on intelligence and the judiciary about its surveillance activities. But the attorney general's report need say little more than whether, in his opinion, the intelligence gathering violated the secret protocols he and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell set up. Given such scant information, Congress won't be able to provide adequate oversight.

When Congress returns from summer recess, it is expected to take up an administration request to indemnify companies that, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, let spy agencies snoop around on their networks.

The act will sunset after six months, a provision Democrats tout as a compromise that will allow them to fix the law's worst sins. Hope reigns eternal.

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

>> 

The Dems did it again.  This time, even the New York Times was astounded.

Funny thing is that when a Senator or Representative is sworn in, they swear to protect the Constitution.

Find your spineless wonders following the editorial below, from Tuesday's New York Times editorial (08-07-07):  "The Fear of Fear Itself."

<<