Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential
1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Laura Brinker, 202-715-1540, for Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, laura.brinker@dittus.com
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.checksbalances.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
A lot of folks around here need to revisit their Madison.
Please go read the case law. The SCOTUS has visited this issue numerous times-- these are Article II powers.
The NSA has a phone number of an American citizen. No calls have been placed to or from terrorists on that number. There is no 'serious indicator' that the owner of that number has anything to do with Al Qaeda. However, the number has come up in some type of electronic surveillance program - whether it be data mining or Echelon or whatever, and it has ended up on a list. Perhaps it was called by someone who called another number that is in a terrorist rolodex. Perhaps there is some other tangential connection that would be, in and of itself, evidence of absolutely nothing untoward on the part of the citizen. The government determines it wants to tap all numbers that have been 'captured' by the program in this way. The President says it 'has to do with national security' and orders it.
Is a warrant required? If they proceed to do so without a warrant, is it a violation of law?
What are 'these'?
I have heard him say last year that we were at war with a small sect of radical Islam, he has said it many times.
Your claim that we are at war with a tactic is a bit specious, and you seem to really believe we are in 1984, making up our enemies just to keep us fearful.
I will ask you one more time, do you think these people (Islamic radicals) don't exist and aren't capable hurting us? If you don't reply to this, you aren't worthy of a reply back. It's the second time I've asked it.
*Looking at watch*
Specious to say we are at war on a tactic? 'War on terrorism'? 'War on terror'?
Do Islamic radicals exist who are capable of hurting us? Yes. Are we 'at war' with everyone who fits this description? Most decidedly not. In fact, we are 'allies' with many of them.
I repeat - the fact that someone hates us and is capable of hurting us does not mean we are 'at war' with them. And if you think that we will be 'at war' until there is no one who hates us who is capable of hurting us, then you think we have always been at war, and will always be.
By bypassing the existing oversight protocol, the administration has made it impossible to know whether this limit, or indeed any limit, is in fact observed.
That is why this nation was established with a President instead of a King.
If the existing protocols are circumvented by executive order, how is it to be discovered that he has done so?
So the war with Islamic radicalism is real, with real enemies?
I think you said yes.
Then you changed the subject to something.......
The President has defined our enemy, and it is not Pakistan, it is the Islamic radicals aligned with al Queda, you know, the group that brought down the twin towers, killing about 3000 US citizens.....you know....that group!
And yes, we better do what is necessary to kill and defeat these people, until they can no longer hurt us, we will have to be at war until we win, or they win. This ain't 1984 kid, it's actually a real war, against real, evil people that do very real, evil things.
Actually, Lakeshark, a specification of war is not neccessary to the Article II powers. The President has wide authority to act on matters of national security all the time.
And there's the problem. The idea of giving Congress power to declare war means that Congress defines the enemy, not the President. Otherwise there isn't much point in giving Congress that power, is there?
Thank you, I do understand this, I was just referring to the other poster's question........and apparent 9/10 syndrome.
No one has ever said the President can't define our enemy, is that somewhere I don't know about?
Okay, good. I was just trying to break some of the circular arguing we seem to be getting stuck in here. :-)
I am not for massive monitoring of people's numbers, its not only not "reasonable" but it is also a serious waste of resources that should be narrowly targeted.
So I would say that your scenario should lead those responsible for implementing the program to drop you off the watch list in short order. The reason you got on the list is important though. If it's tangental, as you say, then I would monitor your number to determine if you are continuing to be tangental to known terror #s or if you are only calling your aunt Edna. If you keep showing up in the loop, then you should tapped. If not, then dropped. Are there instances where the feds have monitored totally innocent people. Yes. Should they do everything they can to avoid that mistake, yes. Is it a crime for them to make that mistake. No.
A good example of that would be if we had been monitoring Atta (like we sure as hell should have been) and he had an american girlfriend. The Girlfriend is checked out and is clean as far as her known history goes. But knowing Atta was on a terror watch list, would I condone monitoring the GF's calls? Yes.
Does the occasional mistake make me change my mind and concur that warrants are needed? No
That's what declaring war is. The fact that the power was given to Congress, and not given to the President, is enough of a hint for most people.
:-)
*sigh*
I repeat: Congress gave him the power right after 9/11. You do know this don't you?
Does it say in the constitution that the only due process for search and siezure is via court warrant? As far as I'm concerned, the President has the constitutional right to implement this program, which is MUCH milder than what we have done in wars past. Several Supreme Court rulings have UPHELD this power.
Seems to me that the Prez allowed many members of Congress to review the program on a regular basis. There is your check. Are there no gov't programs that deserve to be hidden from public view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.