Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Po

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59381 ^ | January 17, 2006 | Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances

[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/

[lugsoul]

"it is not Pakistan, it is the Islamic radicals aligned with al Queda"

Why do you believe there is a distinction here?

[lugsoul]

Congress doesn't know it. Apparently, when they were directly asked to give this power and refused, they thought they were refusing to give this power.

[lugsoul]

No, I didn't say 'yes' to the statement you made, I said 'yes' to the question you previously asked. Why do you know feel the need to morph it?

[pissant]

The protocol was this. President determines who gets monitored based on national security threats. The Intelligence committees in the house and Senate are briefed every 90 days, and more if so requested. Do all 3 branches of gov't need to be involved in the CIC's decisions? Who has more authority during times of war regarding enemies and suspected enemies, the CIC or the courts?

[inquest]

Congress abdicated its power, and altered the balance of power that the Constitution set up. It'd be as if Congress passed, and the President signed, a law giving a committee of flag officers the power to review the orders the President gives as commander-in-chief. Would you consider that a constitutional piece of legislation, even if the President signed it (under heavy political pressure, say)?

[Lakeshark]

First, do you agree we have a real war with a real enemy? That's the question I'm addressing.

To change the subject to Pakistan would allow you to get away with more generalities about our "perpetual, made up war" you think we're in.

[lugsoul]

"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."

Okay - just so I'm clear, you don't believe a warrant is necessary to monitor such people, right? So warrantless wiretapping is not only okay for 'those who call terrorists or are called by them' or for those with a 'serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda'? It is also okay for those US citizens who just happen to get caught up in some kind of data mining or other electronic surveillance activity, whether it be happenstance, or coincidence, or whatever?

If that's the case, fine - go forward from there. But in discussing this I wish folks would stop talking about wiretapping 'terrorists and those who call them,' because that is not ALL that is at issue here.

[unixfox]

Look at it this way, the longer these people continue to screw up and then have to investigate themselves, the longer it is before they can screw us out of something. Mainly our hard earned money.

So...I say let em fight each other till the death.

[lugsoul]

You never shrink from trying to ascribe words to me that I haven't used, do you? Where did I say 'made up'? And you wholeheartedly endorse the 'perpetual' part.

I'll answer that question just as soon as you tell me who that enemy is. You already concede that we are NOT at war with all 'radical Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda,' which was your previous attempt at a definition.

Are we conducting military action against an enemy? Yes. Are we 'at war'? Not if we don't know who we are at war with, or where, or how we win. If we don't know these things, yet we use the 'at war' justification to adjust our domestic policies, we can consider them permanently adjusted.

[Lakeshark]

Ah....so it's the fault of Congress......I should have known.

And we elected them too........

Dang.

[lugsoul]

"President determines who gets monitored based on national security threats."

This is not exactly true. According to NSA, the decision can be made by a shift supervisor.

[Lakeshark]

You already concede that we are NOT at war with all 'radical Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda,'

No I didn't ever agree to that, you made that up.....and as far as I am concerned, you're not worth the time, you're simply irrational.

See ya, don't bother posting, I won't answer, cause you're not worth the time.

[rdb3]

How long does this 'time of war' last?

You tell me.

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[inquest]

Ah....so it's the fault of Congress

For cowering before the executive? Absolutely.

Now how about answering my question, if you can. (don't worry about it if you can't; it's not like I had all that high expectations)

[Lakeshark]

So, you think we need a revolution? Is that your point?

If not, what is your point?

[pissant]

It depends on how tangental it is. If its a caller who called a caller who called a caller and is 4 layers removed from a direct connection to the terror number, then its absurd and a waste of time for them to tap that line. But if you are 1 layer removed, and after every call that our direct link caller makes to Osama, he calls you a minute later, then there is reasonable cause to be suspicious. Should we get a warrant for you so we can see where else you are calling. No.

[lugsoul]

So, you DO think we are at war with Saudi Arabia.

But go ahead and duck the question. Because I know you can't answer it and maintain any semblance of logical consistency.

[KC Burke]

Your post has a great set of links that point out the true situation and the due dilegence that the administration utilized in crafting the program that was underway.

I can't imagine that these fellows are so craven as to parrot the leftist media line that this was a "domestic spying program against citizens at home."

I think that when the true history of what and how comes under non-biased examination it will be clear the Bush would have been subject to claims of wrong doing IF HE HADN'T taken the course of examining foreign contacts.

[lugsoul]

Okay. You are almost there. I'm not asking you if it is 'absurd and a waste of time' to tap them without a warrant. I'm asking if it is ILLEGAL for them to do so.

And, just to be clear, I'm talking about the 'tangential' types we've been discussing. NOT those who called terrorists and are called by them. And NOT those who are called as a pattern right after Osama calls our suspect. Simply those who happened to get caught up in a big net.

[inquest]

So, you think we need a revolution?

Where the hell did that come from? Is it your usual habit to start talking about things that have nothing to do with the argument at hand?

what is your point?

I already told you what my point was. Congress has no more constitutional authority to transfer the war-declaring power to the President, than it has to allow lower military officers to second-guess his power as commander-in-chief. An act of Congress purporting to do that is void.