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/
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.
Doesn't Congress have the power to declare / undeclare war?
Well, if congress was that bad, what are we to do?
It might be pretty to think that "The President took an oath to protect this country," but it's not factual or true.
Here's the oath the president took:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"Irrational"? Yes. Irrationally posing questions that you are incapable of answering.
Yes, it's illegal to me if it is random. It is not illegal to me if it "reasonable". That is my criteria. That's why I gave the post Osama caller example. To show that there can be a reasonable cause even if tangental. Is it a fine line? Perhaps.
But the way you deal with a CIC who oversteps what is reasonable is to impeach him.
Yes and yes.
Looking to do another article on FReepers, eh?
I have my own copy of the Constitution, thank you.
You are just edging in the right direction. But you are still avoiding exactly what I'm asking you. I'm not talking about 'random'. I'm talking about being subject to surveillance by criteria that are far more broad that "calls to and from terrorists" or even "calls demonstrating a pattern of being connected to calls from terrorists." I'm talking about exactly the kind of '4 steps removed' things you said a minute ago were not okay.
So - NOT 'random' - Let's say '4 steps removed' since that's what you used earlier. Do you think it is 'reasonable' to conduct of warrantless wiretap of someone 4 steps removed? Illegal to do so?
Of course you are correct. But I want to see pissant's answer before I take the next step into where we differ.
The only thing worse than a Po is an Invasive Federal Po.
For example, if one assumes that a person being wiretapped is not an agent of a foreign power, huge chunks of the rationale fall completely apart.
You don't really believe that everyone who has been surveilled under this 'program' is an 'agent of a foreign power', do you?
I do not think 4 steps removed is legal to wiretap, warrant or not. And I can't see how they could get a warrant either.
Legal to look at their calling history to see if it has even more tangents to other shady numbers? Yes.
If that cursory check does not reveal any more reasonableness, then it is illegal in my mind and should be under the Justice Dept's governing code.
4 steps removed is awful close to random to me.
As noted on the NRO, The Corner, these are all Republicans, not conservatives, and have all been opposed to the war on terror on all levels. Bob Barr works for the ACLU, for Pete's sake.
Now, we come to where we likely disagree, and it is a point that neither of us knows. Do you believe that the NSA surveillance of US citizens includes only persons who call or are called by terrorists, or are suspiciously tied to them (like your pattern of calls after every Osama call)? Or do you believe it includes the type of '4 step-removed' people we've been discussing?
I disagree that this is awful.
I believe it may have been 10 steps removed right after 9-11. LOL.
Followed by the appropriate recalibration to what the President described in his press conference. I would and could not support a program that included the 4 steps removed standard.
Because - as is painfully obvious - I think those who believe that we are only tapping those "who call and are called by terrorists" (a) have no understanding of electronic eavesdropping and its power and (b) have no understanding of getting a FISA warrant. I believe we are obviously tapping people who fall well outside the 'call or be called' category, if for no other reason that we could snag a FISA warrant for such people if the person presenting the application was passed out drunk.
Now, you seem to be saying that you would find such '4-step removed' warrantless surveillance to be contrary to law. If it is revealed that such surveillance has been occurring - and not 'a couple of times by accident', but by design - would you think something needs to be done about it?
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.