Brave Democrat takes hard stand against the President

guerilla Notable Member

Messages:: 9,066

Likes Received:: 262

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 200

#1

Congressman Silvestre Reyes (TX-16) sent this scathing letter to George Bush regarding his demands for increased police state surveillance powers.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intel_chair_to_Bush_on_FISA_0214.html

Congressman Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to President Bush regarding the ongoing battle over warrantless wiretapping.

Text of the letter follows below.
#

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year â€“ until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations â€“ including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down â€“ not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Click to expand...

guerilla, Feb 14, 2008 IP

Rebecca Prominent Member

Messages:: 5,458

Likes Received:: 349

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 325

Articles:: 14

#2

Great letter. He probably will need more bribes to get him to play along. I think At&T will be sending him a gift certificate for unlimited minutes or something.

Rebecca, Feb 14, 2008 IP

iul Well-Known Member

Messages:: 1,263

Likes Received:: 46

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 115

#3

You need to get yourselfs more political parties. You currently only have the Money party with its two branches

iul, Feb 15, 2008 IP

TechEvangelist Guest

Messages:: 919

Likes Received:: 140

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 133

#4

iul said: ↑

You need to get yourselfs more political parties. You currently only have the Money party with its two branches
Click to expand...

Perhaps we need more than a dozen political parties running, like with the German elections.

In the USA, two parties create enough chaos. Third parties just skew the results and create a bigger mess. I don't know what would happen if there were more parties participating in elections.

Very few people like the way elections are run in the USA, but a better system has not yet emerged, and probably won't as long as we leave politicians in charge.

TechEvangelist, Feb 15, 2008 IP

guerilla Notable Member

Messages:: 9,066

Likes Received:: 262

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 200

#5

Olbermann rips the Prez a new one over the shenanigans for Corporate immunity for breaking the law under executive order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU

As far as I am concerned, it's insane that the President has been directing illegal activities by Executive Order. It's not just wiretapping. It's refusing to turn over information, ordering underlings not to appear before Congress to answer a sub poena etc. Someone has to deter an Imperial Presidency. Don't think for a minute that Hillary would not use the same powers if they are allowed unchecked.

guerilla, Feb 15, 2008 IP

earlpearl Well-Known Member

Messages:: 3,584

Likes Received:: 150

Best Answers:: 0

Trophy Points:: 155

#6

I recall reading about him. I think he appears to be a real common sense person.

Bravo for the letter.

earlpearl, Feb 15, 2008 IP

browntwn Illustrious Member

Messages:: 8,347

Likes Received:: 848

Best Answers:: 7

Trophy Points:: 435

#7

Yep, good letter...

too bad is is signed by a single Congressman - that should be the feeling of all 535.

browntwn, Feb 15, 2008 IP

Log in or Sign up

Brave Democrat takes hard stand against the President

guerilla Notable Member

Rebecca Prominent Member

iul Well-Known Member

TechEvangelist Guest

guerilla Notable Member

earlpearl Well-Known Member

browntwn Illustrious Member

Useful Searches