We keep being told by the anti-constitution Democrats and those who defend their actions that shredding the Fourth Amendment is a necessary move in order to protect the Democratic Congressional majorities.
But there's a funny thing about that argument. Those Democrats actually on the front lines - those who are taking on incumbent Republicans or Republican-held seats - are among the most vocal opponents of the FISA surrender.
If these Democrats, those you'd logically expect to support the FISA compromise, are actually opposing it, and believe they can score points against their Republican opponents by doing so - then it blows out of the water any justification Pelosi had for agreeing to this, and should suggest that the contributions House Dems received from telecoms should be more prominently discussed.
Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It was the wrong move and I urge Congress and the President to reverse course.
The bill will force federal district courts to immediately dismiss any cases against telecommunications companies that participated in illegal surveillance. This is unacceptable. The Constitution of the United States was violated. Over several years telecommunications companies turned over the records of millions of innocent Americans to the federal government without proper oversight and without a warrant.
The Bush Administration disregarded the Fourth Amendment when it authorized this surveillance and now Congress may provide the Administration and these companies a free pass. This is a mistake. The Senate is set to vote on the FISA bill this week. For the sake of our constitution and the foundation of our democracy, I urge all Senators to unite in opposition to this bill.
If I'm elected to the Senate, I will not hesitate to fight to protect our civil liberties and the laws this nation was founded upon.
I have spoken out against immunity for telecommunications companies throughout this campaign. Last February, I urged my supporters to sign a petition to pressure my opponent, Republican Senator Gordon Smith, to vote against the FISA bill that granted retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith voted in favor of granting retroactive immunity. I expect him to do the same when the Senate votes on this issue in the coming days. For years, the Bush Administration has been undermining the balance of powers. Checks and balances must be restored and a vote against the immunity bill would be a critical starting point.
Is that what it’s come to? Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we "need" to do it? Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you - where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:
* I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.
* I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms. If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.
* We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.
* I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.
* If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.
For a good chunk of my 26 year Air Force career, I was directly involved in surveillance programs for the National Security Agency (NSA).
For decades, these programs have played a crucial role in protecting our country from its enemies and all who seek to undermine the constitutionally protected freedoms that so many brave service members have died defending—including several of my Air Force Academy classmates.
I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world—often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn. Our standing order was "if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor." We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences—the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.
In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America "from all enemies, foreign and domestic," without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.
So I’ve watched the debate in Congress over warrantless wiretapping and the manner in which private companies have been encouraged to violate the laws that so many of us dedicated our careers to upholding with great interest---or, more appropriately, with shock and awe.
Let me be clear---I strongly believe intelligence agencies need the power to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone who would mean our nation harm---particularly in a post 9/11 World. And if there are loopholes that prevent appropriate agencies from doing this work within the bounds of the Constitution, those holes can and must be closed.
But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.
Every day, less than 1% of our country puts on the uniform and dedicates themselves to the security and the freedom of every single American. They do so knowing that breaking the chain of command, or ignoring orders, comes with consequences---no matter how "patriotic" your intentions.
Surely there have been others and I invite you to link to them and their statements in the comments.
If these folks, who are battling incumbent Republicans or running in longtime Republican districts, are willing to come out and openly, proudly, and on left-wing blogs say that they think this FISA bill stinks, then it shows that there is no valid electoral/campaign reason for the House Democrats to do what they did.
It suggests that we need to revisit the notion that Democrats are merely cowed by fear of being called soft on terror. Along with the telecom donations it suggests that the House Democrats are far more complicit - actively complicit - in giving Bush and the telecoms the immunity they seek.
Candidates running in tough seats trying to knock off Republican incumbents have a better grasp of what is happening on the ground than folks who have been in Washington DC for decades - or, like Nancy Pelosi, have not had a town hall meeting with their constituents in over two years.
The Democratic leadership is not on our side. They never have been. That doesn't mean we should storm off in sullen anger. Instead it means we need to organize and retake our party and retake our Congress from them. And it begins with more and better Democrats.
