During the last FISAsco in the Senate, when they were getting ready to pass the Rockefeller-crafted, capitulatory, Constitution-raping S.2248, I wrote both of HI's Senators stating my opposition to the bill, especially to the telcom immunity provision.
Both Senators Inouye and Akaka got back to me. The former's letter, which I'm copying below the fold, is a case study in tortured logic (Akaka's letter was great, btw): Inouye twists himself into a pretzel explaining his vote against the 4th Amendment and against due process in the defense of what used to be considered our "unalienable rights".
Now granted, this letter refers to a slightly different bill than the one we are concerned with today, but the underlying issues are the same, as you will see.
So, if you have the stomach, here's the letter:
Thank you for your communication regarding S.2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007.
S.2248 was passed by the Senate, as amended, on February 12, 2008, by a vote of 68-29. I supported S.2248, which included the Title II limited immunity provision for telecommunications companies, because I believe this legislation is a first step in addressing the civil liberties and privacy concerns raised by the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. In addition, this legislation will provide our intelligence agencies with the tools and capabilities they require to defend all of us.
Protecting our civil liberties and the privacy of all Americans is fundamental to our founding principles, and violations of those principles should not be taken lightly. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, our nation's security became a top priority, and Americans came together willing to offer any assistance in our common defense. It is in this spirit of rallying to protect American lives that I believe the telecommunications companies now facing civil suits acted when they agreed to assist the President. In my opinion these companies acted in good faith that the cooperation the President sought was within the boundaries of our legal system.
We cherish our freedoms and liberties. They are the cornerstones of our American democracy that must be defended and protected, and it is this elusive and delicate balance that we constantly strive to achieve. We must not allow the actions of this Administration to jeopardize our nation's security in the future. It is equally imprudent to ignore the impact these actions have on our freedoms and liberties, or we will concede the basic principles this nation was founded upon.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me on this important matter.
Aloha,
DANIEL K. INOUYE
United States Senator
Ok, here's a line by line rebuttal (addressed to the Senator, to whom I am e-mailing this diary):
I supported S.2248, which included the Title II limited immunity provision for telecommunications companies, because I believe this legislation is a first step in addressing the civil liberties and privacy concerns raised by the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program.
So the first step we need to take in order to correct Bush's pervasive violations of the 4th Amendment's unambiguous requirements (for reasonable searches, probable cause and warrants) is to cancel the very lawsuits now in progress that are addressing those violations?
Do you realize, Senator, what an insult that sentence is to any mentally competent person who loves our Constitution? In responding to it, I feel like someone having to make the argument: "No, water is actually wet."
No, Senator, you don't address "civil liberties and privacy concerns" by sweeping them under the rug; that, in fact, is actually how you exacerbate them. You "address concerns" by exposing and examining them, and then taking corrective action to prevent a recurrence. Cancelling lawsuits stops that process before you even get to the "expose" part.
In addition, this legislation will provide our intelligence agencies with the tools and capabilities they require to defend all of us.
I feel a bit sheepish breaking the news to a sitting Senator of the United States of America, but our intellegence agencies don't lack tools. The attacks of 9/11/01 should have been prevented and could have been prevented if those agencies had merely acted intelligently upon myriad red flags and urgent pleas from the field.
Yes Senator, FISA does need occasional "tweaking" as technology and facts on the ground change, but such tinkering should never include the destruction of our cherished rights. It's getting a bit tiresome of late to bring up Ben Franklin's 200+ year-old wisdom, but nobody has ever said it better or more succinctly:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Protecting our civil liberties and the privacy of all Americans is fundamental to our founding principles, and violations of those principles should not be taken lightly.
Right. Exactly. Next
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, our nation's security became a top priority, and Americans came together willing to offer any assistance in our common defense.
Pretty close. Just add "again" as in
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, our nation's security became a top priority again, and Americans came together willing to offer any assistance in our common defense.
and I'd say you were spot-on. (You do remember the Clinton administration, don't you, Senator? They took security seriously. The Bush adminstration didn't till 9 months and 1 catastrophe down the road.)
Next.
It is in this spirit of rallying to protect American lives that I believe the telecommunications companies now facing civil suits acted when they agreed to assist the President. In my opinion these companies acted in good faith that the cooperation the President sought was within the boundaries of our legal system.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
How can you say this, Senator? You are making a judgment about motives and facts that are the purview of our Court system, not the US Senate.
Again, I feel foolish pointing this out to you, but we have a tripartite system of government that is comprised of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. The above statements are under dispute right now in the US Court system and your intervention in those disputes is an abridgment of the rights of those who are contesting against those corporations who allegedly admittedly colluded with the Bush administration to deny them of their 4th Amendment rights. And that proposed abridgment - that you so blithely toss out like some comment about the weather - will deny those citizens of the chance to address the underlying abridgment of rights that you claim at the top of this letter to be so "concerned" about.
How can we claim to be a democracy any more, Senator, if redress is abridged? If you maintain this position in the current FISA battle, the 4th amendment will not be the only one you have dismissed:
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Next.
We cherish our freedoms and liberties. They are the cornerstones of our American democracy that must be defended and protected, and it is this elusive and delicate balance that we constantly strive to achieve.
There's a saying here in the blogosphere, Senator, that (given the statements you've made above) applies: "Blah blah blah blah blah."
We must not allow the actions of this Administration to jeopardize our nation's security in the future. It is equally imprudent to ignore the impact these actions have on our freedoms and liberties, or we will concede the basic principles this nation was founded upon.
Let me offer a paraphrase, Senator:
"Bush broke the law and violated our civil liberties but we can't let that get in the way of deleting the 4th and violating part of the 1st amendment in order to prove Ben Franklin's maxim. And we need to be keenly aware of how our cherished freedoms have been usurped, even as we give them away."
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me on this important matter.
You may well want to take that last sentence back after you receive this essay, Senator. But I offer no apology for my strident attitude here: I have 5 grandchildren whose lives and future I cherish; if the gifts of the Founders are taken from them, I will never forgive those who did the taking.