A very dear friend of mine sent me the below. He has always been a fiercely independent Republican. It is a correspondence he wrote and sent to his Republican Representative. I have taken out any name references and inserted anonymous salutations. I thought it was worth sharing and for comment. Regards, Jake
Dear Representative,
As a lifelong Republican voter, this is the first time I have been compelled to contact any of my elected representatives.
The issue is retroactive immunity for telecoms now under consideration before the House. Actually, the real issue is the 4th Amendment--"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"--which the GOP is now on the brink of codifying its apparent disregard.
President Bush stated that "the House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies." My reaction to this is, “Good!” I do NOT want private companies to cooperate with the government to illegally provide private information on American citizens, even those *suspected* of acting as foreign agents, without judicial oversight. Moreover, I would be very pleased to see telecoms that have acted illegally in the past to provide this information be made examples of.
"It is unfair and unjust to threaten these companies with financial ruin only because they are believed to have done the right thing and helped their country." On the contrary, I think it is absolutely fair to hold these companies (and the Federal Government) to strict compliance with the law, and I am dismayed that any elected official might disagree.
If it is simply a matter of expediency, I am at a loss to understand why perhaps streamlining the process of acquiring FISA warrants is not a preferable solution when the alternative is the shortsighted dismissal of a fundamental American right. Yes, I am afraid of terrorist strikes within the United States, but I am certain that giving our intelligence services unfettered authorization to snoop on us is a bad answer. You guys’ definition of what the Right Thing might be is something about which the Founding Fathers themselves were skeptical. There is currently a legally binding process that provides for judicial oversight in these matters. Those who do not follow the process, or have not followed it in the past, must be held accountable. A get-out-of-jail-free-card sends exactly the wrong message.
In summary, I am unwilling to see the 4th Amendment go the way of the 2nd. I urge you to buck the Party on this one and demonstrate your leadership as a guardian of our freedom by telling your colleagues what Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Regards,
A life time Republican and American
Dear Representative,
As a lifelong Republican voter, this is the first time I have been compelled to contact any of my elected representatives.
The issue is retroactive immunity for telecoms now under consideration before the House. Actually, the real issue is the 4th Amendment--"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"--which the GOP is now on the brink of codifying its apparent disregard.
President Bush stated that "the House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies." My reaction to this is, “Good!” I do NOT want private companies to cooperate with the government to illegally provide private information on American citizens, even those *suspected* of acting as foreign agents, without judicial oversight. Moreover, I would be very pleased to see telecoms that have acted illegally in the past to provide this information be made examples of.
"It is unfair and unjust to threaten these companies with financial ruin only because they are believed to have done the right thing and helped their country." On the contrary, I think it is absolutely fair to hold these companies (and the Federal Government) to strict compliance with the law, and I am dismayed that any elected official might disagree.
If it is simply a matter of expediency, I am at a loss to understand why perhaps streamlining the process of acquiring FISA warrants is not a preferable solution when the alternative is the shortsighted dismissal of a fundamental American right. Yes, I am afraid of terrorist strikes within the United States, but I am certain that giving our intelligence services unfettered authorization to snoop on us is a bad answer. You guys’ definition of what the Right Thing might be is something about which the Founding Fathers themselves were skeptical. There is currently a legally binding process that provides for judicial oversight in these matters. Those who do not follow the process, or have not followed it in the past, must be held accountable. A get-out-of-jail-free-card sends exactly the wrong message.
In summary, I am unwilling to see the 4th Amendment go the way of the 2nd. I urge you to buck the Party on this one and demonstrate your leadership as a guardian of our freedom by telling your colleagues what Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Regards,
A life time Republican and American