Jedi Jew and the Bad Brahmin

February 10, 2006

Senator Wayne Allard

521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Fax: (202) 224-6471

Dear Senator Allard,

I am writing to you in reaction to an article I read in today's Pueblo Chieftain, entitled "Allard backs wiretaps, attacks public disclosure." The article's subject is a floor speech that you made on February 8.

You are quoted in that article, saying that "Most Coloradans are not alarmed by the use of this tool as many of my Democratic colleagues might think," he said. "Most Coloradans see the common sense and know why it is so important to our national security that we conduct such a program."

Senator Allard, this Coloradan is indeed alarmed, not only by the domestic spying, but also of your apparent lack of appreciation for our Constitutional rights, the necessity for Due Process, and the Rule of Law. Please do not count me, nor anyone I know among the Most Coloradans to whom you refer. Furthermore, as most Coloradans are generally perceived as rugged individualists who cherish their privacy and their property rights, I am certain that if you talked to more Coloradans, you would find that your statement is inaccurate.

You are quoted, saying that "This program is not being used to listen to communications of innocent Americans."

How can you be sure of that? How do you define "innocent?" How does the U.S. Government define what is a "terrorist?"

Is a peaceful environmental activist a terrorist? Were the vegan protesters who were subjected to false imprisonment, false arrest and harassment by officials of the Homeland Security Division of DeKalb County, GA terrorists? And what about those who openly criticize the president or the government; are they terrorists?

Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist?

It may be true that many people would not object to the government listening to their phones or reading their email. However, as our elected representative, you are sworn to uphold and defend our constitutional rights, even if some of us are nevertheless naive enough to surrender those rights out of government-generated fear.

Our Constitutional Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment guarantees our privacy. It explicitly states that the government may not invade our privacy except upon a duly-issued warrant, on Probable Cause, and supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing what the government is looking for.

I realize that modern times require modern methods, and so did the legislators who wrote the 1978 FISA law.

As you may know, FISA permits the government to spy on Americans, provided that the spy agency requests a warrant from the secret FISA court, within 72 hours (or 15 days in time of war), of the conduct of the surveillance activity. I understand that only four, of nearly 2000 such requests have ever been declined. Given that minimal rejection rate, along with the 72-hour grace period to file for a warrant, I don't see why the government cannot spy on whomever, whenever it pleases, while still complying with the requirement to issue a warrant when it believes it has acquired legitimate evidence of terrorist activity.

Here is the difference between the FISA regulation and the president's unwarranted domestic spy program:

Under FISA, the government must demonstrate just cause and reason for spying on its citizens. When incriminating evidence is acquired, charges must be brought and prosecuted through Constitutional Due Process.

On the other hand, if no warrant is required, then the government may spy, without documentation or accountability, on anyone. Such power, when coupled with a vague policy concerning what constitutes terrorism; as well as the fact that so-called "enemy combatants," (another vaguely defined presidential concept of dubious legal merit), may be apprehended, held and even tortured --indefinitely -- without warrant, charges or access to legal counsel; one could only describe the United States of America as an oppressive, tyrannical police state with unfettered governmental powers to abuse its citizens whenever it becomes expedient to do so.

I think that Most Coloradans would strongly object to the president's domestic spy program if they truly understood all that it implies. However, your speech appears to willfully mask those important implications.

All Coloradans expect you to uphold your Oath of Office to defend the Constitution. Your support of the president's warrantless domestic spying activities contradicts that oath, and it encourages the violation of all Coloradans' rights. You should reconsider your position on the matter.

Sincerely,

[Jedi Jew]


PS: It is widely reported that I. Lewis Libby testified before a grand jury that Vice President Cheney directed him to release classified information to discredit critics of the war in Iraq. This may have resulted in the exposure of a covert CIA agent and rendered ineffective whatever operations the agent may have been conducting. It also may have jeopardized life and limb of other friendly covert operatives, as well. Such flagrant disregard for national security in the pursuit of political advantage deeply troubles me. All of those involved must be held accountable.

[jj]

[For more on this, please read Senator Robert Byrd's speech from February 15, 2006.]

# posted by Jedi Jew @ 1:12 PM