When the Congress of the United States is willing to cede oversight responsibilities of the Intelligence Community to the Executive Branch, I have every right and reason to be concerned. When the Senate surrenders the Constitutional powers of the Federal Courts to the Executive Branch as well, I should be and I am outraged. We are traveling down a road to tyranny farther than we’ve ever gone during my lifetime. Ben Franklin said, "We have given you a democratic Republic, if you can keep it." It has been left to every generation to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which our forefathers put their blood, sweat and tears into, ever since. But when you, as my representatives, stand with those who violate the Constitution against the interests of your constituents, you are standing with the terrorists. You are undermining judicial discretion; you are sabotaging the separation of powers, you are obstructing the rule of law, and you are caving in to a would-be dictator.
If we surrender our rights to communicate without the government becoming a third party to every single conversation, business meeting, whatever communications that we have with our fellow citizens, without probable cause and warrants, we will become as totalitarian a society as those we presume to accuse of tyranny. And if we surrender just this part of Amendments One and Four of the Bill of Rights this time, who will stop the process when we’re asked to surrender our guns (Amendment Two) or our freedom of assembly or when we’re told that we can no longer afford to support "due process" before imprisonment or the prisoner’s right not to testify against himself (Amendment Five) "for some citizens." Pretty soon the entire Bill of Rights is up for grabs, literally, by the head of state/government.
I want to see who is ready to stand up for the rule of law? Who is willing to say no to a President who demands retroactive immunity for telecom companies that conspired with agencies of the Administration to infringe the rights of the citizen? Who is willing to require the telecoms to do what every other citizen must do: tell their story to the judge in a duly authorized court? Or they may be imposed upon to talk to a grand jury whose job it is to sort out whether laws were broken. Maybe a prosecutor would offer them immunity if they allocute as to exactly why they chose to collude with the administration to surrender the private information of their customers without permission and why they thought it was legally permissible to do so. All of this is under the purview of the Judicial Branch of our federal government, it is not up to the Legislative Branch anymore, and certainly is not up the Executive Branch that was a party to the alleged wrongdoing. We look to men of vision to defend against not just the physical fear of terrorism, but also the danger that ripples out into our society if we start to surrender our rights to an overly zealous and power happy administration.
You may say that we’re at war and it is your responsibility to rubber stamp the President in whatever manner is necessary "to protect the citizens against the terrorists." But I would remind you that President Ronald Reagan ultimately signed legislation to apologize for the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII because the government’s actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". That’s because the legislation that caused that internment was illegal and unconstitutional, as is warrantless wiretapping. Do you want to be a failed political leader due to war hysteria? No? Then please vote no on retroactive immunity for telecoms and please make sure that any legislation that you pass includes adequate minimalization provisions. Thank you.