Months ago, when the story that the NSA was spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court first broke, I emailed the newly elected Congressman John Campbell (CA-48, R) to urge him to demand a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
I didn't hear from him for months--excusable because he was just sent to D.C. after winning the special election to replace Christopher Cox, and, I'm sure the guy was busy setting up shop. What is not excusable is the response I received from Campbell yesterday--basically telling me not to worry, that only terrorists are being spied on, that "everyday Americans" are not affected by the program, but that I should just trust him on all this because an inquiry is unnecessary!
More, under the fold
His letter starts out cordially enough:
Dear AnthonyLA:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to President Bush's order to supersede the FISA court, and conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists operating out of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.
The Congressman goes on to helpfully explain the terrorist threat which allegedly necessitated the President's usurpation of judicial authority:
The constant struggle facing the President and Congress since 9/11 has been to protect America against a hidden and elusive foe, while not intruding upon our blessings of liberty and freedom. I believe the protection of American civil liberties should be a central consideration of any congressional action, and any accusation of infringement upon these rights should be examined carefully.
And, we can all rest assured that this the domestic spying program is A-OK because...
I have closely looked into the President's terrorist surveillance program. After doing so, I believe that this program is legal, and it strikes an appropriate balance between upholding our civil liberties and protecting our national security. Surveillance of enemy communications has been a recognized Presidential authority since the beginning of our nation. Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt have all conducted similar operations. Article II of the U.S. Constitution, charges the President, as Commander in Chief, to implement policies that will deter and prevent attacks against our nation . Congress confirmed and supplemented this authority following 9/11when it directed the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to protect our country.
And, by the way, it's not "domestic spying"...it's "terrorist surveillance"...
I also believe it is important to remember that the purpose of the President's terrorist surveillance program is not to monitor everyday American lives, but to intercept international communications of people with known links to terrorist organizations. If a terrorist is talking to someone in this country, we should be able to know why. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September 11 th attacks. Two of the hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hozmi and Khalid al Midhar , communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al-Qaeda who were overseas. The President's terrorist surveillance operation addresses a key finding of the 9/11 Commission that suggested prior to the attacks we failed to "connect the dots." We cannot make the same mistake twice.
But, the Congressman will "keep my concerns in mind":
As you may know, Congress has held many hearing to investigate the terrorist surveillance operation. I understand your concerns on this issue. And as consideration moves forward, you can be assured that I will keep them in mind.
Thank you again for taking the time to express your thoughts to me. Having the benefit of your views is important, and I appreciate you sharing them with me.
M
I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
My reply to the congressman:
Thanks for the reply Congressman Campbell,
I would like to point out that our country also has a Constitutionally based tradition of requiring law enforcement to obtain warrants prior to engaging in searches/seizures and survellience (see the 4th Amendment and relevant federal and state statutory law). FISA even allowed for law enforcement to obtain warrants days after the wiretapping was conducted--why is the Bush administration insisting on complete secrecy from the courts in this matter?
I have another question. Without any supervision by the judicial branch, how can you be sure about the purposes of Bush's domestic spying program when you say that:
"I also believe it is important to remember that the purpose of the President's terrorist surveillance program is not to monitor everyday American lives, but to intercept international communications of people with known links to terrorist organizations. If a terrorist is talking to someone in this country, we should be able to know why. "
How can you be so sure about what the purposes and extent of a government program are when there is no oversight on it? I hope you have a better answer than "trust me" or "trust the president" because, after the past 6 years, I frankly do not. I remember when Republicans used to be the party of small government, with libertarian values. I guess those standards have been replaced of late.
AnthonyLA