The following is the letter in its entirety. I sent it to Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D), Rep. Sue Myrick (R), Rep. Patrick McHenry (D), and Rep. Heath Shuler (D). I sent them each essentially the same letter, with certain personal details of theirs changed ("Mr. Etheridge" to "Mrs. Foxx", etc.). I sent 18 copies out if I remember correctly, one to each field office I could find -- in NC and in D.C. No one has yet written me back from any of the 18 offices of the 6 elected officials, unsurprisingly. I have removed my personal details in this publication.
*Name, address, phone number, email removed*
The Honorable Bob Etheridge
1533 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative:
I was born in North Carolina and am also a resident. I live in District 6. I am writing you to voice my disgust with your vote on S. 1927, the so-called "Protect America Act." Your vote essentially to authorize the erasure of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is deeply disturbing and rather treasonous. I have read what is now the law in question and am appalled at the House more than I am the Senate, because the overwhelming Democratic majority in the House should have eliminated this backdoor, late-night bill before it even reached the Senate. Your response to my objections will be no doubt predictable: "we must authorize the government with sweeping powers and occasionally put our desire for privacy aside so that they can protect us." Sir, you do me, your constituents, your fellow North Carolinians, your fellow Americans, and your own intelligence a disservice by bleating such platitudes.
I think someone needs to educate you on American history, and therefore I will, as I would imagine many of your constituents and other concerned citizens will do as well. In 1760, before the American Revolution and while still under royal rule, the British began allowing customs officers the use of "writs of assistance," which is essentially a general warrant, to permit them to search for smuggled goods on any suspected person. These writs had no expiration date, and could even be given from one writ holder to another. Houses were searched without provocation. When their legality was challenged in court, the attorney charged with defending the writs, James Otis, resigned over their illegal and immoral nature, and in fact spoke passionately about them at length – for 5 hours, some estimates say. James Otis was an inspiration for John Adams who witnessed his speech. He argued fervently against these writs of assistance, these warrantless searches and seizures.
Otis wrote, "In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed ‘to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects’; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the king’s dominions. Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm."
Likewise, in the "Protect America Act," the Executive is required to get permission from "appropriate officials in the national security field appointed by the President"[1] – so, constables – or from "the court," Otis's "singular justices." This kind of permission is required "unless immediate action by the Government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification," the "Protect America Act," which you approved, says. So, of course, if the Attorney General says that there was simply not time to alert a constable, then it is perfectly legal to target every subject in the king’s dominions, as a tyrant would do in a legal manner. Why would Gonzalez do this, however? The Attorney General has been incredibly forthcoming and honest with Congress to date.
Otis continues, "In the next place, it is perpetual; there in no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul."
Indeed, to whom is Attorney General Gonzalez accountable? The Director of National Intelligence, his cohort in this affair? Not the FISA court, and certainly not a castrated Congress whose symbolic measures render it unworthy to be considered a balancing branch of government.
In his unfortunate prescience, Otis foresees that "In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him."
Indeed, the "Protect America Act," which you approved, says that the Attorney General can command "the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person . . . who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications."[2] So, the "Protect America Act," for which you voted, permits the Attorney General to command telecommunications companies to assist him in spying on Americans. Save your weak excuses on how this will only be applied to foreign communications, as it is misleading and fallacious. If I make a phone call abroad, it is likely to be wiretapped without warrant because someone in the government has a "gut feeling." In fact, the "Protect America Act," for which you voted, inculpates third parties and retroactively immunizes them from reproach for past illegal activities, such as the AT&T/NSA fiasco.[3] I fear for your competency when I inform you that your excuse for wiretapping "foreigners" is nonsensical because we all know Echelon has been doing it for years. The "Protect America Act," for which you voted, is a law designed to wiretap Americans – both you and me.
The wisdom of Otis continues, "Fourthly, by this writ, not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us; to be the servant of servants, the most despicable of God’s creation?"
At the time of the creation of this nation, the Founding Fathers constructed the government so that the government should fear the people because the government serves only at the will of the people. At the time of this letter, the citizens of this nation now fear their own government. The government is supposed to be the servants of the people, and along with other legislation such as the "PATRIOT Act," for which you voted twice, and the "Protect America Act," for which you voted, you have made the people the servant of servants.
Most importantly and passionately, Otis gives his final reason: "Now one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and while he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain."
You, in voting for the "Protect America Act," have totally annihilated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and the ninth enumerated right in the Constitution of North Carolina.[4] You have totally annihilated what James Otis stood for, what the Founding Fathers stood for, what millions of American soldiers have served their country for, and what over a million American soldiers have died for in 231 years. Mr. Etheridge, did you or did you not swear your allegiance to the Constitution of the United States during your military service from 1965 to 1967? You have, in effect, returned this country to royal rule wherein allegiance is sworn to the king, and you are little more than a constable. Constables do not filibuster unconstitutional bills either.
Why? Because Bush was threatening to keep you from going on vacation? I understand this sentiment because as a child I often had to concede to my mother’s threats that if chores were not done, I could not go out to play. I can see that you are unfortunately still a child. You are an embarrassment to anyone who ever called himself a Democrat, a North Carolinian, a citizen of the United States of America, or a human being who believes in the liberty of individuals free from the tyranny of governments.
With the utmost regards to the Honorable Bob Etheridge,
*My name removed*
[1] Sec. 105B (a)
[2] Sec. 105B (a) (3)
[3] Sec. 105B (l): "Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section. "
[4] "General warrants - whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons, not named, whose offences are not particularly described, and supported by evidence - are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted." (Note that this notion exists in nearly all State constitutions of the original 13 colonies as well.) -- Constitution of North Carolina: December 18, 1776
I'd still like a response from these North Carolina representatives, considering how much attention the "FISA debate" as we now call it has become in the intervening 7 months since I sent this letter.