Shadowstorm
02-13-2008, 07:31 AM
I emailed my senator, Tom Carper (Delaware), about the situation regarding the telecoms being in bed with the government a little while ago and I finally got a reply back this morning (Feb 13th). His response:
Dear Mr. M,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program. I appreciate your views on this important matter.
As you may recall, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created in 1978 to establish a process for obtaining a court order to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, stated last year, however, that our intelligence community is "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country." We all know that the United States continues to face real and immediate threats. For these reasons, I believe we cannot leave our country unprotected in this vulnerable post-9/11 period. That is why I joined many of my colleagues in altering the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a limited period of time and in a way that compelled the Congress to return to the issue this February. A two-week extension (Public Law 110-55) of the bill to give Congress more time to thoroughly consider the substance of a more permanent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law expires February 16th.
Not long after the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls, emails, and other communications originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if one party involved in that communication is within the United States. Critics of the National Security Agency's surveillance program have asserted that these intercepts are "domestic" and thereby require warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They claim that President Bush's actions - which have allowed eavesdropping to occur without first obtaining these warrants - have been and remain unconstitutional and violate Americans' civil rights. Moreover, many Members of Congress and civil liberties groups have criticized telecommunications companies for cooperating with the Administration's surveillance program by allowing the National Security Agency to monitor phone conversations. I am very concerned about these important privacy issues and will continue to support efforts to ensure that the privacy of Americans is protected while we continue to guard against very real threats to our safety and security.
As you may know, the temporary bill that was signed into law by the President last August allows U.S. intelligence officials to monitor communications of non-U.S. citizens overseas. The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees both voted on October 10th to approve a revised Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill (H.R. 3773) sponsored by Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI). The measure contains civil liberties protections strongly opposed by the Administration, and excludes a provision that would provide retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Administration's secret surveillance program since September 11, 2001.
The Senate passed its version (S. 2248) on February 12th by a vote of 68-29. I supported the bill because I believe it succeeds in achieving a vital balance between fulfilling our national security needs while safeguarding citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties. An amendment introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to strike language granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies failed by a vote of 31-67. Opponents of retroactive immunity argue that companies should not be granted a pass on illegally violating the civil liberties of Americans, whether or not such practices are later codified into law. Proponents of the measure counter that the companies were supplying information critical to national security and requested by President Bush. Moreover, they note, the companies received regular letters affirming that the President had authorized the program and that the Attorney General deemed the program to be lawful. If anyone should be held accountable for breaking the law, they say, it should be the Administration. In other words, telecommunications companies are being sent a dangerous mixed message. After previously being told that divulging sensitive personal information was both legal and necessary for national security, they now face lawsuits by plaintiffs asserting the program was unlawful. If telecommunications companies can today face liability for actions they were told were necessary to protect national security, then private companies across all sectors will hesitate to divulge potentially sensitive information in the future.
I believe it is critical that the rule of law - in accordance with the Constitution - be followed at all times. I believe it is also important to balance our national security needs with respect for the civil liberties of our citizens. A conference committee will be established to bridge the differences between H.R. 3773 and S. 2248. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind when I have an opportunity to consider and vote on the final, conference-passed bill.
Thank you again for contacting my office. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this matter or other issues of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
Discuss.
Dear Mr. M,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program. I appreciate your views on this important matter.
As you may recall, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created in 1978 to establish a process for obtaining a court order to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, stated last year, however, that our intelligence community is "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country." We all know that the United States continues to face real and immediate threats. For these reasons, I believe we cannot leave our country unprotected in this vulnerable post-9/11 period. That is why I joined many of my colleagues in altering the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a limited period of time and in a way that compelled the Congress to return to the issue this February. A two-week extension (Public Law 110-55) of the bill to give Congress more time to thoroughly consider the substance of a more permanent Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law expires February 16th.
Not long after the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls, emails, and other communications originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if one party involved in that communication is within the United States. Critics of the National Security Agency's surveillance program have asserted that these intercepts are "domestic" and thereby require warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They claim that President Bush's actions - which have allowed eavesdropping to occur without first obtaining these warrants - have been and remain unconstitutional and violate Americans' civil rights. Moreover, many Members of Congress and civil liberties groups have criticized telecommunications companies for cooperating with the Administration's surveillance program by allowing the National Security Agency to monitor phone conversations. I am very concerned about these important privacy issues and will continue to support efforts to ensure that the privacy of Americans is protected while we continue to guard against very real threats to our safety and security.
As you may know, the temporary bill that was signed into law by the President last August allows U.S. intelligence officials to monitor communications of non-U.S. citizens overseas. The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees both voted on October 10th to approve a revised Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill (H.R. 3773) sponsored by Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI). The measure contains civil liberties protections strongly opposed by the Administration, and excludes a provision that would provide retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Administration's secret surveillance program since September 11, 2001.
The Senate passed its version (S. 2248) on February 12th by a vote of 68-29. I supported the bill because I believe it succeeds in achieving a vital balance between fulfilling our national security needs while safeguarding citizens' constitutionally protected civil liberties. An amendment introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to strike language granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies failed by a vote of 31-67. Opponents of retroactive immunity argue that companies should not be granted a pass on illegally violating the civil liberties of Americans, whether or not such practices are later codified into law. Proponents of the measure counter that the companies were supplying information critical to national security and requested by President Bush. Moreover, they note, the companies received regular letters affirming that the President had authorized the program and that the Attorney General deemed the program to be lawful. If anyone should be held accountable for breaking the law, they say, it should be the Administration. In other words, telecommunications companies are being sent a dangerous mixed message. After previously being told that divulging sensitive personal information was both legal and necessary for national security, they now face lawsuits by plaintiffs asserting the program was unlawful. If telecommunications companies can today face liability for actions they were told were necessary to protect national security, then private companies across all sectors will hesitate to divulge potentially sensitive information in the future.
I believe it is critical that the rule of law - in accordance with the Constitution - be followed at all times. I believe it is also important to balance our national security needs with respect for the civil liberties of our citizens. A conference committee will be established to bridge the differences between H.R. 3773 and S. 2248. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind when I have an opportunity to consider and vote on the final, conference-passed bill.
Thank you again for contacting my office. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this matter or other issues of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
Discuss.