ICH: A constituent writes an open(ly hostile) letter to Feinswine

[Doctor_J]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19941.htm


...I was deeply disappointed, but completely unsurprised, by your utter disregard for the Constitution, the law and what is morally right. From what I can deduce from your actions, words and behaviors, protecting your position, your party, and your class are your driving motivations, not governing, not protecting the NATION (you remember the 99% of us who aren't wealthy?), not respecting the rule of law. Despite his assertations to the contrary and your obsequeious submission to them, the President is not, repeat NOT, above or beyond the law whether in peacetime or wartime. In wartime, the President is Commander-in-Chief, and as such is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as much as the lowest private is. He stands in violation of that code, and YOU accept it. Beyond the many laws this criminal has violated and could be prosecuted for, there is the Constitutional remedy you have repeatedly refused to employ: impeachment.

It is far too late for you to ever regain the respect I once had for you and your party, but at least you might reduce the degree of contempt in which I now hold you. DO THE RIGHT THING: stand up for immediate impeachment. Before you tell me that it is the House's responsibility (trust me, I apparently know more about this than you do), let me point out that it is YOUR responsibility to LEAD. The House will do nothing unless and until the Senate signals its willingness to go forward with it. If your argument is that elections are near and soon he will be out of office, kindly explain to me in a written response that actually addresses the points I'm raising, why that excuses criminal behavior (illegal wiretaps, use of outlawed torture, kidnapping and assassination as government policy, corruption, fraud, cronyism, lying as official policy
...

Mark my words: you have perhaps a year, maybe two, before the riots start. High gas prices, high food prices, incompetent disaster relief, home foreclosures, lack of jobs, and a loss of faith in the system will combine to create chaos. If your aides were to look up my previous correspondance with you they will find that I accurately predicted the lack of WMD, the quagmire that is Iraq, and a number of other things. I'm sure you believe that if we can just get throught the election, everything will be better with a Democratic President. Wrong: whoever is president will soon discover that we are broke, the business class has no interest in rectifying anything, and we are bereft of influence. More people will lose their homes while you and your colleagues pump billions into corporations "that are too big to fail". Those corporations will take that tax money and invest it outside the United States.

...

with contempt,

Michael Piotrowski - Citizen, Vietnam Vet, Educator, former Democrat

[tom_paine]

1. The only thing I remotely disagree with is the idea of rioting Amerikan Subjects.

:rofl:

We are not the people who helped defeat Hitler, anymore.

We are MUCH closer now to the people who helped Hitler into power.

Thus I expect the 1930s German response, not the 1930s American response.

The TV will tell the fools who is to blame. Liberals, of course, same as the Nazis blamed. The fools will fall for it. The madness of a fifth of our nation will be unleashed of any restraints upon the rest of us.

Now, this will probably be "kinder and gentler" than what the Nazis did, and less violent. I don't expect Industrialized Death Camps, though there will be Camps of some kind within 50 years or much less.

More like "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, I suspect. No industrialed mass killings, this time.

But otherwise, this letter is spot on, not that anyone in power will read it.

[peacetalksforall]

2. I set her up as a leader who could be trusted. - this letter speaks for me now.

Edited to add that if she believes she doesn't have a chance with Dems, she might just move over. Like Leiberman still might.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Great letter, though pretty much anyone with half a brain predicted the lack-of-WMD and quagmire

But yeah, fuck the spineless dem appeasers.

[OneBlueSky]

4. um . . . isn't she the one whose husband is a big time "defense" contractor? . . . n/t

.

[cascadiance]

5. Here's the email I got back from her office after calling the other day to bitch about FISA!

Here's what I just got back from Feinstein's office! What a pile of BS! Haven't even had time to read through all of it yet!

Dear (me):

I write this in response to your communication indicating your concerns
on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) now before
the Senate. This bill has passed the House of Representatives.

This legislation contains multiple sections, including one that deals
specifically with liability for telecommunications companies. However,
the primary intent to this new bill is to modernize our intelligence
gathering capacity. The technology and communications industries have
seen vast changes in the past thirty years since FISA was first written
in 1978. This has changed the way surveillance is conducted, and the
original law cannot adequately address these procedures. This is
precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.

It is important to understand the consequences if the Senate does not
pass this bill. We would either have to extend the temporary
surveillance bill passed last August - which should not happen - or
allow surveillance on certain foreign targets to expire which would lay
the Nation bare and decrease our ability to identify and protect against
terrorist threats. Neither of these options is acceptable.

I strongly believe that this bill is substantially better than the
version the Senate passed in February 2008, which I opposed. It is also
a major improvement from the Protect America Act that passed in August
2007, which had few privacy protections and was never intended to be a
permanent solution. This bill:

o Includes provisions I authored that make clear that FISA is the
exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the
United States. This is crucial as it requires that all future Presidents
must act only within the law. FISA would be the only legal authority for
conducting surveillance on Americans for intelligence purposes, and only
legislation that specifically provides wiretapping authority in the
future would be an exception to FISA.

o Requires the government to obtain a warrant before surveillance can
begin. This applies to all Americans - anywhere in the world. The
Protect America Act allowed surveillance for up to six months before
getting a warrant. This bill ends all warrantless surveillance of U.S.
persons. In this sense it is precedent setting.

o Bans reverse targeting, which was a concern under the Protect America
Act. Reverse targeting would allow the government to collect the
contents of telephone calls and e-mails of an American by conducting
surveillance on the people with whom they communicate. This is
prohibited in this bill.

o Requires that the government implement procedures approved by the Court
for minimization. If an American's communication is incidentally caught
up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone
else, minimization protects that person's private information. This has
been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, but court review and approval of
minimization procedures was not included in the Protect America Act. It
is here.

o Requires the government to receive a warrant to conduct surveillance on
an American outside of the United States. This means that Americans'
privacy rights are protected everywhere around the world. A court
warrant has never been required outside the United States before; this
would be the strongest protection ever.

I understand your concern regarding Title II of this bill, which creates
a process that may result in immunity for telecommunications companies
that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government. I agree
that this is not the best approach to the current legal challenges to
these companies. Earlier this year, I authored an amendment that would
require court review of the legality of these companies' alleged
actions. Under my proposal, cases against the companies would only be
dismissed if the Court found that they acted legally. I continue to
believe this is the right approach. I have joined as a co-sponsor on an
amendment which accomplishes this, and will vote for it when it is able
to come to the floor.

There may be amendments offered to the FISA legislation to strip or
modify the telecom immunity provisions. Know that I will support any
that I believe improve the current bill.

Bottom line: this FISA legislation, while not perfect, would bring
intelligence activities back under U.S. law. It provides significant
improvement in oversight and accountability of our intelligence
collection programs while still giving the intelligence community the
tools needed to keep our Nation safe. And, it provides the strongest
privacy protections to U.S. persons in history.

In conclusion, I have served on the Intelligence Committee for seven
years and I take the responsibility extremely seriously. If there is no
bill, our Nation goes bare in mid-August, unless the Protect America
Act, which does not offer, even remotely, the privacy protections for
U.S. persons that are included in this bill, is extended. Additionally,
the President - any President - cannot enact a program outside of this
law in the future.

I hope this helps you understand my concerns. Attached to this letter,
you will find my statement on the Senate floor from June 25, 2008.

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

June 25, 2008

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of
the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, the House Speaker, and the
House leadership for their distinguished work on this piece of
legislation. This has not been easy. It is certainly not without
controversy. There are some major challenges to work through.

I want to begin by putting my remarks, at least, in context.

There is no more important requirement for national security than
obtaining accurate, actionable intelligence. At the same time, there
have to be strong safeguards in place to ensure that the Government does
not infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.

Yet if Congress does not act and pass this bill, as it was passed
overwhelmingly in the House, both of these goals, I believe, are in
jeopardy. Here is why. If this bill does not pass, our Nation would
likely be forced to either extend the Protect America Act or leave the
Nation bare until a new bill can be written. Neither of these are good
options.

As I will describe, the Protect America Act does not adequately protect
Americans' constitutional rights. It was written to be a temporary
measure for 6 months, and it expired on February 5.

What many people do not understand is that surveillance conducted under
the Protect America Act will cease by the middle of August. It will be
impossible to write a new bill, to get it past both Houses, to have it
signed by the President in time to meet this deadline.

If that bill expires without this Congress passing new legislation, we
will be unable to conduct electronic surveillance on a large number of
foreign targets. In other words, our intelligence apparatus will be laid
bare and the Nation will go into greater jeopardy. I truly believe that.
The FISA legislation of 1978 cannot accommodate this number of targets.
It is simply inadequate for this new task due to changes in technology
and the communications industry. That is precisely why FISA needs to be
modernized.

So taking no action means we will be opening ourselves, in my view, to
the possibility of major attack. This is unacceptable.

So as I see it, our choice is a clear one: We either pass this
legislation or we extend the Protect America Act. For me, this
legislation is much the better option.

This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It provides clear protections for
U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the Government
cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American anywhere in the
world without a warrant. No legislation has done that up to this point.

I think the improvements in this bill over the Protect America Act and
the 1978 legislation are important to understand, and I wish to list a
few.

First, prior court review. This bill ensures that there will be no more
warrantless surveillance. Now, why do I say this? Under the Protect
America Act--which is expiring, but we are still collecting surveillance
under it for now--the intelligence community was authorized to conduct
electronic surveillance for a period of 4 months before submitting an
application for a warrant to the FISA Court. Surveillance could actually
proceed for 6 months before there was a warrant.

Under this bill, the Government must submit an application and receive a
warrant from the FISA Court before surveillance begins. No more
warrantless surveillance. This is, in fact, a major point.

In emergency cases, there can be a short period of collection--up to 7
days--as the application is prepared. There has been a provision for
emergency cases under FISA for some 30 years now. So that is prior court
review for a U.S. person anywhere in the world if content is collected.

Meaningful court review. This bill strengthens court review. Under the
Protect America Act, the Government submitted to the FISA Court its
determination that procedures were in place to ensure that only people
outside the United States would be targeted. The court could only reject
an application for a warrant if it found that determination to be
``clearly erroneous.'' This bill returns to the traditional FISA
standard, empowering the court to decide whether the Government's
determination is ``reasonable.'' This is a higher standard of review, so
the court review under this bill is meaningful.

Next, minimization. These first two improvements ensure that the
Government will only be targeting people outside the country. That is
good, but it is not enough. There is always the possibility of someone
outside the country talking to a U.S. person inside the country. The
bill addresses this with a process known as minimization.

In 1978, Congress said that the Government could do surveillance on U.S.
persons under a court warrant, but required the Government to minimize
the amount of information on those Americans who get included in the
intelligence reporting. In practice, this actually means that the
National Security Agency only includes information about a U.S. person
that is strictly necessary to convey the intelligence. Most of the time,
the person's name is not included in the report. That is the
minimization process.

If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in electronic
surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else,
minimization protects that person's private information.

Now, the Protect America Act did not provide for court review over this
minimization process at all. But this bill requires the court in advance
to approve the Government's minimization procedures prior to commencing
with any minimization program. That is good. That is the third
improvement.

Fourth, reverse targeting. There is an explicit ban on reverse
targeting. Now, what is reverse targeting? That is the concern that the
National Security Agency could get around the warrant requirement. If
the NSA wanted to get my communications but did not want to go to the
FISA Court, they might try to figure out who I am talking with and
collect the content of their calls to get to me. This bill says you
cannot do that. You cannot reverse target. It is prohibited. This was a
concern with the Protect America Act, and it is fixed in this bill.

Those are four reasons--good reasons. Here is a fifth: U.S. person
privacy outside the United States. This bill does more than Congress has
ever done before to protect Americans' privacy regardless of where they
are, anywhere in the world. Under this bill, the executive branch will
be required to obtain a warrant any time it seeks to direct surveillance
at a U.S. person anywhere in the world. So any U.S. person anywhere in
the world is protected by the requirement that a warrant must be
received from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before
electronic surveillance can begin.

Previously, FISA only covered people inside the United States. The
Protect America Act did the same thing.

Now, also under this bill, there will be reviews of surveillance
authorities by the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney
General, the heads of all relevant agencies, and the inspectors general
of all relevant agencies on a regular basis, and the FISA Court and the
Congress will receive the results of those reviews.

So there will be regular reporting from the professionals in the arena
on how this bill is being followed through on--how electronic
surveillance is being carried out worldwide. The Intelligence and
Judiciary Committees will receive those reports. That, too, is
important.

Also, under this bill, there will be a retrospective review of the
President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is the program that has
stirred the furor. The bill requires an unclassified report on the facts
of the program, including its limits, the legal justifications, and the
role played by the FISA Court and any private actors involved. This will
provide needed accountability.

In summary, all intelligence collection under the Terrorist Surveillance
Program will be brought under court review and court orders.

Everything I have described brings this administration back under the
law. There is no more Terrorist Surveillance Program. There is only
court-approved, Congressionally reviewed collection.

But what is to keep this administration or any other administration from
going around the law again? The answer is one word, and it is called
exclusivity.

It means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the only, the
exclusive, means for conducting electronic surveillance inside the
United States for foreign intelligence purposes.

The exclusivity language in this bill is identical in substance to the
amendment I offered in February, which received 57 votes in this Senate.
It is section 102 of this bill.

This language reiterates what FISA said in 1978, and it goes further.
Here is what this bill says:

Never again will a President be able to say that his authority--or her
authority, one day, I hope--as Commander in Chief can be used to violate
a law duly enacted by Congress.

Never again can an Executive say that a law passed to do one thing--such
as use military force against our enemies--also overrides a ban on
warrantless surveillance. The administration has said that the
resolution to authorize the use of military force gave this President
the right to go around FISA.

Never again can the Government go to private companies for their
assistance in conducting surveillance that violates the law.

Now, this administration has a very broad view of Executive authority.
Quite simply, it believes that when it comes to these matters, the
President is above the law. I reject that notion in the strongest terms.
I think it is important to review the recent history with this
administration to demonstrate why FISA exclusivity is so important.

At the very beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, John Yoo,
at the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a legal opinion that:

.... (u)nless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential
authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security
area--which it has not--then the statute must be construed to avoid
(such) a reading.

That was the argument. I believe it is wrong. Congress wrote FISA in
1978 precisely in the field of national security; there are other,
separate laws that govern wiretapping in the criminal context. In fact,
the Department of Justice has repudiated Yoo's notion.

But if the Department admitted that FISA did apply, it found another
excuse not to take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA Court.
The Department of Justice developed a new, convoluted argument that
Congress had authorized the President to go around FISA by passing the
authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

This is as flimsy as the last argument.

There is nothing in the AUMF that talks about electronic surveillance or
FISA, and I know of not one Member who believed we were suspending FISA
when we authorized the President to go to war.

But that is another argument we lay to rest with this bill. Here is how
we do it. We say in the language in this bill that FISA is exclusive.
Now, here is the major part: Only a specific statutory grant of
authority in future legislation can provide authority to the Chief
Executive to conduct surveillance without a FISA warrant.

So we go a step further in exclusivity. We cover what Yoo was trying to
argue and what others might argue on behalf of a Chief Executive in the
future, by closing the loophole and saying: You need specific statutory
authority by the Congress of the United States to go outside the law and
the Constitution.

The final argument the President has made is that even if FISA was
intended to apply, and even if the AUMF didn't override FISA's
procedures, he still had the authority as Commander in Chief to
disregard the law.

Now, I have spoken on the floor before about how the President believes
he is above the law and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer
case. In that case, Justice Jackson described how the President's power
is at the ``lowest ebb'' when he is acting in contravention to the will
of the Congress.

This bill, again, makes it clear that the will of Congress is that there
will be no electronic surveillance inside the United States without a
warrant, and it makes clear that any electronic surveillance that is
conducted outside of FISA or outside of another express statutory
authorization for surveillance is a criminal act. It is criminalized.
This is the strongest statement of exclusivity in history.

The reason I am describing all this is to build a case of legislative
intent in case this is ever litigated, and I suspect it may well be.

So, finally, I wish to read into the Record the comments on exclusivity
from a June 19, 2008, letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director
of National Intelligence McConnell wrote to the Congress. The letter
recognizes that the exclusivity provision in this bill "goes beyond the
exclusive means provision that was passed as part of FISA ."

So they essentially admit we are taking exclusivity to a new high.
Nevertheless, they acknowledge that the provision in this bill "would
not restrict the authority of the government to conduct necessary
surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in a way that
would harm national security."

I said in February I could not support a bill without exclusivity. This
is what keeps history from repeating itself and another President from
going outside the law. I believe that with this language we will prevent
it from ever happening again.

Now, a comment on title II of the bill, which is the telecom immunity
section. This bill also creates a legal process that may--and, in fact,
is likely to--result in immunity for telecommunications companies that
are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government.

I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I have read the
legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department
of Justice. I have read the written requests to telecommunications
companies. I have spoken to officials inside and outside the Government,
including several meetings with the companies alleged to have
participated in the program.

The companies were told after 9/11 that their assistance was needed to
protect against further terrorist acts. This actually happened within
weeks of 9/11. I think we can all understand and remember what the
situation was in the 3 weeks following 9/11.

The companies were told the surveillance program was authorized and that
it was legal, and they were prevented from doing their due diligence in
reviewing the Government's request. In fact, very few people in these
companies--these big telecoms--are actually cleared to receive this
information and discuss it. So that creates a very limited universe of
people who can do their due diligence within the confines of a given
telecommunications company.


For the record, let me also address what I have heard some of my
colleagues say. At the beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
only four Senators were briefed. The Intelligence Committee was not,
other than the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

I am one who believes it is right for the public and the private sector
to support the Government at a time of need. When it is a matter of
national security, it is all the more important.

I think the lion's share of the fault rests with the administration, not
with the companies.

It was the administration who refused to go to the FISA Court to seek
warrants. They could have gone to the FISA Court to seek these warrants
on a program basis, and they have done so subsequently.

It was the administration who withheld this surveillance program from
the vast majority of Members of Congress, and it was the administration
who developed the legal theories to explain why it could, in fact, go
around the law.

So I am pleased this bill includes independent reviews of the
administration's actions to be conducted by the inspectors general of
the relevant departments.

All of that said, when the legislation was before the Senate in
February, I stated my belief that immunity should only be provided if
the defendant companies acted legally, or if they acted in good faith
with a reasonable belief that their actions were legal. That is what the
law calls for.

I moved an amendment to require the court to review the written requests
to companies to see whether they met the terms of the law. That law
requires that a specific person send a certification in writing to a
telecommunications company. That certification is required to state that
no court order is required for the surveillance, that all statutory
requirements have been met, and that the assistance is required by the
Government.

Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, but I continue to believe
it is the appropriate standard.

Now, the pending legislation does not assess whether the request made by
the Government was, in fact, legal, nor whether the companies had a
good-faith and objective belief that the requests were legal. What this
bill does provide is a limited measure of court review. It is not as
robust as my amendment would have provided, but it does provide an
opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard in court, and it provides an
opportunity for the court to review these request documents.

I believe the court should not grant immunity without looking into the
legality of the companies' actions. So if there is an amendment that
does support this, I would intend to vote for it.

But I believe the Record should be clear in noting that if this bill
does become law, in my view, it does not mean the Congress has passed
judgment on whether any companies' actions were or were not legal.
Rather, it should be interpreted as Congress recognizing the
circumstances under which the companies were acting and the reality that
we desperately need the voluntary assistance of the private sector to
keep the Nation secure in the future.

I believe this bill balances security and privacy without sacrificing
either. It is certainly better than the Protect America Act in that
regard, and makes improvements over the 1978 FISA law.

As I said, if a new bill is not in place by mid-August, the Nation will
be laid bare and unable to collect intelligence.

This bill provides for meaningful and repeated court review of
surveillance done for intelligence purposes. It ends, once and for all,
the practice of warrantless surveillance, and it protects Americans'
constitutional rights both at home and abroad. It provides the
Government with the flexibility it needs under the law to protect our
Nation. It makes it crystal clear that this is the law of the land and
that this law must be obeyed.

I yield the floor.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[Doctor_J]

6. Oh, good. THey're going to minimize the private data they

keep while illegally spying on me. Are they going to minimize what they took pre-9/11. I'll give this to Feinswine: She was prepared with a very long form letter. :eyes:

[Bennyboy]

7. Awesome......

I sent her a very similar letter myself. I wish I had the writing skills though.

And the part about rioting? I can't believe we are not already doing it. Where I live people are in full preperation mode.