OK everybody, help my daughter to respond.

[mantis49]

My daughter, at my urging, wrote to her Representative about the NSA spying and requested impeachment of *. This is the reply she received:


**********************
Thank you for contacting me regarding President Bush authorizing the National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance of suspected terrorists. Protecting our nation from terrorist threats is one of the most important issues we have faced in recent years, and it is prudent that the President take all necessary measures within the law to ensure our safety. Based upon the Constitution, previous presidential actions, legislative actions, and court precedents, the President has taken appropriate actions within the law to protect the nation from terrorist threats.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as passed in 1978, provided a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. In so doing, the Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and personal privacy rights.

Regarding Constitutional authority, the actions of the President appear to be legal and in full compliance with the Constitution. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the President with commander in chief privileges. This section provides great powers to the President, during times of war, it is necessary for the President to lead the nation and take action as the military leader that will protect the country from attacks. The War on Terror is unique in that it presents our country with threats unlike we have faced in traditional wars of the past with other nations. Instead, the terrorists are mobile and, based upon the events of September 11 th , will take any actions to strike terror into the hearts of innocent American civilians in efforts to weaken our resolve. These new threats, along with emerging technologies, require vigorous, equally creative, and swift actions by the commander in chief to protect the nation.

In addition, previous presidents have engaged in, and authorized, similar activities in regards to foreign intelligence. They have issued Executive Orders authorizing the use of warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes. Executive Order 12139, issued on May 23, 1979 by President Carter, stated, " the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." Also, Executive Order 12949, issued by President Clinton in 1995, similarly stated, " the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year." Thus, precedent has been established over the years by the Executive Branch allowing surveillance without court orders or warrants. Given that the NSA's surveillance under Bush was for individuals with links to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations, the actions taken by the president are justified and within scope of executive authority established over the last quarter century.

Not only have previous presidents legally engaged in similar activities over the years, but the courts have also upheld the use of warrantless searches in unique and narrowly tailored cases such as national security. In the court case In Re: Sealed Case (2002), a special court composed of United States Circuit Court of Appeals judges stated that, "all of the courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches (emphasis added) to obtain foreign intelligence information." In addition, a 1972 Supreme Court decision stated that the president does not have the authority to order wiretaps without warrants for domestic threats, but the decision left open the possibility that different procedures may be applied for threats from abroad. (emphasis mine)

Lastly, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act gave the president the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent further attacks such as Sept. 11. Thus, the actions of the president to authorize surveillance are an example of the president taking appropriate measures to monitor the activities of individuals implicated with al Qaeda. Based on these examples and the evidence presented against the President to date, it is my opinion that the President is acting within his authority, and he has violated neither established laws nor the systems of checks and balances.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me regarding this very important issue. Protecting the United States from terrorist threats, while maintaining the balance of individual rights and liberties, is a difficult task, and we must be vigorous in simultaneously attempting to achieve these sometimes competing goals. Hearing the views of all Georgians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues impact the people of Georgia and the future interests of our nation. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this serious subject and look forward to continuing to represent the Eighth District of Georgia in Congress.

For additional information regarding current legislation and the Eighth District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/westmoreland


Sincerely,
Lynn A Westmoreland
Member of Congress

***************

I know the examples cited have been twisted as to fact and circumstances, but I need your help with specifics. My daughter is pissed and I'd like to give her the ammunition for a rebuttal letter.

I suppose it would be too much to hope she could change a Repub mind.:eyes:

[seabeyond]

1. firstly bush is a consistant and constant liar so we dont trust him

without oversight. we believe he is also listening in on people that have no reason to be bugged, but for political gain. secondly, bush broke the law. period. a lot of rambling in justifying what bush did, but the bottom line, whoever the representitive is just proves their lack of worth in representing the american people.

[mantis49]

6. Would FISA take precedence over a 1972 Supreme Court

ruling? Wasn't one of the problems in 1972 the fact that Nixon was overreaching and there was no specific law to prevent it? My understanding is that FISA came about because of Nixon.

[mantis49]

9. On second thought.......

Now I'm talking to myself:crazy:. The 1972 decision was about domestic spying. FISA is about foreign intelligence, right?

[seabeyond]

10. fisa's pissed. that is exactly why they were placed there

from what i understand, and dont quote me, as long as one call is from out of country it is ok. but if it is two calls within u.s. they break the law. they need a warrant. that warrant can be obtain anywhere from 72 hours to 15 days? i have heard two different things, AFTER they start the tapping. most all the warrants are approved, strong number of approval, in the high 90%'s. there was no reason for bush to do that, but he was tapping people fisa wouldnt give him warrants for.

[ClassWarrior]

2. But they're not in office anymore. Bush** is. And it's still illegal.

NGU.

[bluestateguy]

3. Clinton did it too! See! See! Clinton did it too!

You'd think with all of the times these people rely on that line of defense they must now think that Clinton was one hell of a president.

Maybe we could bring him back? Or at least they could apologize for the impeachment.

[StoryTeller]

4. Emphasis is on the word "Foreign."

As I understand it (and someone correct me if I've got it wrong), there have been cases where there have been surveillance without warrant on FOREIGNERS. What Bush has been doing is spying on US citizens or others legally residing in the United States. He claims that it was strictly people with links to terrorist suspects, and that it was only for communications between a domestic resident and a foreigner outside the US. But the fact is, it's still against the law because it involved domestic people.

There was a post on DU this evening that gave the text of a letter written by several Constitutional scholars outlining why this was illegal. It would have the best info available, I would think.

Good luck! You must be proud of your daughter for taking this stand. :)

[mantis49]

8. I am.

She's wondering if she was caught up in it. Her fiance (husband now) is British and he was calling her from London when he had to return there for a while.

[StoryTeller]

11. That's just wrong...

Nobody should have to worry that their private conversation with their spouse is being tapped. I suppose chances are pretty small that it was, but still, she shouldn't even have to spend a moment worrying about this. I hope Congress or somebody with some remaining power does the right thing and hold Bush accountable for it.

Many good wishes and lots of happiness (and privacy) to your daughter and son-in-law. :)

[seabeyond]

12. this is when bush told on himself. the article from nyt was saying

spying on americans within border. and bush said he is allowed. that was him admitting to the crime. now almost a month later he is saying all calls had one party outside of the u.s., changing his story. NOT what the hyt reported and not what he said when he first addressed it

[leftstreet]

5. "Dear Ms Westmoreland, when are you up for re-election?"

I hate it when our "representatives" respond by telling us how we should think. This creep has no class.

[ArbustoBuster]

17. I think this is a great response.

Make the creep realize that the people can vote her sorry butt out of office.

[leftstreet]

19. That's right! They only serve at OUR discretion.

And welcome to DU!
:toast:

[brystheguy]

7. The Clinton quote is taken out of context.

The RNC spread that one around and only included part of it. The part they "forgot" to add adds that they may do this if that person is NOT an American citizen.

[StoryTeller]

13. Here's the link to the Constitutional scholars' response

I mentioned it in my post earlier that this letter had been signed by 14 constitutional scholars. It has a lot of good info in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x92335

[mantis49]

15. Thanks.

Excellent information. :)

[NanceGreggs]

14. Dear Mr. Representative: (a serving suggestion)

I am struck by your use of words, to whit:

"The actions of the President APPEAR TO BE LEGAL and in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Constitution."

Considering the importance of the President's position as the leader of a democracy, where the law is the rule of the land for all Americans, and given the vast resources the President can avail himself of in terms of legal counsel, in particular Constitutional experts, why would it be that his actions are being couched in terms like 'appear to be legal and in compliance'?

One would expect that if there were any question of legality and/or Constitutional compliance, the President would have been more circumspect, and would have insisted that his advisors conduct all possible due diligence before taking any action that has such wide-sweeping impact on our nation.

As an American citizen, I am deeply troubled by the fact that nebulous terms like the 'appearance of legality and compliance' are being used after-the-fact, when the removal of any doubt of same should have, and could have, been determined beyond any question before embarking on his present course.

Perhaps if the President spent more time ensuring that his actions were on solid legal ground, and less time clearing brush and posing for photo-ops, he would not be facing the spectre of possible impeachment hearings at this point in his presidency.

I trust that if you have any influence with Mr. Bush, you will, as a valued friend and loyal party member, counsel him accordingly.

[fooj]

16. I'd also point this out...

Thus, the actions of the president to authorize surveillance are an example of the president taking appropriate measures to monitor the activities of individuals implicated with al Qaeda.

If little Lord Pissypants bothered to READ his briefings and LISTENED to his advisors, he'd have known plenty about the threat of Al Qaeda. BTW- since he has decided to bypass the NSA( which was and still is totally unnecessary), how IS that hunt for Al Qaeda going? He doesn't "spend much time thinking about Bin Laden" so why does he feel the need to strip the citizens of this country of their basic, fundamental rights? That's a hard-sell, IMO. To date, how many members of Al Qaeda have been arrested because of these illegal wiretaps?

Ask her if she has read the Government Report re: NSA Wiretaps...Don't think they'd agree.

Peace.

[mantis49]

18. I have to go to bed.

Thanks, and keep the suggestions coming. I'll check in in the A.M.

[yellowdogmi]

20. I read on DU yesterday where

In order to conduct warrantless serches the Attorney General had to attest to the need for the survielance. In the cases where they claim that Clinton did it too, they first went to the attorney general for legal oversight. Additionally, we may be putting the cart in front of the horse. I would suggest that your daughter ask Westmoreland to support HR635 which will investigate the program. Calling for impeachment before the facts are in will not seem rational. If she is really that angry she can also support HR 636 and 637 which call for impeachment and censure of Bush and Cheney.
One more point, If the president had the inherent power to call for these wire taps why did he originally seek this power from congress after 9-11. When congress refused to grant this he just claimed he did not need the approval of congress. I believe it was Tom Daschle that pointed this out. You may google that to be sure. I hope this helps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x92335

[mantis49]

21. I don't know exactly what she asked for.

I sent her the text of a letter I wrote, asking my Rep (Lane Evans-D) to join with John Conyers on those bills.

But why not ask for the moon?

[yellowdogmi]

22. Because I am trying

to sound reasonable. Instead of my normal, snarling, foaming at the mouth Repub hater that I actually am. NO seriously. It never hurts to ask for the moon. You are correct. I have heard the theory advanced that we shoot ourselves in the foot when we scream impeachment before the facts are in. I don't believe this for a second but what if the NSA program really was limited as W has said? Call for the investigation (HR635) and ask that they support HR636 & HR637 if appropriate.