Letter to the Trib Editor re FISA / PAA

I love the Trib but their editorials make me so angry sometimes... particularly today:

"If there ever were a time when this nation sought to be certain its spy agencies were operating at peak efficiency, this is it. Actually, there isn't a time when we'd want anything less. But something less is what we have at the moment, thanks to the Democratic leaders of the U.S. House.

Last week, the House left on recess without voting to renew a crucial terrorist surveillance bill. What does that mean to America's spies? It won't immediately interrupt wiretapping cases against terror targets already approved. But it could prevent authorities from opening new cases under the expanded powers they've had since last August. Any new targets now will be forced to go through an earlier, more cumbersome standard."

Here's my reply- I just emailed in to ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com :

To the Editor:

Regarding your editorial “A dangerous spy caper” (Feb 22) you ask the US House not to “play chicken” with the nation’s security and renew the Protect America Act with provisions for Telecom immunity. Perhaps you might consider that the President is the one “playing chicken” with our security? If he truly felt that the American People were imminently endangered by the expiration of PAA he would have signed the bill without the telecom immunity provisions. Are the telecom corporations' legal bills more important than our collective safety? Would they really drag their feet to comply with future legal requests? If so then that would be a future enforcement issue the executive branch has a duty to carry out. But perhaps the critical issue in this legislation for President Bush is his hope that no legal cases can be pursued whereby the public could learn the true depth of the surveillance dragnet he asked the Telecoms to put in place… This is not necessarily about “punishing” telecom companies that did what they were asked to do, its fundamentally about finding out WHAT they were asked to do. It’s about the Executive Branch of Government protecting itself from the checks and balances of Congressional and Judicial review, not just about protecting the telecoms.

You may call it “playing chicken”, I call it defending the Fourth Amendment from a Big Brother surveillance state. It is the key law American citizens have to protect themselves from Government power. This is what the Fourth Amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

If the Executive Branch will not uphold this part of the Constitution because they view it as insufficient to fight terrorism in the 21st Century electronic frontier, then they need to step forward and advocate amending the Constitution, not just asking for a bad bill that may in effect be unconstitutional anyway.

In our quest for physical safety from terrorists are we willing to live with the subdued but real terror of a weakened Constitution, weakened habeas corpus laws, and a government that has recently admitted to torture? These are the other “terrors” we need to be vigilant against while in pursuit of terrorists. The democratic freedom provided in the 4th Amendment is in essence one of the most highly valued democratic freedoms Americans ask our Government (all 3 branches, including the our Soldiers in Iraq) to fight FOR, not against. Let's not take it for granted. If this is important to you, tell your Congressman or Congresswoman.