In recent weeks, there has been lot of conflicting information floating around about efforts by House Democrats to protect the country by adopting rules for intelligence gathering that are both flexible and constitutional. This week, President Bush suggested that my legislative alternative to this summer's hastily-enacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the "Protect America Act," would take away important tools from our intelligence community. He characterized as "obstruction" the skepticism that many of us have about granting amnesty to telecommunications carriers who may have cooperated in warrantless surveillance. I was disappointed that the President did not propose any concrete steps to improve our capabilities or protect our freedoms -- he just repeated his demand for immunity.
This comes close on the heels of a recent controversy concerning the House Democrats' FISA legislation stemming from Joe Klein's column in Time Magazine on November 21st, in which his Republican sources seem to have spun a tale that led Mr. Klein to characterize our efforts as "more than stupid."
I believe that it is time for a comprehensive and detailed response to the President's accusations of obstruction, the misinformation in the Time Magazine column, and the debate over warrantless surveillance. Below is that response. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to pass along to your friends and colleagues.
Joe Klein's recent column deriding the House-passed FISA legislation, along with his subsequent stumblingefforts to clarify its intent, and Time Magazine's failure to publish the protests my Democratic colleagues and I had regarding its many inaccuracies are only the most recent manifestation of disinformation put forth concerning the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program and legislative efforts to modify the law. As the lead author, along with Silvestre Reyes, of the RESTORE Act, allow me to set the record straight once and for all.
First, contrary to GOP and media spin, the RESTORE Act does not grant "terrorists the same rights as Americans." Section 105A of the RESTORE Act explicitly provides that foreign-to-foreign communications are totally exempt from FISA – clearly, this exception for foreigners such as members of Al Qaeda does not apply to Americans. In cases involving foreign agents where communications with Americans could be picked up, Section 105B of the legislation provides for liberalized "basket warrant" procedures by which entire terrorist organizations can be surveilled without the need to obtain individual warrants from the FISA court. Again, this new authority is aimed at foreign terrorists, not Americans.
Mr. Klein appears to base much of his criticism of our bill on our use of the term "person" to describe who may be surveilled, based on the suggestion of a Republican "source" that this risks an interpretation that terrorist groups would not be covered. The truth is that under FISA the term person has been clearly defined for almost thirty years to include "any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power." It is also notable that both the RESTORE Act, and the Administration's bill passed this summer, contain the exact same language that Mr. Klein questions, yet we've never heard an objection to the Administration's bill on this score.
Second, I must strongly disagree with Mr. Klein's assertion that the Speaker "quashed ... a bipartisan [compromise] effort." As the Chairman of the Committee with principal jurisdiction over FISA, the House Judiciary Committee, I am aware of no effort to prevent bipartisan compromise on this issue. As a matter of fact, last summer, beginning in July, Democrats tirelessly negotiated with Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell, to develop consensus legislation to address the Administration's stated concerns about our intelligence capability.
We addressed every one of the concerns Mr. McConnell raised. He said he needed to clarify that a court order was not required for foreign-to-foreign communications -- our bill did just that. McConnell said he needed an assurance that telecommunications companies would be compelled to assist in gathering of national security information – our bill did that. The DNI said he needed provisions to extend FISA to foreign intelligence in addition to terrorism – the bill did that. He asked us to eliminate the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how recurring communications to the United States from foreign targets would be handled – the bill did that. McConnell insisted that basket warrants be structured to allow additional targets to be added after the warrant was initially approved – again, the bill did that. When this legislation was described to DNI McConnell, he acknowledged that "it significantly enhances America's security.''
Yet, suddenly, on the eve of the vote, Director McConnell withdrew his support after consultation with the White House. If the media wanted to identify over-the-top partisanship, they could begin by citing the declaration of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, that "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious FISA Court," and DNI McConnell's assertion that by merely having an open debate on surveillance, "some Americans are going to die."
Third, the RESTORE Act legislation is badly needed to provide accountability to the Bush Administration's unilateral approach to surveillance. The warrantless surveillance program has been riddled with deceptions that only began to come to light when The New York Times first disclosed the existence of the program in 2005. The program itself appears to directly violate FISA and the Fourth Amendment, as a federal court, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, numerous Republican legislators, and independent legal scholars have found.
The Administration has also mischaracterized the existence, degree, extent and nature of the program itself as well as how much information it has shared with Congress. For instance, compare the President's speech in 2004 with his admission that there was indeed a program of warrantless surveillance. When high-ranking DOJ officials found the program lacking, the White House went to absurd, if not comical lengths, to convince a dangerously ill and hospitalized Attorney General Ashcroft to overrule them. Even today, the Administration continues to obscure its own past misconduct with extravagant claims that the "state secrets" doctrine bars any legal challenges whatsoever - a position that has been rejected by the Court of Appeals.
Against that backdrop, it is clear we need a new law with the critical oversight provisions included in the RESTORE Act, such as requiring the Administration to turn over relevant documents to Congress, mandating periodic Inspector General reports, and acknowledging that the Administration is indeed bound by FISA.
Finally, the Administration has yet to explain why offering retroactive immunity to telephone giants who may have participated in an unlawful program is vital to our national security. Under current law, the phone companies can easily avoid liability if they can establish they received either an appropriate court order or legal certification from the Attorney General. Asking Congress to grant legal immunity at a time when the Administration has refused to provide the House of Representatives with relevant legal documents for more than eleven months is not only unreasonable, it is irresponsible.
Civil liberties and national security need not be contradictory policies, rather they are inexorably linked. Perhaps nowhere is this interrelationship more true than in intelligence gathering, where information must be reliable and untainted by abuse to be useful. So when we discuss FISA, the first thing we need to do is drop the partisan rhetoric, and stick to the actual record. Under the RESTORE Act, the intelligence community has the flexibility to intercept communications by foreign terrorists without obtaining individual warrants, and the Court and Congress are given the authority to perform their constitutional oversight roles. The only parties who lose in this process are the terrorists, and those who want the executive branch to have absolute and unreviewable power.
Rather than being, in Mr. Klein's words, "well beyond stupid," the RESTORE Act offers a smart and well balanced approach to updating FISA and reining in the excesses of an unchecked executive branch. Your Friend, John Conyers, Jr.
Representative John Conyers, Jr., a Detroit Democrat, was re-elected to the 14th Congressional District in November 2004, to his 20 term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Dear Mr Conyers, Please don't attempt to compromise with the far right. As you have seen, they do not respond in a spirit of compromise. But worse, your bill lends legitimacy to the idea that there is a terrorist threat that the United States needs to address. The 'international terrorist conspiracy' is a bogey man, concocted by the Administration for the purpose of justifying war, oppression, and domestic surveillance. I ask you to stand up to this ruse and name it loud and clear. Withdraw your compromise FISA bill. Instead, demand a fresh and full investigation into what really happened on 9/11. -Josh Mitteldorf
by
Josh Mitteldorf (17 articles, 53 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 37 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 9:21:43 AM
Thanks for the explanation, but it's too bad, Congressman Conyers, that the President wasn't prosecuted immediately following the exposure of his warrantless wiretapping program, an offense to the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a direct violation of the 1978 FISA Act - a felony I might add. If Congress had acted then we would not be in this mess. Surely you must know that.
I'll repeat then what I said directly to you in Newark, New Jersey in August, Impeach Now. You know the crimes. You wrote the book on it. Set things straight and then work to restore our tattered Constitution.
On November 5, I faxed you about 15 pages of pledges from citizens across the country who have, because of your inaction and the inaction of your colleagues, pledged to no longer support the Democratic Party. By not holding the Bush/Cheney administration fully accountable which can only be done through the impeachment process you are explicitly complicit in their crimes. Since November, the pledges have continued to pour in and some of them can be viewed at: People's Voice .
I agree that this topic of granting more power to a lawless executive is basicall collusion in the crimes that the executive commits. Not proceeding imediately on Articles of impeachment is aiding in the obstruction of justice.
The word Terrorist needs a solid definition. It is currently quite vague. It is currently used in a way that mere civil disobediance can be considered terrorism. The officials that have been running our show are terrorists and have been ivolved in illegal arms sales to terrorist nations, yet they have not been procecuted.
The Sons of Liberty would be considered terrorist along with any of our Founding Fathers.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 276 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 11:41:54 AM
Rep. Conyers, you swore an Oath to defend the Constitution
Republocrats and the Corporate media are pretending that the Bush Administration is not treasonous and criminal, and that impeachment is not warranted. However, as Rep. Conyers must know well, 43% of Americans want Cheney impeached and removed, and 70% say he's abused his powers as VP. 34% want Bush impeached and removed, and 64% say he's abused his powers as President.
This is the attitude among Americans- and this without any substantive investigations by Congress (Rep. Conyers, will you please tell Rep. Waxman to hold public hearings into Sibel Edmond's allegations, as he promised? And will you tell your colleagues in the Sentate to get on with Phase 2 of the investigation into pre-Iraq war intel?), and without any substantive coverage by the MSM of the litany of treasonous acts and crimes committed by Bush Administration principals.
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 417 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 12:43:50 PM
it is amazing that you spend so much time and effort to debunk barking of the dog ( Klein) while a wolf ( Bush) had already eaten quite a herd. Wow, if only you have spent enough time on a wolf we might not have 9/11.
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 1:54:25 PM
To set the record straight, if you had done your job, Bush might not still be president and the Constitution would be on it's way to being restored. It's true that I haven't walked in your shoes, but that's what it looks like to me.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 2:36:01 PM
I used to look up to Conyers. His Party ? Never again. imho, Conyers and the whole BC should have split from the Dems ...over two years ago. But what the hell do I know ? Jack. That's what I know. Jack and no mo than Jack.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 1343 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 3:32:00 PM
A postion of honor is it not, to 'represent' those citizens on whose behalf you have asked for and been given such. Your oath to "defend the constitution" is no doubt a moment which gives you great pride.
Your country needs you to 'act'. Stop this rhetoric. Remember your oath. You were given the honor to represent those who gave you the trust you asked for.
In your soul you know what to do. Look at your kids. Tell me, what are we leaving them? Stand up.
Do it.
back to work....
by
mikel paul (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 394 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 7:12:43 PM
not a single commenter cares about Conyer's justification of the Dem's FISA waffling; every commenter wants Bush impeached, not given more powers to spy on Americans.
Take note, Rep. Conyers, if you want to get re-elected; 50% of Dems want Bush impeached and removed w/o further investigation, and 63% feel that way about Cheney. You would do well to not block Kucinich's impeachment bill, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which you chair.
Thanks to the Web, Americans are no longer limited to the fascist propaganda approved by those 5 mega-corps that control nearly all the major media. Only 50% of Americans believe the idiot box anyway, and as people get disgusted with the obvious lies, distortions and omissions, they turn to the Web looking for independent sources, and then they find out the lies and spin were much worse than they thought.
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 417 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 6:43:31 PM
This is exactly the kind of calling out that the press and administration need when they engage in these kinds of lies and poorly researched journalism.
Keep up the good work, sir!
by
Steven Leser (211 articles, 44 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1387 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 9:39:01 PM
I applaud your ability, Steve, to stick to your loyalties in the face of a veritable tidal wave of opposition here. However is it not time for you to actually address the many criticisms of both Conyer's stance and the inaction of the Party you call home? Better yet, perhaps a reassessment of your loyalties is in order.
What struck me in reading the article above was the incredible naivete displayed, or postured at any rate. Has the Democratic Party just emerged for a seven year sleep? Did they not expect that the propaganda machine would be in full on mode? Were they caught unaware that their position would be distorted and belittled by those who prosper under an administration that seeks to increase its power daily and that brooks no interference?
If Rep. Conyers is this naive ( and I think this display no more than a posturing tool) then he should step down and let a better person take his place in the halls of power. For seven full years the GOP has twisted the incompetent Democratic Party around its little finger, almost toyed with them in both Houses, and that remains true now that the Dems are a majority. One might surmise that, at some poiint in that period of time some bright bulb in the party might have spoken out for a unanimity of stance and an effective methodology for communicating clearly to the public what it is they were trying to accomplish...if indeed they themselves had a clue!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 6:57:09 AM
I understand Steven. He isn't quite sure what to believe. I know I'm not. I haven't abandoned the party yet. I keep hoping that enough of our Reps in the party will actually see that its put up or shut up time. Any type of wiggle room is getting real scarce. Revelation upon Revelation of concerted corruption with the criminals on one side and the lookouts providing cover on the other surface nearly every day.
People know which of the candidates gathered millions in their warchests to further this TREASON. Either you are a part of the solution or you are part of the problem, isn't that the way the saying went back in the 70's.
I would caucus for Kucinich if our whimpy Reps would stand up for what is truly Right and back the Articles. Cheney would be a nice start. He was involved in previous illegal arms sales to Iran. I have a vague memory of the deal. Arms to the terrorist support for the Contras and some Cocaine on the side.
I guess I'll change parties an join the Ron Paul Revolution at least his beliefs in the Constitution are deeper then writting a book and sitting on the issue when it finally gets placed in your lap.
I understand thats it is easier to be quiet. Most likely then you don't have to worry about the Anthax that these criminals mailed out early on. Its easier to quietly support the Free trade movement, open our borders for wage suppression, and exploit workers globally even if it includes killing thousands of our citizens in the process. Its easier to support the EMPIRE then it is risking your life for the PEOPLE.
The troops risk their lives because they believe in Honor unlike most of our Reps. Too often our troops end up dying from ammunition and weapons made here and sold by our shadow government.
Here are a few quotes to think about from our past:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering, one of Hitler's top Nazis, at the Nuremberg trials.
“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such a twilight that we must be aware of the change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice
"There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy."-- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 276 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 9:46:08 AM
Do you know how to tell if John Conyers is lying? HIS LIPS ARE MOVING.
I have not believed a WORD You have said since the UFPJ March in January, that "Bush can't fire us but WE can fire HIM" thing... You were lying! You don't have the pantalones or the cojones to Impeach Bush or Cheney.
Blow Me!
by
DinahMason (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 12:26:21 AM
I hope, Sir, that you are not discouraged from further articles here, by the many who quite rightfully choose to remind you of the need for Impeachment . . . as I, for one, do value the fact that you enter this 'people's dialogue' known as OpEdNews. Not leastwise because it gives us the opportunity to respond directly to you.
I am also glad for the nature of the response you have gotten! For I entirely share the concern and viewpoint of the others . . . which I expect you hear over and over and over again! You are the KEY CONGRESSMAN on the impeachment issue, and you need to hear the people's voice on it over and over and over again.
But I offer one thought about it that I'm not sure you've heard before: Do you know (I expect you DO) what a conspiracy is? I think there is a conspiracy among certain powerful Congressional Representatives to subvert the sworn duty of the House of Representatives: its duty to truthfully and honorably do the bidding of the people they represent. And I accuse you, Sir, of being one of those conspirators.
You were very high in my esteem, when all this began . . . when you spoke loudly and clearly about the need for impeachment proceedings. And I thought well of Nancy Pelosi when she was invested with the authority of House Speaker. I also thought well of the Democratic majority newly elected in the House.
That was a year ago. My faith in the party has since been entirely destroyed. My faith in the entire system of government we live under has been shattered. I see no honor there . . . none whatsoever. And I know I'm not alone in these perceptions. Whatever your purposes, Sir, the net effect of your actions (your lack of action, in this instance) has been to undercut the very basic design of this onetime democracy.
You have one more year to show your true colors, if they be any different from what you've already shown.
by
Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 83 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 12:39:29 AM
I feel for you, Mr Conyers, but offer some grave concerns
Hello Mr Conyers
First let me thank you for opening up the discussion thread with the public. This is very, very good of you to do and I "feel" for you when reading the emotional tenor of these responses.
Yet I share their views too. I feel very much betrayed as an American, by Congress at large, and the fact that you yourself have not moved toward impeachment. American freedom is a very, very serious matter and not to be toyed with.
I don't know what you might be up against internally. Anthrax? Other threats? To yourself or your family? I put NOTHING, NOTHING past two men who are capable of even dreaming of going to war based on a lie (the ordinary person couldn't even think of it, let alone do it) and it must not be easy at all to be up against such a mentality.
And yet, we the people are now the vulnerable ones too. And that is why there is so much anger on this forum.
And mass murderers must be stopped. Their hands must be tied. With handcuffs.
I echo the ACLU's and other organizations' facts, plus experiences having lived next door to the Iron Curtain, to underscore my deep, deep concerns with your statements about why we should trust the Restore Act:
A) Basket warrants by-pass judicial review in individualized cases, which by definition means that the power of the judiciary is being undermined as a fundamental "check" on government power. Not funny. What's the outcome of such unchecked power?
B) How does a "basket" warrant take aim at any one person, any group, any anything? Basket is basket. Period.
C) MOre than ten legal entities that I know of, across the partisan spectrum, ALL agree, unanimously: The Patriot Act definition of "Terrorist" includes activists, religious and peace groups in its sweep. And the ACLU's website is FULL of endless statistics of activists being cracked down on as "terrorists". Which seems strategic to me. The beginnings of authoritarian government at work. Uh-oh.
So who are you and Congress talking about when you say that "Terrorists" are being targeted? I don't trust that at all.
In fact, FBI agent Mike German emailed ACLU members that only ONE terrorist has been caught since 9-11 from the use of National Security Letters. For the sake of readers on this forum, NSL's are FBI-issued subpoenas for medical, phone, internet and other private records. The NSL gag orders with five-year jail sentences for the crime of telling a single soul that such a subpoena was received, being issued by the unilateralwhim of the individual FBI agent, do not require judicial review and wrap up the subpoena in such secrecy that even Congress doesn't know when it's happening, or how often, or to whom. Here is an unstated 2+2: Why the secrecy of NSL's (gag orders, jail for talking, Red China-like) to follow up on wiretapping by basket "warrant" ?
D) That the warrants can be added on to at a future date has me even more concerned, not less. WHO will be added on to the warrant? For what purpose? Like the Thomas Merton PEace Center in Philadelphia, PA, targeted by the FBI "because of advocating, among other political positions, pacifism" (as per the declassified FBI document posted to the ACLU's website) ? Like the forgiveness-oriented Quaker group, the American Friends Service COmmittee, which sent an email stating they had been OFFICIALLY dubbed a "terrorist" organization ? Like Bread Not Bombs, Greenpeace.....all dubbed as "Terrorists" ? Do these "Terrorists" deserve the Guantanamo treatment?
E) The fact that the "terrorists" at Guantanamo have been proven to be innocent in more than 70% of the cases (according to the Red Cross), and not so much as charged with a single crime (according to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights), is itself a crime ring in action.
Enduring the equivalent of murder in the absence of actual death, being "tortured" (euphemism) by invoking pain levels "equivalent to severe organ failure and death" as defined in the Military Commissions Act, plus no habeas corpus, no access to attorney....and the President granted immunity from being prosecuted as war criminal as he unilaterally "interprets" the Constitution and Geneva Conventions...should these statistics and those details of the "law" give us AMericans any peace?
Let's connect the dots:
MR CONYERS, AT LEAST IN MY SUSPICION (AND I COULD BE WRONG) CONGRESS IS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO CONVERT US TO A DICTATORSHIP.
WIRETAPPING AND SURVEILLANCE LED TO THE TRAILING OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, TO THE FBI COERCING HIM TO COMMIT SUICIDE, AND FINALLY TO HIS MURDER. THAT IS WHY WIRETAPPING AND SURVEILLANCE LAWS WERE PASSED IN THE FIRST PLACE. SUCH ARE THE WORDS OF AL GORE AND THE ACLU.
BETWEEN WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING + THE DEFINITION OF "TERRORIST" AS LOOSELY DEFINED AS IT IS IN THE PATRIOT ACT, + THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO "INTERPRET" THE CONSTITUTION AND GENEVA CONVENTIONS, PLUS NO HABEAS CORPUS/ATTORNEY TO PROVE ANYONE'S INNOCENCE... *WHO* IS VULNERABLE TO BEING DISAPPEARED?
"PARANOIA"? TRY "DENIAL" INSTEAD. IT'S BEEN LEGISLATED TO HAPPEN. IT WOULDN'T BE LEGISLATED UNLESS INTENDED TO BE DONE. (????) ("Paranoia" : Who would ever have thought the Nazi Concentration Camps were happening? And yet they did. What's to say that our government is not capable of violent crimes too, especiallywhen we have wars and more wars based on lies? With Congress opening up the purse to fund them, continually?)
AND WHAT ABOUT THE INVOCATION OF THE TERM "STATE SECRETS" *EVERY TIME* A CIVIL LIBERTIES VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED??? WHAT IS THE *PURPOSE* OF THAT? THEREFORE, WHAT IS THE *PURPOSE* OF WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING? WHAT OF THE FACT THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RECENTLY ASSERTED ITS RIGHT TO KIDNAP ANYBODY, ANYWHERE?? I AGREE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY: THIS IS INDEED A MATTER OF "NATIONAL SECURITY!" IT'S *OUR* SECURITY, NATIONALLY, WHICH IS AT STAKE! YOU BET!
Mr Conyers, I regret to say that this matter has nothing to do with hunting down terrorism. I know that terrorism is a real threat to be concerned about, but warrantless ANYTHING and "basket" ANYTHING is only to threaten and frankly to target the people, not to protect anybody.
Further, to ask us to pay for suchabuse to ourselves with our own tax dollars is twisting the knife which already has been slammed into our guts.
Mr Conyers, as vociferous as you now know me to be, trust me I would be just as vociferous in protecting your best interest if We, the People are informed that Congress has been in any way threatened by two mass murderes holding nuclear weapons in their hands. You bet the vehemence you read here will look out for you too, not only for those I now speak so vigorously to defend!
YOu have many points of view to consider and too many people to please in order to stay in Congress, Mr Conyers. Your conflict is understandable. But the outcome to us citizens is NOT understandable or even forgivable.
But I thank you for opening up the door to our public input. And I regret any harshness you receive for opening up the door. YOu did not vote for the torture bill (Military Commissions Act) and in my best recollection, I seem to remember that you did not vote for the Patriot Act. In that case, thank you Mr Conyers.
Please impeach. Ohhh please, please please. So much is at stake, it is the darkest hour we have ever seen, the nightmare of my life come to reality. Never do I want to see the day when Tianenmen Square happens in America.
Future presidents will get the message that they, too, can literally get away with murder if impeachment does not go through. And they too will trample the "god-damned piece of paper" otherwise known as the US COnstitution. I would rather leave the country and stop paying taxes here than live through this Constitution-raping crime spree in action.
PLEASE IMPEACH AND PLEASE TIE THE FEET OF TWO SUPPOSEDLY LAME DUCKS WHO ARE JUST REALLY FLYING HIGH!!!
THank you for listening and for your compassionate consideration, Mr Conyers. Please forgive my vociferous style. It is based on living experience. I know first-hand what dictatorship is like, and it ain't pretty. I will not live to see the day this happens. Please help us, Mr Conyers. Thank you.
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 3:16:27 AM
The terrorists we need to be very afraid of are the two controlling the executive branch. Fisa should be thrown out since it is just a weak excuse for data mining. Also, the administration isn't really worried about warrants because they don't ever intend to go to court with any people they detain as "terrorists". They just hold them forever. So the warrant thing is just to keep congress off balance, as if this roll over congress needs any help.
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 117 comments)
on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 4:34:58 AM
