PDA

View Full Version : Reply from Senator Regarding the Protect America Act of 2007




yaz
03-08-2008, 12:54 AM
A lot of people were angry that the Senate passed "PATRIOT Act #2" or the Protect America Act of 2007. My state senator voted YES :( Here's her reply to my email expressing disappointment:

Dear Mr. ***********:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provides the basic framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering. Over time, FISA has been amended to expand intelligence gathering to physical searches and access to certain business records. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act made significant changes to some FISA provisions in order to aid in the capture of suspected terrorists.

On August 5, 2007, the President signed the Protect America Act of 2007 into law. The Protect America Act updated FISA to close a critical gap relating to the surveillance of suspected terrorists and to address limitations on surveillance created by a 2007 FISA Court. The Protect America Act was a temporary measure that expired on February 16, 2008 after one 15-day extension. After months of careful analysis, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported S. 2248, a comprehensive bill reforming FISA and extending critical collection authorities for a period of six years. The bill includes important safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties, including procedures to prevent the dissemination of information about U.S. citizens that has been collected incidentally during certain surveillance activities.

S. 2248 contains a number of other provisions, including an extension of liability protection to electronic service providers that may have cooperated with the federal government after 9/11. Many of these firms face class action lawsuits in which the government may assert its privilege in order to protect sources and methods of intelligence collection. This privilege limits the ability of the companies to provide evidence to defend their alleged conduct. I recognize that some oppose the liability protection, but I joined 67 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the Senate Intelligence Committee bill because I believe that it is untenable to allow the lawsuits to proceed at the same time that we limit the ability of the defendants to produce evidence critical to their cases. The potential liability awards that might result could be catastrophic, negatively affecting the broader economy and signaling to these companies, and to other private entities that we may need to rely upon in the War on Terror, that their cooperation carries major risks. On a bi-partisan basis, the Senate passed S. 2248 with the liability protection provisions. The Senate now awaits action by the House.

Please know that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to safeguard the security of our nation while upholding our personal privacy rights and civil liberties.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator



--------

How should I reply?

Rhys
03-08-2008, 12:57 AM
Ask which she wants more, a powerful police state capable of detecting all forms of political violence, or America.

Jamsie 567
03-08-2008, 12:59 AM
These are the people we need to get the FUCK out of office.

Traders of America

Akus
03-08-2008, 12:59 AM
A lot of people were angry that the Senate passed "PATRIOT Act #2" or the Protect America Act of 2007. My state senator voted YES :( How should I reply?

Nice knowing you. So what do you plan to do after your senatorial term ending and reelection defeat?

RSLudlum
03-08-2008, 01:07 AM
How should I reply?


If they haven't violated any citizens' rights, then why do they need immunity? Tell her to stop defending the Communication Company Criminals and start defending the Constitution that she took an oath to uphold!!!!

Ex Post Facto
03-08-2008, 01:10 AM
Here is mine it's like talking to a brick wall:

-----------

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the protection of civil liberties and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I appreciate hearing from you.

The threat of international terrorism presents new challenges for our country. Terrorists are able to operate by taking advantage of the openness of our society by being here while still communicating with terrorists abroad. Therefore, the government has the challenging task of balancing it's responsibility to protect us from harm while also protecting the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

On October 18, 2007, the Senate Intelligence Committee passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) by a bipartisan vote of 13-2. This bill modernizes the current FISA law and amends the Protect America Act of 2007. The Senate is expected to take up this legislation on the floor in December.

It is very important to understand that electronic surveillance targeting a person within the United States will continue to require a court order under S. 2248. In fact, the bill requires the FISA court to make sure that the collection of information under this authority remains directed at individuals overseas. In the past, the government was required to go through a lengthy court approval process before critical intelligence could be gathered against a terrorist or other foreign intelligence targets located in a foreign country. Surveillance of any kind that is directed at someone in the United States will continue to require court approval.

S.2248 does provide limited immunity for thos private companies who assisted the government after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. This is to ensure that companies who had received legal assurances from our government before participating in the program are not now dragged through the courts for providing help with national security during a highly uncertain and unprecedented time in our nation's history. This limited immunity does not apply to government agencies or government officials.

The bill includes a time limit of six years to evaluate how the legislation is being carried out. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I take my responsibilities to scrutinize these programs very seriously, and I will continue to monitor how the intelligence community is following our laws.

Sincerely,

Richard Burr
United States Senator

devil21
03-08-2008, 03:33 AM
Bought and paid for.

constituent
03-08-2008, 07:41 AM
k.b.h is scum and always has been.

i wouldn't expect any different.

allyinoh
03-08-2008, 07:47 AM
I have given up on calling or writing my Congressman or Senators. What pisses me off the most is that I sit here and put thought into my letter and take the time and make everything perfect, send it off, then I get a stupid form letter back that doesn't answer my questions.

That tells me that my opinions don't matter. On March 4th I tried getting my neo-con Congressman out of there by voting for the RP Republican running however, my Congressman won 90%-10% unfortunately. My congressman didn't have the funds needed to really get his message out there, but he did a damned good job, I think anyway.

Good luck though in trying to get her to actually respond to you. I wouldn't hold your breath.

FrankRep
03-08-2008, 07:48 AM
More people need to start sending letters. Overwhelmed with the truth and post your letters.

Current letters to email Congress.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125222

Edu
03-08-2008, 08:57 AM
Recall.

You voted them in, now vote them out. (and have a RP selected guy ready)

TruthAtLast
03-08-2008, 09:45 AM
i got the same kind of letter when I sent my Congressman a letter regarding Net Neutrality. I agree that we need to just get these people out of office and we need to start saving all of these things in one place to use against them later.

sluggo
03-08-2008, 09:52 AM
Just sent emails to both of my Senators who supported this bill. Told them that they lost my support for good this time.

liberteebell
03-08-2008, 10:23 AM
They all need lessons on understanding the Constitution and what powers We the People give the federal government. They also need to be questioned about their oath. They do, after all, swear or affirm to uphold the Constitution.

Ask this question if you ever get to question them face-to-face: "What is the function of the federal government?". Most of 'em have no idea. To "do things for people" is the usual answer or they squirm. Anyone who can at least answer that question correctly has a chance...

P.S. I got a similar letter from my congressman. If I can find it, I'll post it.

robert4rp08
03-08-2008, 11:02 AM
Here's the response I received after contacting one of my senators:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the Protect America Act. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about this important issue.

After careful deliberation, I voted in favor of legislation to revise and update the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance (FISA) Act of 1978 to provide our intelligence community with the tools they need to target terrorists. This bill is not perfect, but it does improve on the legislation hurried into law last summer by the White House when it comes to strengthening civil liberties protections for Americans and enhancing judicial oversight.

In updating the FISA legislation, however, we did not need to extend retroactive immunity for those telecommunications firms that may have cooperated with the administration in warrantless surveillance programs. I proudly voted for the Dodd-Feingold amendment that would strip immunity from the bill, and I am disappointed the Senate did not agree to this important change. I believe that the retroactive immunity provision is inconsistent with the protections afforded every American by our Constitution. It is my hope that, when the House and Senate conference meet to reconcile the two different bills, they will agree to narrow and limit the immunity provisions for telecommunications firms.

I have been gratified to hear from so many of my constituents on this issue. Please be assured that I kept your concerns in mind as I deliberated and casted my vote. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my new web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this new online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

My reply was:
I appreciate the response. I find it questionable as to how a warrantless wiretapping program protects our civil liberties. It is in direct violation of the Constitution-- the document you swore under oath to support and defend. I do not feel safer in an America that justifies stripping away our liberties in the name of security. I applaud your vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment, but it's effect is moot considering you STILL voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act.

yaz
03-08-2008, 04:10 PM
My reply:

Dear Senator,

I appreciate the response. I find it questionable as to how a warrantless wiretapping program protects our civil liberties. It is in direct violation of the Constitution-- the document you swore under oath to support and defend. I do not feel safer in an America that justifies stripping away our liberties in the name of security. I also disapprove of your vote for the Dodd-Feingold amendment.