Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Po

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59381 ^ | January 17, 2006 | Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances

[Perlstein]

Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential

1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Laura Brinker, 202-715-1540, for Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, laura.brinker@dittus.com

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

The following can be attributed to PRCB members:

"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union

"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.checksbalances.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

[rdb3]

If the Federal government wants to wiretap a US citizen who has not made phone calls to or from terrorists and does not have any "serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda", on the basis that the tap 'has to do with national security' based on reasonable cause determined solely by the President, are they required to seek and obtain a warrant?

The one thing you left out here as it currently stands, is that these warrantless taps are on international communications. That's a key point. Your scenario leaves out that Al Qaeda, or any other Islamist terrorist group, could very well be operating within the States.

Anything within the United States and/or its territories still requires a warrant, even on those Islamist groups.

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[pissant]

I only support the direct call scenario and cases like the post Osama call. The rest should be done through the more traditional methods if they want to follow up on further removed persons.

So to answer your question, if it is demonstrated that the 4 steps removed system is being used on US CITIZENS, then I would want it curtailed. That is too random to be legal.

But they claimed that only about 5000 people have been subject to this. So I'd be quite suprised if more than a handful of 4 steppers were being monitored.

[rdb3]

Doesn't Congress have the power to declare / undeclare war?

Yes, it surely does have the power to decare war. Don't know about undeclaring war. But that takes us a long way away from what we're talking about here.

I'm not about to follow you around your endless number of circles. Stick on one subject, please.

This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

[lugsoul]

None of the legal rationales asserted by the Administration require this distinction.

And, as far as what is being monitored, we only know what we are told...

[lugsoul]

IF the 5000 number is accurate, or true, our difference on this issue may end up being the scariest of all. I think that 5000 MUST include the kind of 4-step-removed folks discussed above. Because otherwise, if (as you seem to think) it does not, then there are AT LEAST 5000 people in this country having direct communications with terrorists trying to attack us, or at least with suspicious patterns connecting their commications to these people. 5000 is a lot of people. More than the number of 'hard-core insurgents' in Afghanistan.

[churchillbuff]

Gee, I guess your "logic" says that bob barr and other "true conservatives" joining hands with moveon.org and al gore means nothing. """

My "logic" says that the Constitution means something. Checks and balances are there for a purpose. Marxism and liberalism believe in government power without restraint. I don't.

[lugsoul]

It took a long way to get here, but this is why, IMHO, some conservatives are angry about this program and some aren't. Some simply don't believe that it is limited to those who call terrorists or are called by them. Or people of similar proximity. Some do believe it.

I don't believe it. For a second. It is contrary to the very nature of government to be self-constrained.

[lugsoul]

Ah - it is perfectly clear now. You don't have 'positions.' You have 'sides.'

[pissant]

There are bound to be at LEAST 5000 terror sympathizers in this country with contacts as diverse as the commie insurgents in the Phillipines, the questioanble Saudi supported "charities", to british bred terror scum, etc etc. The number seems small to me.

[lugsoul]

"Sympathisers" usually far outnumber those who either take any action or communicate with those who do. There are a few hundred million AQ 'sympathisers' around the world. If there are 5000 that have actually taken some action that would subject them either to a FISA warrant or the standard of 'reasonableness' you have expressed, I'd be amazed. I'd also think we need to be making lots of arrests.

[Sandy]

And just where these heroes when Echelon first went on line under Clinton?

Weyrich and Barr were bitching about Echelon well before Bush was ever President. But fyi, this isn't even about Echelon, so your question is rather irrelevant.

[Just A Nobody]

Thank you.

parrot the leftist media line

There is a lot of that around here these days.

[pissant]

We've made some arrests. But I'm guessing out of those 5000, a good percentage are deemed to be non threats and dropped. And of the remaining percentage, it's more valuable to keep tabs on them unless they are planning something imminent. Catch the big fish that way.

Of course with the publicity due to the stinking leakers, it probably scuttled a bunch of leads.

[lugsoul]

Yep. We are catching all those big fish here.

Yes, that was sarcasm. Except for those folks who really believe that someone could do any significant damage to the Brooklyn Bridge with an acetylene torch, without being REALLY obvious for a REALLY long time.

[conserv13]

I think the argument was that the President has expanded powers in times of war. What exactly is a time of war is my question. Is it whatever the President says? Is it what the Pentagon says? Is it what Congress says?

My view is that it is dangerous for a President to have expanded powers and justify that by saying 'war on terror' when that war has no definable end.

[pissant]

Most big fish are overseas, I hope. If I recall, the way they blew that big fish up in Yemen with a hellfire missile was because he called here and got tracked.

I hope you don't think every arrest of a terrorist here, especially a non citizen, is being reported. In fact, I'm guessing a few foriegn nationals have just vanished. As it should be.

[inquest]

As noted on the NRO, The Corner, these are all Republicans, not conservatives, and have all been opposed to the war on terror on all levels. Bob Barr works for the ACLU, for Pete's sake.

Let's see some specifics (aside from Barr; we all know about him). Have any of them come out against the war in Iraq, for example? I'd have to doubt that David Keene could be opposed to the WOT "at all levels" and still write for FrontPageMag.com. So pardon me if this NRO canard sounds just a little bit on the tinfoilish side.

[inquest]

I'm asking you what you're going to do since you think it's so awful.

In other words, you're looking for an excuse to avoid the debate, because you've been checkmated since #145. There's only one way out for you, and that ain't it.

[inquest]

Ah - it is perfectly clear now. You don't have 'positions.' You have 'sides.'

They don't call them 'bots for nothing.

[lugsoul]

No, I don't think it is all being officially reported, or should be. But things happen when folks are being arrested that don't escape notice. Like when you heard a bunch of noise last night, and walk out into the hall of your apartment building and note that the door down the hall has been smashed to splinters. And then you notice that you don't ever see that guy around anymore.