First, here's my original letter, published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 1, 2006, and
diaried here that day and
here below is the first responder:
A direct assault!
Belower still is my draft response for hammering,
particularly but not exclusively
as to tone and length, should the ruthless be so inclined.
Let the debate flame on.
Here's me:
Spying outrages
The president's comments during his Dec. 17 radio address are deeply disturbing. He repeatedly ordered the National Security Agency to secretly spy on Americans and he's going to keep on doing it, to protect me?
The president proudly acknowledges violating: (1.) The Fourth Amendment guarantee against warrantless searches; (2.) the federal act that created the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to oversee covert domestic investigations, and (3.) U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which prohibits domestic spying by the NSA.
These are federal crimes demanding impeachment.
Why did he circumvent the notably quick FISA secret court, which almost never rejects such requests? Might the FISA court have rejected these 30-plus requests and if so, on what grounds?
This president regards political opponents as terrorists. How many charges have been laid and how many terrorists brought to justice from this? Were his targets members of his own administration? Political rivals? Peace activists? Religious leaders? Are you on the spy list? Am I?
He has broken his oath to defend the Constitution and so does each member of Congress now supporting his actions. If this stands unchallenged, our Constitution is not worth the hemp it was written on.
[arbortender]
Covina, CA
and the snap-back:
Proof shortage outrages
Re "Spying outrages" letter (Jan. 1) by [arbortender]:
The tree lady of Covina is at it again. The wannabe local politician*, [arbortender], needs to stick to growing trees and everything green. She like many other liberals are accusing our president and congressmen that agree with his actions, of federal crimes and calling for an impeachment.
With nothing other than innuendo, she puts herself in the same mold as the other left wingers who haven't a clue about what is going on or how to keep this country the greatest on Earth.
Of course spying wouldn't be spying unless it was done secretly. She fails to remember what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Our president took an oath to protect the American people and he will continue to do so. If it takes wire tapping of suspected terrorists and their allies to protect us from another homefront attack, he has my permission. I have nothing to hide. I'm not trying to overthrow our country.
John Morehead
Covina
and my proposed (presently seasoning) trump...
Respectfully, my neighbor entirely missed the point in his heartfelt and deeply partisan January 10th response to my letter of January 1st.
The Sept. 11, 2001 tragedies neither threatened nor altered our Constitution. Americans count on the rights, protections, and separation of powers guaranteed by that document. I believe my neighbor does too and suggest he re-read his copy carefully.
Surveillance of U.S. persons with a warrant is legal. It protects our country and the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting. That's why we have the secret FISA court. There's even a 72-hour secret grace period to get that secret warrant after the secret spying begins.
WARRANTLESS interception of U.S. persons' communications is illegal and unconstitutional, even if you're president, political party notwithstanding. Would we want President Hillary breaking this law? Yikes!
First-year law students learn that even damning evidence, if obtained illegally, is not admissible in court. It's called Fruit of the Poisoned Tree and it's a get-out-of-jail free card. There's nothing "green" or "liberal" about it. No evidence = no case. Circumventing the law & legal process does not make us safer. On the contrary, it violates protected rights, ripping open a dangerous loophole for terrorists and their attorneys to exploit.
[arbortender]
Covina, California
Have at it.
*Yes, I did indeed run for city council this past March, my first shot, on a meager budget, and it was a quite narrow miss. Ticked a few people off, methinks.