Dear Supporters of the Republican Party,
Do you really support this?
Within minutes of the strikes, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence-gathering authorities mobilized to find the culprits and prevent another attack.
They increased the tapping of Americans’ phone calls and voice mails. They watched Internet traffic and e-mails as never before. They tailed greater numbers of people and into places previously deemed off-limits, such as mosques.
They clandestinely accessed bank and credit card transactions and school records. They monitored travel. And they entered homes without notice, looking for signs of terrorist activity and copying the contents of entire file cabinets and computer hard drives.
Authorities even tried to get inside people’s heads, using supercomputers and “predictive” software to analyze enormous amounts of personal data about them and their associates in an effort to foretell who might become a terrorist, and when.
Really? How about this?
Privacy experts and even some ranking lawmakers in Congress say their efforts to learn about other suspected surveillance efforts have been blocked.
They believe that some of the activity is so secret that none but a small circle of top administration officials and operational support personnel know about it — though notification of congressional leaders is legally required.
“The White House simply refuses to be straight with us about what they’re up to,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who says he has pressed unsuccessfully for answers as a member of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, which entitles him to classified briefings on the subject.
“My sense today is that there is a staggering amount of personal information being collected on millions of Americans,” Wyden said. “And how it’s accessed and how it’s used is at best unclear. What is certain is that there is no real accountability to ensure that a balance is struck between fighting terrorism and protecting privacy.”
In response, administration officials say that they have the authority to conduct whatever surveillance is underway, in part due to the special war powers granted to President Bush by Congress a week after the Sept. 11 attacks.
How about this?
The NSA has improved its ability to monitor the entire spectrum of communications, including fiber-optic and wireless transmissions, instant messages, BlackBerry e-mails and voice conversations sent over the Internet, officials and experts say.
They add that the intelligence community may not be breaking any laws because these kinds of communication might not be covered under loosely worded federal laws that don’t account for advances in technology.
Or this?
Before Sept. 11, virtually all FBI surveillance was authorized by court-approved warrants and subpoenas issued through federal grand juries, which have some measure of oversight by citizen jurors and judges.
Since then, however, the FBI has sharply increased the use of so-called national security letters, which allow agents to obtain information on people they deem suspicious with little probable cause and without seeking judicial approval. Unlike with traditional search warrants, the target does not have to be notified.
Last year, federal agents issued 9,254 substantive national security letters to access financial transactions and personal data, interviews and government records indicate. Privacy experts and congressional staffers say these letters were rarely used before Sept. 11.
FBI agents are also using what are known as “sneak and peek” warrants on a wider scale, entering hundreds of homes clandestinely to gather intelligence and copy files and computer drives, again without notification. And they have conducted surveillance on antiwar, religious, civil rights and environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
How would you like it if a Democratic administration decided to spy on right-wing environmental interest groups and Christian Committees without any Congressional or Judicial oversight?
All of this is okay with you because of 9/11? Are you sure? Here’s what the Republican in charge of the House Intelligence Committee had to say:
If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies,” wrote Hoekstra, a staunch Bush ally.
“The U.S. Congress,” Hoekstra added, “simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.”
Is he unserious about doing what we need to do to keep the country safe? I’m just asking. You sure?
Sincerely,
BooMan
