Next: 2. 2006 February Up: Web (& Print) Log Previous: Contents Contents
The essay [86] mentions a ``Graham Amendment''. The essay says it would cause interrogation techniques to be listed in a secret appendix(?) of a military manual so that neigther Congressmen nor average citizens could ever see them; this might allow for torture. It would also suspend the right of habeas corpus for detainees & prisoners of the United States's military.
Let's see how much of this is true, & if any of it is true, whether or not it's too late to write letters to my Congressmen to tell them to vote against the Graham Amendment.
There's no search feature at http://senate.gov/, so I couldn't find information about it there.
I used Google to search for ``graham amendment'' & found this: ``Senate passes amendment to end habeas for detainees''. According to that essay, the Senate passed the Graham Amendment on 2005 November 10.
Looks like I'm too late. What's more, the more I read, the more depressed I get. If our government goes any farther out of control, I'm leaving. I swear it.
I wish I could find the amendment's document id so I could look it up at http://senate.gov/.
Looks like the amendment is either S.AMDT.2515 or S.AMDT.2516. Both are amendments to S.1042, a huge Department of Defense budget bill for fiscal year 2006.
This is fucking ironic. Senator Lindsey Graham introduced S.Con.Res.24 on 2005 March 20. Here's the summary: ``Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) the anti-secession law of the People's Republic of China (PRC) provides a legal justification for the use of force against Taiwan, altering the status quo in the region and is of grave concern to the United States''.
Why is it ironic? Did you hear about the Civil War in history class? We mostly remember the main product, which was the 18th Amendment, which outlaws slavery, but the war was started not due to arguments about slavery but due to the wish of the southern states to seceed. The states warred among themselves to decide whether or not states had the right to seceed.
If you hadn't noticed, that noisy discussion decided that states do not have the right to seceed.
And now Senator Lindsey Graham is concerned because China says that Taiwan doesn't have the right to seceed? Riiiight.
I'm certain that President Bush is trying to cross the Rubicon. I have an unpleasant hunch that Congress, due to its self-inflicted impotence, will let him get away with it.
As it turned out, I did know jack about network performance.
Amendment Violation
Since the new broke that President Bush authorized surveillance of US citizens without warrants, I've written letters to my congresscritters every week. My Senators are Maria Cantewll & Patty Murray. My Representative is David G. Reichert.
I haven't received a reply, but a friend who has done the same & who has a different Representative in the House has received a reply. His Representative is Jay Inslee, & here's what he said in an e-mailed reply.
From: Congressman Jay Inslee <Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov>To: ... Subject: From Congressman Jay Inslee Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:29:06 -0500
Dear ...
Thank you for contacting me about the job performance of President George W. Bush in regards to his authorization of a National Security Agency (NSA) secret domestic spying program on persons within the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.
First, I am equally outraged by the Bush Administration implementing this program possibly without the proper consent from Congress and also in possible violation of American citizens' right to privacy. I support a thorough, bipartisan investigation of this alarming policy. One way or another, we must get to the bottom of this situation and insist the president follows the law.
My foremost concern is that this policy appears to be in violation of existing law. We simply cannot allow the executive branch of our government, unchecked, to be the sole arbiter of the limits of its own power. We all deserve a president who follows the law, not a king who disobeys it. While I support efforts of the U.S. government in fighting terrorism, and acknowledge our involvement in a number of foreign conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot succumb to actions that infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.
As Ben Franklin said, ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
With the current makeup of Congress, it is obvious impeachment would not pass, so we should also consider the real impact of filing articles. It may come to that as our only option, but I think it important for us to demonstrate responsibility in the use of that constitutional process. To that end, I believe we must have comprehensive, probing hearings and then make the determination whether that is the right response. Our actions will win greater acceptance by the American people if we follow that route.
I support a full congressional investigation of this matter, as suggested by many members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. You will be pleased to know that I joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush expressing our position that the administration's policy has violated the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and was not authorized when Congress voted to support the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Our letter requests that the president release documents to Congress regarding the nature of this secret program. We need access to the legal opinions the administration used pertaining to the lawfulness of the surveillance program; the specific orders authorizing and reauthorizing this program; the number of U.S. persons that this surveillance was authorized for use on; the number of U.S. persons whose communications were intercepted; the total number of intercepted communications since the start of this surveillance program; the records of any member of the press whose communications have been intercepted; information about how the information intercepted has been stored and shared with other government agencies, and whether this information will be destroyed.
In addition, I have cosponsored H.RES.643, a resolution of inquiry which directs the Attorney General to submit to the House of Representatives all documents in his possession relating to warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and electronic communications of persons in the U.S. conducted by the National Security Agency. This type of resolution is unique because it is required that the full committee review a vote within 14 legislative days. If the committee fails to act within this time period, the bill can be brought before the entire House for a vote. This is one of the only legislative procedures available to Congress to get information from the executive branch.
I also joined my colleagues in sending to the Acting Inspector General at the Department of Defense, the Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Comptroller General calling for immediate investigations of reports that the Attorney General authorized the NSA to conduct the warrantless domestic spying program of persons inside the U.S. We cite a specific violation of Section 1802(a) of FISA, which permits the surveillance of communications without a court order only if the Attorney General can certify that either the communications are solely between foreign powers, or there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communications to which a U.S. person is a party. We find that the NSA has violated these prohibitions on at least 500 individuals within the U.S. In response to our letter, the Inspector General wrote that the issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, and that the matter would fall instead under the jurisdiction of the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility. However, he is wrong and and we have told him so, demanding an investigation.
We have been down this road before, FISA was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to the Nixon Administration's policy of conducting surveillance on citizens participating in political groups, or suspected of having certain political persuasions. FISA prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. This law helped create a framework for the use of electronic surveillance and other investigative methods to acquire foreign intelligence information, and requires a showing of probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power before searches and surveillance can be conducted.
One of the provisions of FISA requires the Office of the Attorney General to submit an annual report to Congress disclosing information about applications made to the FISA Court, and the number of applications approved and modified by the Court. In both 2002 and 2004, the Court approved all applications submitted. In 2003, of the 1,727 applications made, all but three were approved. I have many questions as to why the Bush Administration chose to bypass the process set up by FISA, since past administrations have not encountered difficulty obtaining FISA warrants, and such warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the surveillance is collected.
Furthermore, I do not find the September 18, 2001 authorization for use of military force passed by Congress to include any sort of authorization for warrantless domestic spying. You may be interested to know that in a recent review by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Bush Administration's claims that its warrantless activities were sanctioned by this authorization for military force, CRS found that it is doubtful that the president can claim that the authorization passed by Congress grants him the broad powers that he has claimed exist. This report defers to FISA, being the latest congressional legislation addressing domestic surveillance.
I believe that Congress can protect our national security interests, while at the same time protecting civil liberties. You can count on me to continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of my constituents and my fellow Americans.
Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. As a service to my constituents, I maintain a website which contains valuable resources and information on Congressional activities. Please feel free to visit the website at http://www.house.gov/inslee for information on recent issues and to learn more about the services my office provides.
I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name and address, including your zip code, in your message.
Very truly yours,
JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress
JRI/ch
Confirmation # 2013005
****************************************************************
DISCLAIMER
I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter if it was not sent to you directly from my Congressional Email Account: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please email me at: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov or call my Washington, DC office at: 202-225-6311. If you would like to be removed from my email update list, please email me your name and address at: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov and type ``REMOVE'' in the subject line.
****************************************************************
That is the most information I've seen from a politician ever. It's probably more information than I've gathered from any & all politicians in a decade. I had no idea that politicians (or their staff members) could put that much thought & effort into anything.
I wish David G. Reichert would send me a similar reply.
Gene Michael Stover 2008-04-19
