« Home | Let the Spin Begin! » | Gonzales the "highest legal authority"? » | Hooray for the Times; Shame on the Times » | Who needs a constitution anyway? » | It is time to end 'Hypodermic Justice' » | The tortured war » | Welcome to the State of Dystopia » | What "War on Christmas"? » | Cacophony! Casuistry! Conniption! » | An opportunity for peace »

Letter of Dissent

Today I sent two letters via fax and email: one to Texas Senator Hutchison and one letter to Texas Senator Cornyn. Here is the text of my letter to Hutchison ...

December 20, 2005

From: Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Syndicated Columnist
2340 FM 407, Suite 102
Highland Village, Texas 75077

Senator Hutchison,

I understand that Senator Cornyn quoted former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony today (Dec. 20, 2005) in defense of Bush's authorization of domestic spying by the NSA. I assume he used those words because he is in favor of the president overruling our constitution's fourth amendment.

I do not know where you personally stand on this new development. I write to you in hopes that your loyalty to this great nation is not trumped by your loyalty to the Republican party.

Here's the Achilles heel of Cornyn's argument: Gorelick said “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrant-less physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” Fine. However, at the time she gave that testimony, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court did not cover physical searches. The same year, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by the FISA - she acknowledged the facts. In 1995, the Clinton administration backed an amendment to the law that put physical searches under the jurisdiction of FISA.

Neither Gorelick nor Clinton ever argued that the president could ignore FISA law. What Bush has done - ignoring the fourth amendment and bypassing FISA - is a clear-cut felony. Clinton never did that. I repeat - CLINTON NEVER DID THAT. It is the difference between breaking the law and following it to the letter.

Bush has repeatedly and knowingly violated US Code Title 50, § 1809. The penalty is “not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.”

The president himself confirmed that he knew warrants were required for these sorts of searches in April of 2004, a full three years after he authorized illegal spying. There is video of this, found online here:

http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/bushwiretaps.320.240.mov.htm

Do not let loyalty to the GOP trump your commitment to the constitution. Please do not make transparent excuses for one who has shown so little regard for our laws. This is going to come crashing down on the president's head in the form of ANOTHER special prosecutor.

When Democrats take power this time next year, it'll be a long, hard slog for you through the impeachment battle that is now all but certain. I am sure you remember when this happened to Nixon. The difference is, he lied about the spying and Bush admitted it with a smile. As though to ask, "What are you going to do about it?"

The president is not exempt from our laws. He runs this country, but no man's actions are of greater value than our constitution. I make no excuses for a corrupt police officer who plants drugs on a citizen and makes a false arrest, only to be found out and arrested himself. Why would your peer in the Senate make excuses for a politician who knowingly violates laws that carry similar penalties?

What Bush has done makes him a felon. I would hope Senator Cornyn is not angling to become an accessory. There are no excuses for criminality. Instead, I hope you will support a movement to have this investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I pray your loyalty to the Republican party does not trump your loyalty to the United States.

A brief reminder ...

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Thank you,

Stephen Webster
Investigative Reporter
Syndicated Columnist

The Weird, Turned Pro.

Created by The Gonzo Muckraker
Based in Dallas, Texas
More about the author.
----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
Stories I'm Digging today ...