My thanks to you, Congressman Sessions for your response to my query regarding your support of the Patriot Act which by now has passed the Senate.
I want to begin by saying that in a free society we accept the risks inherent in living in such a society.
It is not my intention to seem crass or disrespectful, but I need to point out that it seems you have not really examined the evidence submitted by the administration in its attempt to prove the need for continued unconstitutional surveillance of Americans. The provisions of this Act saddle us with unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law abiding Americans as several documented incidences of invasion of privacy of non-terrorists citizens have shown.
One particular provision of the Patriot Act allows for the issuance and use of national security letters (NSL’s). This provision is noted on the ACLU web site where writers are advocating significant reform of the Patriot Act:
“NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. Numerous Department of Justice Inspector General reports have confirmed that tens of thousands of these letters are issued every year and they are used to collect information on people two and three times removed from a terrorism suspect. NSLs also come with a nondisclosure requirement that precludes a court from determining whether the gag is necessary to protect national security. The NSL provisions should be amended so that they collect information only on suspected terrorists and the gag should be modified to permit meaningful court review for those who wish to challenge nondisclosure orders.”
In addition the “proofs” presented that these measures are protecting us are rather unsubstantiated and seem more “trumped up” than not. Anyone can say, “we are doing this for your protection.” But declaring it does not make it true. I have read some of the reports of plots thwarted supposedly because of the Patriot Act. I am not convinced that anything would have been different without the Patriot Act. Government so often resorts to the “magic anti-tiger rock” scenario of Lisa Simpson. When questioned as to the effectiveness of the “magic anti-tiger rock”, the response is “Well you don’t see any tigers do you?”
History has shown that once governments take on more power or take rights away, they are loath to relinquish the power or remove restrictions as typified by our present situation. The so called “climate of terror” for which this Act has been put in place to address has no end. By that I mean anything can be termed acts of terror or threats of terror and therefore become elements of this so called “climate of terror”. Consequently the suspension of our rights has no end.
Many of us out here are not pleased with this state of affairs. We do not feel that our representatives are acting in our best interest. What terrorists can cause us to have 9 to 10% unemployment? Only government acting on a perceived threat of terrorism can so restrict, and spend, and inflate the monetary supply until so many more of us are driven into poverty. Our government has overreacted to the terrorist threat and driven us deeper into poverty. How can that be considered a positive outcome?
As a nation we are hypocritical when we say we are in support of freedom but do not adhere to the structure of our own republic with its rule of law. Instead we fall prey to majority rule even when the majority is in violation of the rule of law. We have a law that prohibits government from conducting unlawful searches -- that is with out court order and probable cause. Yet we pass an act to do this anyway. Then we try to lecture other countries on freedom. How hypocritical is that?
As we recall, President FDR was denied many times the implementation of some of the main provisions of his New Deal by a Supreme Court which declared these elements unconstitutional. He proceeded to browbeat the Court, went to the people by way of “fireside chats” and announced that an out of touch Supreme Court was interpreting the Constitution in a very non progressive manner. He stated that this court was in fact standing in the way of the installation of measures that were needed to help Americans during this tragic time. FDR finally prevail. The result: we got the New Deal and unemployment proceeded to climb above 20% and stay there for some time. Can we say in the spirit of Lisa Simpson that the provisions of the New Deal saved us from 30% or even 40% unemployment? Again that seems to be the prevailing method the government uses to justify expansionism.
The framers of the Constitution knew the dangers of too much government and did not see such as a source of safety. They understood this from their experience and the record of history. Things have not changed that much in 350 years and human nature has not changed at all. We are not going to be safe or prosperous again until we return to Constitutionally restrained government. And the only way to do this is to vote “no” on laws presented that are not Constitutional regardless of any rationale presented to justify such laws.
You as my representative are not there to do your own will in favor of your best interest for reelection. You are there to protect my rights and the rights of your constituents as these rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Back in 2008 our government prepared to bail out major financial institutions that were in default. This bailout has topped 2 trillion dollars and is rising. Any pole taken at the onset of this bailout effort showed that over 90% of those poled believed that the government should not create more debt to bail out these institutions. We believed that it would have been better for the nation for these institutions to go bankrupt and their toxic assets be liquidated. In addition many of us saw no provisions in the Constitution for bailing out industries using deficit spending or any other spending. Instead of allowing the liquidation that the nation desired and the situation required, the government acted in favor of the financial institutions at the expense of the economy. It is this kind of governance that makes me not trust this government to act in my best interests or to restrain itself to Constitutional limits.
Are we to say that those Congressmen who voted against renewing the Patriot Act care less about our security than those who voted for renewal? I challenge you to show proof of your assertions that this Patriot Act is serving the interests of the American people. Just stating so is not good enough. Stating that terrible things would have happened to us were it not for the Patriot Act is also not good enough. Are we also to believe that had the Patriot Act been in effect prior to 9/11 there would have been no attack on the towers? It is my understanding that we had sufficient information regarding those responsible for the attack to prevent their activity but our agencies were inept in their ability to utilize and share the information.
There appears to be a blindness that pervades our Congress and Senate. A blindness that causes our representatives not to see the danger to our economy and way of life because of the existing size of our government and our continued direction in spending. No terrorist attack can cause a total breakdown of our economic system. Hyperinflation, however, can do that. It is government spending and monetary policy that cause inflation -- not terrorists. As I witness more people losing jobs and homes and being introduced to a new experience of poverty, I don’t see this as the result of terrorists. I see this as a result of government activity and monetary policy.
I understand that in view of your past record it is unlikely that you will change your position on the Patriot Act. It is also clear from the number of votes in favor of the act that the government has succeeded in convincing many that compromising our privacy and restricting our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorists is in our best interest. However, I am writing this letter to document that there are a number of us who do not agree with government functioning in this manner. And hopefully this number is growing.
I will be posting your letter and my response along with any subsequent responses from your office on my blog.
Thank you for your time.
Larry Enge
No comments:
Post a Comment