I recently got an automated reply from my State Senator, Diane Feinstein, proponent of NSA data collection and opponent of the Constitution. Thought I’d respond. You can click the link at the bottom to view the statement on Feinstein’s website.

She begins:

I received your communication indicating your concerns about the two National Security Agency programs that have been in the news recently. I appreciate that you took the time to write on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I’m going to respond bit by bit…

First, I understand your concerns and want to point out that by law, the government cannot listen to an American’s telephone calls or read their emails without a court warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause. As is described in the attachment to this letter provided by the Executive Branch, the programs that were recently disclosed have to do with information about phone calls – the kind of information that you might find on a telephone bill – in one case, and the internet communications (such as email) of non-Americans outside the United States in the other case.

But without reliable oversight, there is no way to ensure such restrictions. As more information comes to light (thanks to the “criminals” disclosing government malfeasance), it becomes increasingly clear that the information is NOT limited in any such fashion, NOR limited to non-citizens.

Both programs are subject to checks and balances, and oversight by the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary.

And that means… what, exactly? Demonstrate ANY case where a violation of Constitutional rights of a citizen was prevented by such checks and balances. Let me guess: “classified.”

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that I believe the oversight we have conducted is strong and effective and I am doing my level best to get more information declassified.

You would do better not to indicate your affiliation with the least popular governing body in this nation’s history.

Please know that it is equally frustrating to me, as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail on the value these programs provide and the strict limitations placed on how this information is used. I take serious my responsibility to make sure intelligence programs are effective, but I work equally hard to ensure that intelligence activities strictly comply with the Constitution and our laws and protect Americans’ privacy rights.

So you can’t demonstrate how these programs are regulated, but I should trust you to regulate them? Trust is earned. Congress has done the precise opposite of earning anyone’s trust.

These surveillance programs have proven to be very effective in identifying terrorists, their activities, and those associated with terrorist plots, and in allowing the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to prevent numerous terrorist attacks.

First, prove it. Prove that these “numerous terrorist attacks” would not have been prevented by other means. Prove that these programs led directly to their arrest. Second, THAT’S IRRELEVANT. The Constitution is not optional, depending upon how safe you happen to feel. It is mandatory.

More information on this should be forthcoming. · On June 18, 2003, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) testified to the House Intelligence Committee that there have been “over 50 potential terrorist events” that these programs helped prevent.

2003. Ten years ago. Sorry it’s just mind blowing to me that a couple of whistle-blowers have done more to stop this in a couple years than you have in ten. I digress… Which programs? Which events? How is that relevant if it’s unconstitutional? I have no doubt that many, many crimes could be prevented if we execute everyone at age 20… I probably shouldn’t be giving you ideas. By the way, you’re citing the guy who lied to your face, changed his statement, then admitted he lied to you. Why am I telling you what happened at YOUR job? Oh right, because the best thing you can do at work is not show up.

· While the specific uses of these surveillance programs remain largely classified, I have reviewed the classified testimony and reports from the Executive Branch that describe in detail how this surveillance has stopped attacks.

You have? Prove it. Yes, I am questioning your claim. Yes, I am calling you a liar. Please establish credibility before expecting anyone to believe your claims without evidence.

· Two examples where these surveillance programs were used to prevent terrorist attacks were: (1) the attempted bombing of the New York City subway system in September 2009 by Najibullah Zazi and his co-conspirators; and (2) the attempted attack on a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in October 2009 by U.S. citizen David Headley and his associates.

Neither of those happened. Both were the result of evidence obtained through normal law enforcement measures. Previous arrests revealed evidence, and that evidence led directly to the suspects in both cases. By the way, this is your evidence? Two people, in exchange for violating the constitutional rights of millions of citizens and the rights of privacy of countless more non-citizens around the globe?

· Regarding the planned bombing of the New York City subway system, the NSA has determined that in early September of 2009, while monitoring the activities of Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, NSA noted contact from an individual in the U.S. that the FBI subsequently identified as Colorado-based Najibullah Zazi . The U.S. Intelligence Community, including the FBI and NSA, worked in concert to determine his relationship with Al Qaeda, as well as identify any foreign or domestic terrorist links. The FBI tracked Zazi as he traveled to New York to meet with co-conspirators, where they were planning to conduct a terrorist attack using hydrogen peroxide bombs placed in backpacks. Zazi and his co-conspirators were subsequently arrested. Zazi eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to bomb the NYC subway system.

I missed the part where unconstitutional bulk collection of data made this possible. Oh right, because THAT’S NOT WHAT LED TO HIS ARREST. This sounds like a situation where a court-issued warrant would do just nicely… DID do just nicely.

· Regarding terrorist David Headley, he was also involved in the planning and reconnaissance of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, including six Americans. According to NSA, in October 2009, Headley, a Chicago businessman and dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen, was arrested by the FBI as he tried to depart from Chicago O’Hare airport on a trip to Europe. Headley was charged with material support to terrorism based on his involvement in the planning and reconnaissance of the hotel attack in Mumbai 2008. At the time of his arrest, Headley and his colleagues were plotting to attack the Danish newspaper that published the unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, at the behest of Al Qaeda.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything. You’ve just pulled up a case of a terrorist being arrested and claimed that this supports your case without explaining how or why this is even relevant. Yes, I am aware terrorists are occasionally caught, tried, and convicted by law enforcement. That’s exactly why we don’t NEED unconstitutional invasions of privacy in order to do it.

Not only has Congress been briefed on these programs, but laws passed and enacted since 9/11 specifically authorize them.

You don’t get to authorize violations of Constitutional rights. That’s not how rights work. Besides, you aren’t doing yourself any favors by pointing out that this was your bad idea. Also, being “briefed on these programs” excuses nothing, accomplishes nothing, and in no way establishes proper checks against executive violations.

The surveillance programs are authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which itself was enacted by Congress in 1978 to establish the legal structure to carry out these programs, but also to prevent government abuses, such as surveillance of Americans without approval from the federal courts. The Act authorizes the government to gather communications and other information for foreign intelligence purposes. It also establishes privacy protections, oversight mechanisms (including court review), and other restrictions to protect privacy rights of Americans.

A FISA court is not a court. It’s a fabrication. Nowhere in the Constitution are you allowed to invent a new system of justice because you don’t like the rules of the current one.

The laws that have established and reauthorized these programs since 9/11 have passed by mostly overwhelming margins.

An overwhelming margin IN CONGRESS. If there is one thing that is certain, anything that receives overwhelming support in today’s Congress is bad for America. I’m not saying that to be hyperbolic. I’m saying that because that’s how the vast, vast, vast majority of American voters feel about Congress. I know that sounds like rhetoric or exaggeration, but it isn’t; it’s just the reality of how terrible you are.

For example, the phone call business record program was reauthorized most recently on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 72-23 in the Senate and 250-153 in the House. The internet communications program was reauthorized most recently on December 30, 2012 by a vote of 73-22 in the Senate and 301-118 in the House.

Why are you filling a whole paragraph with irrelevant numbers? I have seen numbers before, but unfortunately for you I know what they mean and am not intimidated or irrationally convinced by simply putting lots of numbers in a paragraph.

Attached to this letter is a brief summary of the two intelligence surveillance programs that were recently disclosed in media articles. While I very much regret the disclosure of classified information in a way that will damage our ability to identify and stop terrorist activity,

The worst sort of coward is the one who thinks his cowardice keeps him safe. That isn’t a famous quote or anything, I’m just saying it.

I believe it is important to ensure that the public record now available on these programs is accurate and provided with the proper context.

You made a joke! HAHAHAHA. So you regret the information being disclosed, but NOW you believe it’s important. Wait, that’s not funny, that’s insane.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns and comments. I appreciate knowing your views and hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.

You’re very welcome and I hope you and everyone else in Congress is banned from public office for life and convicted of corruption, bribery, extortion, and conspiracy for the travesties that are campaign finance and lobbying; I know you didn’t create that system but you you are a part of it and have a responsibility to do something about it, yet have failed miserably. Have a nice day!

Related articles