Today I received the following letter from Senator Hatch outlining his position on NSA warrentless wiretapping. Sadly I can not find the original letter I sent to the Senator.
Of the thoughts I can remember, I asked what has come of a country that started with the courage of "give me liberty or give me death" and has evolve to a nation of Pat Roberts and the sentiment of "you don't have any civil liberties when your dead."
I also asked the Senator what happened to the party of small government, and the party that wanted to get the government off our backs. Why does that party now seek to get into our e-mail, phone calls, and bedrooms?
Text of Senator Hatch's response below...
Dear Mr. XXXXX
Thank you for your letter expressing your thoughts about President Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps and surveillance of domestic communications. I am always interested in the thoughts and opinions of Utahns and I welcome the opportunity to express my thoughts on these important matters.
While media reports and political pundits have already begun to make conclusive statements about the legality of this program and make recommendations for presidential censure or even impeachment, it is clear that the information needed to draw such conclusions appropriately remains classified. Therefore, I believe it is important that all parties reserve judgment on this issue until more information is made available.
That being said, please allow me to share my additional thoughts on this matter. At issue in the debate over the NSA program are two important principles. First, there is the need to ensure the protection of our citizens' civil liberties. It is essential that both the President and Congress respect the limits of government and not attempt to exercise powers that exceed those delegated by our Constitution. Likewise, it is critical that the government not take action to jeopardize individual civil liberties or other constitutional protections that are the hallmark of our country and its form of government. Certainly, no action by the President or other official is justified if it represents an inappropriate intrusion into the lives of innocent Americans or an unlawful expansion of governmental powers.
The second important principle at issue here is the power and ability of the President to protect national security and conduct the war on terror. The President's authority to gather foreign intelligence stems from his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief. While the current NSA program is somewhat unique, President Bush is not the first to authorize warrantless searches and surveillance to obtain such intelligence. In Executive Order 12139 for example, President Jimmy Carter asserted his constitutional authority to authorize 'electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.' Likewise, in Executive Order 12949, President Bill Clinton similarly asserted his constitutional authority to conduct searches without a court order 'to acquire foreign intelligence information.' On July 14, 1994, Jamie Gorelick, then Deputy Attorney General and later a member of the 9-11 Commission, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that 'the President has inherent authority' to conduct such searches. Clearly, such authorizations are not without precedent.
As you likely know, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, has held three separate hearings to examine the legality of the NSA program. In addition, after the existence of the NSA program was made public, Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, created a special bipartisan subcommittee to exercise oversight into the surveillance program. I am a member of this subcommittee, which includes the seven senior members of the full Intelligence Committee. We have received regular briefings from the Administration on the NSA program. These proceedings have been informative, but clearly Congress has a responsibility to examine this program further to ensure that the Administration has not exceeded its authority and, if necessary, to draft legislation to update the legal framework surrounding the gathering of foreign intelligence. That being said, allow me to state that, up to now, I have heard little to lead me to believe that this program represents either an unconstitutional expansion of the President's power or a threat to Americans' civil liberties.
In closing, I must stress my belief that this exercise of congressional oversight must not become an exercise in partisan politics. Clearly, members of both political parties want ot ensure the President is adequately empowered to protect our national security. In addition, we all want to ensure that the government is not encroaching on the rights of innocent Americans. Therefore, it is important that the debate over this issue is properly framed as one seeking balance these important priorities, and not as a means of making political gains in an overly partisan atmosphere. I am committed to a fair and honest debate on this issue and I will certainly keep your comments in mind as this process continues.
Thank you, once again, for your letter.
Sincerely,
Orrin Hatch
United States Senator
All typos are mine. I am preparing a response for Senator Hatch and would like your help in picking apart his arguments. My focus is on the fact he uses Carter and Clinton to justify what Bush has done. I note that the key phrase in both of those sentences is 'foreign,' and what Bush has authorized is 'domestic.'