Of course the ACLU opposes common sense in defending the nation from attack

Posted on September 7, 2006

From CNS News: ACLU Opposes Updates to Foreign Agent Wiretapping Law

Congress is reviewing several bills aimed at updating the law regulating wiretapping of foreign agents, including suspected terrorists and their supporters, within the United States. Many lawmakers hope those updates will maintain their oversight of President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, but the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the proposed changes to the current statute.

Shocker!

“FISA doesn’t need to be updated,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “We hope that lawmakers will act to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

“The Republican leadership is recklessly pushing legislation based on an election strategy, with no regard for how these bills undermine our fundamental freedoms,” added Fredrickson.

…and what is YOUR plan Ms. Fredrickson? She sounds like the Democrats standing in front of FDR’s statue bleating that Social Security is just fine as it is despite the disaster staring them right in the face.

Robert Deitz, general counsel for the NSA, disagreed.

“Changes are needed, I believe, in order to recapture the original congressional intent of the statute regulating the electronic surveillance of persons within the United States as the government engages in electronic surveillance,” Deitz explained.

Much has changed, Deitz argued, since FISA was enacted in 1978.

“Communications technology has evolved in the 28 years between 1978 and today in ways that have had unforeseen consequences under FISA,” Deitz said.

Also testifying before the committee was Robert Alt, a fellow in legal and international affairs at Ashland University. Alt said the current process “remains cumbersome and subject to bureaucratic delay.”

But, Alt noted the importance of the program to the nation’s security and also called for the law to be changed.

“By reforming FISA to permit the necessary and constitutional use of warrantless foreign surveillance renewable for fixed periods of time, Congress can assure that the executive branch has the tools it needs to address 21st Century threats,” Alt said, “while providing the oversight necessary to assure that the program is not abused.”

This makes sense. The ACLU doesn’t.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

5 Responses to “Of course the ACLU opposes common sense in defending the nation from attack”

camanintx on September 7th, 2006 6:43 pm

Isn’t it ironic that the people who support giving up our liberties for a little bit of security are the same ones supporting our distruction of Iraq’s security so they could have some freedom.
Glib Fortuna on September 7th, 2006 9:33 pm

Explain.
kerwin_brown on September 8th, 2006 3:13 am

Carnanintx,

I actually believe Iraq should move to a police state. You should read the U.S. Constitution some time. In Article 1 Section 9 it allows the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion. It sounds like exchanging freedom for security to me.
camanintx on September 9th, 2006 8:04 am

Before we invaded, Iraqis may not have had much freedom, but they could usually go about their lives without worrying about being kidnapped, shot or blown up. Yet, when Americans complain that the government is restricting our freedoms, people like Senator Cornyn respond with quotes like “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead”.
kerwin_brown on September 10th, 2006 5:15 am

Before we invaded Iraq, Iraqis could go about in peace if they did nothing to offend those in power. If they did then they could be taken off to some secret prison to never be heard from again. You were probably alright if you were a non Kurdish Sunni but being a Shiite or a Kurd was having one mark against you already.

Chances are real good that the people of Iraq will get tired of the violence sooner or later and then work for ways to bring peace. If the government of Iraq can neutralize those that instigate it then the violence will probably stop more sooner than later.

The transfer of Iraqi troops to Iraqi control should have happened a while ago as it gives Iraq more control of its fate. Control of the provinces where low level of violence occurs should be shifted to Iraqis and American troops should shift to other areas. That is what I expect to happen but I am neither a politician nor a general.