Correspondence From Senator Allard (re: censure)

[William Seger]

May 23, 2006

Dear ******:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to censure President
Bush. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on such an important
issue.

As you may know, on March 13, 2006, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
introduced Senate Resolution 398 that was referred to the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary. Also known as S.Res.398, if passed, will declare that
the U.S. Senate censures President Bush and condemns his activities to
monitor international communications of people who are believed to be
associated with terrorist organizations.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush promised that he
would direct every resource at his command to disrupt and defeat the
global network of terror. Military leaders, members of Congress, the
media, and the American people praised President Bush for stepping forward
and immediately addressing the issue. By authorizing the National
Security Agency (NSA) to monitor international communications of people
who are believed to be associated with terrorist organizations, U.S.
intelligence services are successfully working to detect and prevent
another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States.

I have tremendous respect for Senator Feingold and share his determination
to protect the First Amendment rights of every U.S. citizen. However, the
global war against terror cannot be won by ignoring the activities of
those who wish to destroy our nation. Therefore, we should be looking for
new ways to better track and apprehend terrorists, and not punishing the
President for fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing
from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to
Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at
http://allard.senate.gov.



Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

My response:

Dear Senator Allen:

I find your response on this issue to be be extremely unsatisfactory.

First, simply calling it a "terrorist surveillance program" does not make it so. As millions of Americans are now aware (and I feel certain that you are also aware of it), there was a perfectly usable procedure in place -- the FISA act -- for obtaining warrants for legal (and necessary) terrorist surveillance. The Bush administration has essentially admitted that it intentionally circumvented that FISA procedure as a way to circumvent the necessary "probable cause" requirement. Why? Second, as a result of ignoring that law, we simply DO NOT KNOW that the only people who have been targeted are "believed to be associated with terrorist organizations" -- the exact situation that the law intended to avoid. All we know is that, if there was a good reason for believing that these people were associated with terrorist organizations, then there wouldn't have been any problem getting warrants (as the record of the FISA court for rarely declining to issue warrants clearly demonstrates). The excuses offered for breaking this law simply do not hold water. Your opinion seems to be that we do not need to know; we can simply trust this administration to not abuse powers that it has unlawfully claimed. I disagree -- especially since it is now known that this administration has used other government investigative resources for keeping tabs on groups that are simply in disagreement with the administration's policies. And third, there is no credible evidence that this program has produced any tangible counter-terrorist benefit whatsoever. If this program is so vital, why is that?

The most disturbing thing about your response is that I'm fairly certain that you are well aware of these objections, yet you do not address them at all. Instead, you push the "party line" that without this program, we have no way of surveilling potential terrorist activity -- an assertion that is simply not true, and it's virtually impossible that you don't know it's not true -- and claim that punishing the President for breaking a law would be "punishing the President for fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities." Surely, you cannot think that the President has a constitutional responsibility to ignore laws! (And on that same subject, we now know that this President has used "signing statements" -- documents having no legal standing -- to claim the "right" to ignore 750 laws passed by your branch of the government.)

I have no choice but to take your disingenuous response as an indication that, contrary to your oath of office, you put party politics above the law of the land. It is my sincere hope that the majority of Colorado voters are aware of that in the next election cycle.

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Good answer!

:yourock: :applause:

I just hope we have someone with balls to really challenge Dullard and he pisses on his pants and goes down like a $1 whore that he is..

[MissMarple]

2. Allard says we can't ignore those who want to destroy our nation.

I think we can place him, quite unequivocally, into that group. He and this administration actions are undermining our country to the point of destruction. All that will be left are the lines drawn on the maps.

(You called him Senator Allen?)

[William Seger]

3. (Oops. My spell checker must have done that)

(Shouldn't automatically click the Replace button.) :argh:

[lancepiercejr]

4. That's my Senator!

If inneffectiveness were a virtue, Senator Allard would be canonized! Thanks again for nothing, Wayne. Way to go.

[The Brethren]

5. Wayne's world.

Allard is one of the worst Senators we have, equal only to Rep. Musgrave. Both ultra-conservative wing-nuts!