[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Message from Senator Barack Obama

[John W.]

At 03:11 PM 7/5/2006, Robert Naiman wrote:

>He feels our pain. Is that not enough?
>
>For a U of C professor, his command of the mother tongue is a little
>lacking, I must say.
>
>"The question is whether the president understood the law and
>knowingly flaunted it..."
>
>No one would accuse the President of having flaunted FISA. The
>question is whether he flouted it.


Ah, but he does say in the preceding paragraph, "No president should be 
allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the 
President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program."

I personally was troubled by this sentence:  "But my and Senator Feingold's 
view is not unanimous."  I wouldn't even know where to start critiquing 
that one.  :-)

Those of us who fancy ourselves grammarians should volunteer to write 
Senator Obama's replies for him.  I receive a fairly lengthy and 
superficially thoughtful response from him every time I contact him, so he 
must spend a great deal of time on these missives of his.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Most sincerely,

John Wason



>On 7/5/06, Morton K. Brussel <mkb4 at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>FYI. There are two sides to the story, he says, so we shouldn't censure, or
>>--god forbid-impeach the president. --mkb
>>
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>From: senator_obama at obama.senate.gov
>>Date: July 5, 2006 11:59:03 AM CDT
>>To: mkb4 at mac.com
>>Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Morton:
>>
>>Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure
>>President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I
>>share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at
>>this time.
>>
>>I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration's attitude toward
>>congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We
>>are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from
>>humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should
>>be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the
>>President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The
>>justifications offered ­ that the president possesses inherent presidential
>>authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001
>>Authorization to Use Military Force -- seem to contradict prior precedent
>>and our constitutional design.
>>
>>But my and Senator Feingold's view is not unanimous. Some constitutional
>>scholars and lower court opinions support the president's argument that he
>>has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the
>>activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president
>>understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides,
>>in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others
>>believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the
>>courts.
>>
>>Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem
>>of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his
>>domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to
>>do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional
>>role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring
>>the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court
>>established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore,
>>my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats
>>terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is
>>the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against
>>terrorism and the rule of law.
>>
>>Finally, I can assure you that your opinion is important to me, and I hope
>>my opinion is important to you. I will continue to try to bring my best
>>judgment to the issues before the Senate, and let the people of Illinois
>>make their best judgment on my service to the state.
>>
>>Again, thank you for writing. I will closely follow the hearing on Senator
>>Feingold's bill taking place in the Judiciary Committee this week to see if
>>any further information surfaces that might impact my decision.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Barack Obama
>>United States Senator
>>
>>
>>P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if
>>you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website:
>>http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
>>
>>Stay up to date with Barack's work in the Senate and on issues of importance
>>to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here:
>>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
>
>
>--
>Robert Naiman
>Just Foreign Policy
>www.justforeignpolicy.org