Home » Headlines » 294 Chairman Reyes Responds Our Answer Prove It
Chairman Reyes responds. Our answer: Prove it.
Chairman Reyes responds. Our answer: Prove it.
Our campaign demanding Chairman Reyes stand up to President Bush is working. After 1,922 reported calls, the Chairman's Chief Counsel, Jeremy Bash, contacted DFA and insisted that we were "shooting the wrong target."
Our answer was simple: Prove it.
This morning, DFA received a letter that the Chairman asked we post on our website. Sadly, the Chairman still gets it wrong:
"The issue is how to craft legislation that only protects companies that acted lawfully."
Chairman Reyes: they don't need immunity if they didn't break the law. America doesn't need parsed words and legalese, America requires leadership.
Chairman Reyes got your calls; let's make sure he gets the message. Contribute $25 right now, so we can run ads that turn up the heat on Chairman Reyes.
www.DemocrayforAmerica.com/FISAads
Chairman Reyes has stood up to President Bush before, he must do it again.
On Feb 12, the Chairman wrote "it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago."
Last August, he voted against the Administration's bill, the Protect America Act. Last month, he insisted that Congress stand firm and not simply rubber-stamp the Senate FISA bill, despite over-heated rhetoric from the President that doing so would somehow endanger the country. He knew better, and he called out the President on his false rhetoric.
But last weekend, Chairman Reyes said "after receiving documents from the Bush administration and speaking to the [telecommunication] companies" a deal was likely "within the next week."
Rep. Reyes doesn't need to make a deal with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. He must hold the Bush administration accountable and not let AT&T and Verizon off the hook for spying on innocent Americans. Contribute $25 right now and send a clear message to Chairman Reyes to stand up to President Bush.
www.DemocrayforAmerica.com/FISAads
In the Chairman's letter , he also says:
"So the issue isn't whether someone is 'for' or 'against' telecom immunity. We are all 'for' telecom immunity if the compliance is consistent with the law."
Rep. Reyes still doesn't get it. The issue is very simple:
- If the phone companies did nothing illegal, the courts will make that determination.
- If the phone companies did something illegal, they should be held accountable in the court of law.
- This is America's last chance to hold the Bush administration accountable for their illegal warrantless wiretapping. Ending these lawsuits before a trial has even begun will forever let George Bush and his cronies off the hook.
Sen. Dodd and other Democrats with backbone have stood up against any and all forms of telecom immunity. Here's what Senator Dodd had to say:
"I believe that cases against the telecoms are best handled in our standard federal courts -- which, by the way, have shown time and time again that they know how to protect state secrets."
Don't sit this campaign out. Let's turn up the heat on Chairman Reyes together. Contribute $25 right now.
www.DemocrayforAmerica.com/FISAads
Thank you for everything you do.
-Charles
Charles Chamberlain
Political Director
P.S. Here's a complete copy of the Chairman's letter to DFA.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my views on the issue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and, in particular, the issue of liability protection for telecommunications companies.
As the co-author and original co-sponsor of the RESTORE Act (HR 3773), I have led the fight in Congress to prevent this Administration from violating the Constitutional rights of Americans through warrantless surveillance. That bill passed in November with overwhelming Democratic support and support from the civil liberties community.
I have also led the only in-depth review of all aspects of the President’s warrantless surveillance program in the House of Representatives. In May 2007, I insisted that the Administration provide Congress with all of the documents and legal opinions authorizing the Program. After fighting to secure this material, the Administration finally capitulated in January 2008 – nearly 8 months after I first made the request. Since receiving the documentation, our Committee has been studying the material and following up on our previous oversight efforts to learn the nature and scope of the President’s warrantless spying.
Last August, I voted against the Administration’s bill, the Protect America Act. Last month, I insisted that Congress stand firm and not simply rubber-stamp the Senate FISA bill, despite over-heated rhetoric from the President that doing so would somehow endanger the country. We knew better, and we called out the President on his false rhetoric.
Here is the letter I wrote to the President, http://wwwc.house.gov/reyes/news_detail.asp?id=1370, in which I told the President that “it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.”
Also, I ask you to read my op-ed in the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401668_pf.html, in which the four chairmen of the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, wrote: “We are united in our determination to produce responsible legislation that will protect America and protect our Constitution.”
On the issue of liability protection for telecommunications companies, let me be clear: Congress should not grant, and I will not support, retroactive immunity for any company that knowingly violated the law.
The law of immunity works like this: All private sector entities and private citizens are entitled to immunity from suit if they assist the government pursuant to the law. To take a concrete example, if a telephone company is given a warrant from a judge to tap the phone of a drug dealer, the drug dealer should not be able to sue the phone company for violating his rights. That suit should be dismissed.
Under privacy laws and under FISA itself, a company is immune from suit if it receives a court order or a lawful certification from the Attorney General that a warrant is not required.
So the issue isn’t whether someone is “for” or “against” telecom immunity. We are all “for” telecom immunity if the compliance is consistent with the law. That is why every Democratic bill – including the RESTORE Act – contains a provision for prospective liability protection for companies that comply with the law.
The issue is how to craft legislation that only protects companies that acted lawfully.
I have said that before Congress considers any form of immunity, we should know what we are granting immunity for. We are analyzing the conduct of various companies who are believed to have assisted the government. This has involved reviewing documents, and talking directly to private sector officials.
In making decisions about how to approach this issue, we will also need to weigh other public policy concerns, such as how best to preserve the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans, how to protect intelligence sources and methods from public disclosure, and to what is in the best interest of our national security and our Constitution.
I assure the Members of the DFA that I will continue to defend our Constitution, to oppose fear-mongering by President Bush, and to prevent this Administration – and any Administration – from trampling the rights of the American people.
Sincerely,
Congressman Silvestre Reyes
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence