Obama and Clinton See Eye to Eye on the Need for Lawful Surveillance

Today, Senators Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) stated similar opinions when asked if they would protect the civil liberties of citizens, saying that they would respectively handle wiretappings on "a case to case basis". Both Senators agreed that all surveillance of the American public must be carried out lawfully, with granted permission under a judicial warrant. The statements made by both Senators, while reinforcing the UACL's stance on the matter, were noncommital in nature. Other Senators involved in yesterday's argument presented views similar to those stated by the two democratic Senators. When asked whether she endorsed the President, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) stated that although she believes that all our resources need to be used to find suspected terrorists, the constitution cannot be violated and the proper measures must be taken, which she said included getting proper warrants in order to wiretap citizens. She also said that the FISA agreement had been broken by the Executive order. Senator Arlen Specter stated that while he isn't in favor of the act, he wouldn't go as extreme to support a comment he made in January 2006, when he stated that if the president approved this action, he should be impeached. It is encouraging to see that at least some officials within our nation's government recognize the threat posed by the President's independent and unlawful actions. Hopefully, they will follow their statements with consistent action in favor of respected civil liberties when the issue hits the floor of Congress. We will just have to wait and see.

by: Jordan Lonner

Fox News Accuses the Bush Admin of Helping Terrorists

In the most recent press conference called by the administration, FOX news reporter Rachel Twersky asked Attorney General Mukasey if it was possible that democrats had leaked the memo from the Department of Justice asking the President for greater powers for the NSA.  Dana Perino appeared stunned by the question, mostly because it was the administration, not democrats, who had leaked the memo.  Ms. Twersky suggested that the leak of the memo could jeopardize ongoing investigations, potentially exposing the US to additional terrorist attacks.  Ms. Twersky seems to be implying that the memo was leaked in order to assist terrorist efforts.  She certainly realizes that the memo wasn't leaked by democrats, as the administration, not the congress, has control over the Department of Justice.  Could Fox News, through Ms. Twersky's question, have been accusing the administration of treason?  Was she implying that the administration wants to create an atmosphere of fear, in order to justify further curtailing civil liberties?  Ms. Twersky declined to comment, saying that the question was written by a colleague, and that questions should be directed to Alisa Wecker.  Ms. Wecker also declined to comment, but did ask that the UACL refrain from running the story.  When confronted with the whole text of this article, Ms. Wecker and Ms. Twersky didn't dispute any of the facts stated, but refused to comment on the event.  Does this refusal to comment indicate that Fox is standing by its question?  Fox News reporters threatened UACL representative Michael Soneff, saying that they would run stories that imply the UACL supports terrorists if the UACL ran a story detailing Ms. Twersky's questions.  These facts might call into question the journalistic integrity of Fox News.  

by: Michael Soneff

Attorney General Mukasey: The President Can Abolish Congress

This morning AG Mukasey and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino announced the new NSA spying program, which doesn't require warrants in order to initiate a wiretap. The new plan, by Mr. Mukasey's own admission, violates FISA requirements. Mr. Mukasey says that the President has the power to amend any act of congress, even the constitution itself, with the use of an executive order. He claimed that the President can legally do, quite literally, whatever he wants, until the congress or the courts over rule him. When asked, by UACL media representative Michael Soneff, whether or not the President can abolish congress and the judiciary, AG Mukasey declined to comment. This should raise some serious questions in the hearts and minds of all Americans. The Head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States, claims that the President has the constitutional authority to unilaterally amend laws passed by congress. Dana Perino has admitted that this executive order literally contradicts standing law. That means that the President has violated an act of congress and overridden judicial precedent. These acts on the part of the executive are outrageous.
Furthermore, When asked what is more important, civil liberties or national security, the Attorney General answered without a doubt, national security. He continued by arguing that because the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution later, the Civil Liberties protected in this document should take second place to the security of the country. Does Mr. Mukasey not realize that the Bill of Rights was the provision that allowed for the ratification of the Constitution and to this day upholds our most essential rights as American citizens? It is appalling that he would seek to deny the value of such an important part of our nation's highest law.


by: Michael Soneff