Unfettered Letters

FISA law expires

So, President Bush is upset that Congress allowed a government eavesdropping law to expire. Since when did George W. Bush care about laws?

Kenneth W. Kassen
Shawnee

Wiretapping flap

To those who don’t have a problem with what may be illegal government eavesdropping without any system of checks and balances: Do you really believe that every future administration will share your sense of values and ethics?

Have you even considered the chances that an administration you don’t trust and believe to be a den of crooks, cheats and liars could come to power? An administration that had manipulated itself into a position of being “untouchable”? An administration so set on curtailing activities you had at one time taken for granted as your inalienable rights that they thought nothing of making up the rules as they went along in order to catch you in those activities?

Unauthorized eavesdropping may seem harmless to you. Personally, I don’t trust that our government will forever be one with my best interests or those of my children at heart.

The president vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We need to hold him to that.

Mike Loman
Kansas City

Important news

Friday’s paper (2/10) featured the 2002 terrorist plot on L.A. prominently on the front page. It is certainly suspect that the Bush administration is releasing this story four years later to justify its “eavesdropping.”

In the same edition, the revelation that Scooter Libby was directed to leak information from an intelligence report by his superiors only garnered a small space on page A-6. Paul Pillar (senior intelligence officer for the CIA) only earned page A-11 with his indictment of the White House handling (ignoring) of warnings that Iraq could cascade into violence if we invaded to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Once again, the administration has succeeded in taking our eye off the ball and The Star has been implicit by assigning importance in the placement of these stories.

Cheryl Hughes
Prairie Village

Wiretap questions

I have two questions for Sen. Pat Roberts and his defense of unauthorized wiretaps.

If disobeying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is justified in our war against terrorism, what will indicate the end of this war and the resumption of the rule of law? Do you expect an Appomattox-like moment when all the world’s terrorists hand over their swords to our president?

Second, since the ends justify the means in our war against terrorists, how far do you think we should go? You must be concerned about our country’s vulnerability in 2008 when our Constitution will require a new administration to come into power. These transitions can be very messy, and surely the terrorists will try to take advantage of this confusion.

Would we not be more secure from attacks by indefinitely suspending this election? Hail, Caesar!

George Lafferty
Fairway

Let’s compare

To the people who incessantly attack the president for his “lack of truthfulness” and the scandals of his administration or the Republican Party: Either you have a short memory or you just can’t recall how corrupt the previous administration was.

The Clinton administration claimed it was going to be an ethical administration. Right. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, and the headlines were filled with scandal after scandal.

Do you remember what led to the Democrats’ losing control of Congress? The House banking scandal and Dan Rostenkowski going to jail were just the tip of the iceberg.

I laugh out loud when I read comments such as, “I cannot recall any administration so steeped in alleged corruption and scandal as those currently in power” (1/28, Letters). Eddie Clay should take off his partisan glasses or go back and study the history of the Clinton administration and the 40 years the Democrats controlled Congress.

Kirk C. Klingler
Fayette, Mo.

Patriot Act

Congress will soon debate and vote on reauthorization of the so-called Patriot Act. Please tell your representative you do not trust the government to pry into citizens’ affairs without judicial oversight to determine whether there is good cause to do so.

The Patriot Act was originally passed by a frightened Congress without adequate review and debate, right after Sept. 11. Congress must now carefully study what is in the act and not be frightened into renewal. And as citizens of the greatest democratic country, we must not be frightened into giving up our constitutional rights.

In America, it is the citizen, alone and collectively, who is sovereign. We are the fourth branch of government. We limit the power of government over our lives by the Constitution, the most liberating document in history.

Those who rely excessively upon militarism are the cause of terrorism, not the cure. They are also the ones who tell us we must give up our constitutional rights in order to be safe. That is not the path to peace and security.

Fred Slough
Kansas City

Questions for Bush

Administration officials recently fanned out across the media landscape and into our backyard in Manhattan, Kan., to tell us we should be thankful the president believes that he alone should determine which Americans need to be spied upon by their own government. While the academic legal community is virtually united in its belief that the Bush spying program is illegal and unconstitutional, political operatives for the White House hope to convince average Americans they should be glad.

But the president's extraordinary claim cries out for three questions we should demand to be answered:

-- Given that the FISA court set up to approve domestic wiretapping has denied a warrant only five times in its almost 30 years of existence, how can applying for one be considered an obstacle?

-- Since the NSA can spy on Americans for 72 hours before notifying the FISA court, how is the involvement of this court a problem?

-- Why give this or any future president such unchecked power when it doesn't appear necessary or effective? The FBI is on record as saying the leads it received from the NSA were almost all dead ends.

Alexis Stevens
Kansas City

Surveillance is worth it

In regard to government surveillance, Steven White (1/23, As I See It) raises concern over attorney-client privileged communications. I suggest he worry more about using the telephone, whether land line or cell phone, for privileged conversations (any competent hacker can listen in) than the government monitoring conversations for “key words” centering on potential terrorist affiliations.

Until there is some hard evidence that the government is actually using overheard information for anything other than catching terrorists, I would prefer continuing the efforts to keep us safe from attack.

Steve Bailey
Fairway

A matter of (dis)trust

The president is asking us to take his word that the government is spying only on terrorists. Yet it seems to me that he and the vice president have all but called this nation's war critics terrorists.

I can well imagine the administration spying on everyone from political opponents to war critics to outspoken members of the media. I can't imagine a judge approving any surveillance of such people.

This administration for years harbored someone who exposed a CIA agent. I don't think it is too much to ask that they now demonstrate that they are acting in good faith by retroactively getting approval - in accordance with the law of the land - for their spying.

Dan Carmack
Liberty, Mo.

A sad take on rights

It’s clear that Patricia Gottardi (1/19, Letters) loves our country. So for her to accept anything the administration does because “such people know civil rights have no value when we’re dead” is sad.

Terrorism cannot defeat America by killing Americans. If we surrender our freedom and constitutional rights out of fear, if we condemn our countrymen for exercising those rights, and if we do not defend the rule of law, are we still America?

John Meyer
Blue Springs

Can’t they do both?

Evidently, Republicans can do only one thing at a time.

They say they can’t protect us from terrorists and protect our freedoms simultaneously. They complain that they are better at fighting terrorism than Democrats, evidently because they are willing to take away our freedoms while supposedly fighting terrorists. Since they haven’t caught Osama bin Laden, I can’t see that they are very good at fighting terrorists.

After all, Sept. 11 happened on their watch, and they had ample information beforehand. The administration says we haven’t had another attack since Sept. 11. So what? We went from 1993 to 2001 without a large-scale attack within our borders by a foreign enemy. If we lose our freedoms because of the administration, what is the difference between that and losing our freedoms because of terrorists?

Personally, I prefer someone who can protect our freedoms and fight terrorism at the same time. Where are the congressional oversight committees whose duty it is to protect the people? Why aren’t they taking actions against this corrupt administration? Where is the so-called liberal press?

Alberta Moles
Harrisonville

It’s a big difference

I would like to respond to George Elkins’ question (1/15, Letters) as to what the difference is between eavesdropping without a court-ordered warrant and eavesdropping with a “rubber-stamp” warrant. The answer is simple: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court requires at least some national-security reason before issuing a warrant.

I don’t think the FISA court would rubber-stamp a request for a warrant to eavesdrop on someone’s adversaries for political purposes. The ease with which a warrant is obtained for legitimate reasons makes me wonder: Would the reason for one to go around the court be illegitimate motives?

A.C. Merritt
Overland Park

A pox on leaks

Treacherous public servants, treasonous publishers and opportunistic writers are going to be the death of us all.

The government listening in on terrorists? How Republican — a Democrat would never do that. Only people who want to win the war on terror would do such an ugly thing. Such people value civil rights. Such people know civil rights have no value when we’re dead.

Watch for decreasing newspaper circulation, election losses and book advances that exceed sales. Those who leak/print government secrets for career/financial benefits will be obliterated by blogging. No matter how loudly they chant anti-Bush trash, this is already happening.

Patricia Gottardi
Overland Park