- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn, did you hear each congressman's "impressive" debate/speech on the floor? I found this speech particularly impressive and wonder why you didn't mention it. This often maligned republican (for not following the status quo) explains why his peers should vote "no", and why this version doesn't go far enough to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance. Do I think any other repubs think like him? Not a chance. But I wish more democrats did. I think the demos are sill running scared on the subject of "keeping America safe".
March 14, 2008 Speech to Congress:
"....The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.
Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.
This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.
I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant."
Congressman Ron Paul
