get involved! email your senator to support censure!

I always talk about being involved. This time, I am. I emailed my senators, you must do the same. There is no reason why a censure cannot be supported; this is an issue of criminal action, not an issue of politics. Go here to email your senator. Here’s what I sent to Chambliss and Isakson:

Senator Chambliss/Isakson,

I am writing you today as a concerned American citizen, asking you to please support and back Feingold in his request to censure president Bush. What the president has done is criminal, and at a minimum, his actions set a bad precedent, especially if no action is taken against someone who breaks the law. When he went against the law and avoided the safe guards in place, and proceeded in conducting illegal wiretapping, he violated the freedom of the American public, and did so under false pretenses; more importantly, he broke the law. Senator Chambliss/Isakson, I challenge you to look at what is important here; the president is not above the law, and should not be allowed to conduct himself in that manner. Please, support the censure, and show your constituents that you support our freedom and believe in justice. The president is not above the law, and he cannot continue to believe that he is. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Duane Moody

Let’s get involved!

UPDATE: I don’t know how many of you care (not many people have commented), but I did get a response from Senator Chambliss, and I sent him another reply. Since it is long, it is after the jump… so click the read more.

Here’s what Senator Chambliss sent me:

Dear Mr. Moody:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Security
Agency’s (NSA) monitoring of conversations connected to terrorist activity.
I appreciate hearing from you.

The President has publicly discussed certain activities of the NSA
that he authorized in the weeks following the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks on our nation. As described by the President, the NSA intercepts
certain international communications into and out of the United States of
persons linked to terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and its affiliated
groups. The President has said that the purpose of the Presidential directive
is to prevent another catastrophic attack on our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, two of the terrorist hijackers
who attacked the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, were
communicating with other members of al Qaeda overseas while they were in
the United States preparing for their deadly attack. Regrettably, we did not
know this until it was too late. The President’s actions attempt to address
weaknesses in our early warning system, making it more likely that
terrorists, like the 9/11 hijackers, will be identified and located in time to
prevent another disaster.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am
aware that Administration briefings of this type are limited to a very few,
and that Congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on several
occasions.

The world changed on September 11, 2001, demonstrating that it is
vitally important that the President of the United States must have the power
and authority to act on information to protect the American people from
future acts of terrorism by al-Qaeda and terrorists who target the United
States.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. As always, I
appreciate hearing from you. In the meantime, if you would like to receive
timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my
weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at:
www.chambliss.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate

And here’s my reply:

Senator Chambliss,

I deeply appreciate your return email, but I would like to ask you a
question. I understand that the intelligence committee does a vital job of
monitoring conversations of potential terrorists in order to determine if
action is needed; and I also understand that the world is a different
place after 9/11. But what I do not understand is how the president can
illegally go against the laws that require a court order for wiretapping,
even when the president petitioned (which was accepted)to speed up the
process of obtaining said court orders to 72 hours; and not be held
accountable. Yes, terrorism is a threat, and I would definitely like to
see our intelligence committee and intelligence forces take it seriously
in the future, but what I do not understand, nor condone, is their ability
to act outside and above the law. If the laws need to be reexamined and
possibly changed, that is certainly understandable and commendable, but
they cannot be simply ignored and broken.

When you said, “The world changed on September 11, 2001, demonstrating
that it is vitally important that the President of the United States must
have the power and authority to act on information to protect the American
people from future acts of terrorism by al-Qaeda and terrorists who target
the United States.” I assume that you are referring to a similar action as
I suggested; examining and potentially changing the laws regarding wire
tapping. But, in this case, the president did not do that, and instead
ignored those laws. My question, Senator, is how can we set a precedent as
a free and just nation, if our own president is not bound by the laws that
govern this country, and continues to violate those freedoms? Supporting a
censure on the president is a symbol of understanding that these laws were
ignored, and furthermore that these laws must be examined further, and not
disregarded. I appreciate your response, and do hope that you will further
examine the evidence that the president did engage in illegal wire
tapping, and see a censure as a measure of pointing out wrongdoing, for
the purpose of re-examining laws around wire-tapping; I think that the
American people at least deserve that. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Duane Moody

So, am I like asking to be monitored, or what? Since the intelligence peeps are reading this now, say wassup in the comments, yo! Seriously, though… what do you silent blog buddies think?? Do you think that it is weird that he didn’t even address the illegal wire-tapping, but instead focused on 9/11? Interesting…