Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Don't ask because Sue won't tell
Sue Kelly was present at an American Legion breakfast that a veteran friend of ours attended last Friday. Our friend spoke to her briefly afterwards, and reports the following conversation:
He asked what she thought about the Connecticut library that is waging a court challenge against an FBI subpoena under the Patriot Act for the library's user records, billing information, and internet logs - a subpoena obtained by the FBI without the approval of a judge. By the way, the section of the Patriot Act used to obtain this subpoena has been struck down as unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. And no one can know the identity of the library that is suing because revealing that is prohibited under the Patriot Act.
Without answering his question, Sue registered her support for this section of the Patriot Act, in spite of the fact that the Justice Department has acknowledged it can be used to obtain information about innocent people.
Next our friend asked Sue what she thought about the bill recently passed in the Senate, which would eliminate the right of Guantanamo detainees to challenge their captivity in the Federal courts - approximately 300 lawsuits. The bill strips the detainees of the rights granted to them by the Supreme Court in a June 2004 decision. Although she did not answer his question - why are we not surprised? - and failed to hint at her position, she said that the outcome may be different when a similar bill is taken up by the House next week. Whew! Sue dodged another bullet - she probably figures, no reason to expose your moral values when it isn't necessary!
And then our friend started talking about how Bush plays the "fear card" every time he gets in trouble. Sue didn't even bother to "not answer" that one - she simply walked away.
Our friend, intrepid and not despairing that he might - some day - get a viewpoint from Sue, let her know that he would be contacting her office for some further discussions. Stay tuned.
He asked what she thought about the Connecticut library that is waging a court challenge against an FBI subpoena under the Patriot Act for the library's user records, billing information, and internet logs - a subpoena obtained by the FBI without the approval of a judge. By the way, the section of the Patriot Act used to obtain this subpoena has been struck down as unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. And no one can know the identity of the library that is suing because revealing that is prohibited under the Patriot Act.
Without answering his question, Sue registered her support for this section of the Patriot Act, in spite of the fact that the Justice Department has acknowledged it can be used to obtain information about innocent people.
Next our friend asked Sue what she thought about the bill recently passed in the Senate, which would eliminate the right of Guantanamo detainees to challenge their captivity in the Federal courts - approximately 300 lawsuits. The bill strips the detainees of the rights granted to them by the Supreme Court in a June 2004 decision. Although she did not answer his question - why are we not surprised? - and failed to hint at her position, she said that the outcome may be different when a similar bill is taken up by the House next week. Whew! Sue dodged another bullet - she probably figures, no reason to expose your moral values when it isn't necessary!
And then our friend started talking about how Bush plays the "fear card" every time he gets in trouble. Sue didn't even bother to "not answer" that one - she simply walked away.
Our friend, intrepid and not despairing that he might - some day - get a viewpoint from Sue, let her know that he would be contacting her office for some further discussions. Stay tuned.
