When I wrote to him I basically told him he had already lost my vote because when I tried to call his office I was met with a recording saying his office was not taking my kind of phone calls. I also told him, in my email, that I do not expect our leaders to engage in the petty game playing strategies that the republicans have such as: not allowing Democrats to argue their points during hearings, forcing them to have meetings in basement rooms, etc. I further explained my concerns about the patriot act, showing support for most of it just disagreeing with a few provisions.
I just wanted to share it with everyone. I highlighted the areas where I have a problem with his views. Anyone please comment on what he wrote, I would love to hear other opinions about his letter.
QUOTE
August 17, 2005
Thank you for contacting me concerning the
reauthorization of the Patriot Act. It is good to hear from you.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the
Justice Department requested Congress pass a series of laws to
allow the department better tools to investigate and prosecute
alleged terrorist activities. In some cases, the law clarified federal
statute, and in other cases, it removed administrative procedures
which raised the bar above court-determined safeguards to check
the powers of the federal government. Since its enactment, the
Patriot Act has proven to have its share of supporters and
detractors. The Patriot Act is part of the United States government's
counter-terrorism strategy, which takes a proactive rather than a
reactionary view on prosecuting terrorism. In the past, the United
States approached terrorism like crime. Once an incident occurred,
the government would engage in fact-finding investigations and
hopefully bring the perpetrators to justice. The magnitude of the
death and destruction on September 11th - the number of families
grieving for lost loved ones and the damaging effect on the United
States economy - changed this calculation. It has become an
unacceptable risk for this country to simply respond to terrorist
attacks.
Not all Americans agree with this strategy, and I respect the
fact that they disagree. However, I am disappointed by the willful
ignorance of important liberal advocacy groups who refuse to
argue the facts about the Patriot Act. Many of the provisions these
groups believe erode Americans' civil liberties have been in the
United States Code for decades because they have been used to
fight organized crime and health care fraud. In addition, in sworn
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice
Department responded to allegations of abuse of power from one
of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups in this country. The
Department's review of each of the alleged abuses showed that the
allegations either did not involve the Patriot Act or was entirely
within its appropriate use. In addition, the Justice Department's
Inspector General testified before Congress that his office, which
investigates complaints of civil rights or civil liberties violations
committed by the Justice Department, determined that only one of
the allegations submitted to his office was related to a provision of
the Patriot Act. The one instance that was related to the Patriot Act
was cleared as an appropriate implementation of a provision in the
Foreign Intelligence Act. The provision was enacted in 1995, and
certain provisions in the Patriot Act were tied to this provision.
The Patriot Act's strengths in giving law enforcement the
best chance to deter terrorists attacks has been lost in the
emotionally heated debate over its enactment and implementation.
If you want more information about any of the specific provisions
in the Patriot Act, my office will be happy to provide you with the
information.
Thank you again for contacting me concerning this issue.
Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are
important to you.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
Thank you for contacting me concerning the
reauthorization of the Patriot Act. It is good to hear from you.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the
Justice Department requested Congress pass a series of laws to
allow the department better tools to investigate and prosecute
alleged terrorist activities. In some cases, the law clarified federal
statute, and in other cases, it removed administrative procedures
which raised the bar above court-determined safeguards to check
the powers of the federal government. Since its enactment, the
Patriot Act has proven to have its share of supporters and
detractors. The Patriot Act is part of the United States government's
counter-terrorism strategy, which takes a proactive rather than a
reactionary view on prosecuting terrorism. In the past, the United
States approached terrorism like crime. Once an incident occurred,
the government would engage in fact-finding investigations and
hopefully bring the perpetrators to justice. The magnitude of the
death and destruction on September 11th - the number of families
grieving for lost loved ones and the damaging effect on the United
States economy - changed this calculation. It has become an
unacceptable risk for this country to simply respond to terrorist
attacks.
Not all Americans agree with this strategy, and I respect the
fact that they disagree. However, I am disappointed by the willful
ignorance of important liberal advocacy groups who refuse to
argue the facts about the Patriot Act. Many of the provisions these
groups believe erode Americans' civil liberties have been in the
United States Code for decades because they have been used to
fight organized crime and health care fraud. In addition, in sworn
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice
Department responded to allegations of abuse of power from one
of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups in this country. The
Department's review of each of the alleged abuses showed that the
allegations either did not involve the Patriot Act or was entirely
within its appropriate use. In addition, the Justice Department's
Inspector General testified before Congress that his office, which
investigates complaints of civil rights or civil liberties violations
committed by the Justice Department, determined that only one of
the allegations submitted to his office was related to a provision of
the Patriot Act. The one instance that was related to the Patriot Act
was cleared as an appropriate implementation of a provision in the
Foreign Intelligence Act. The provision was enacted in 1995, and
certain provisions in the Patriot Act were tied to this provision.
The Patriot Act's strengths in giving law enforcement the
best chance to deter terrorists attacks has been lost in the
emotionally heated debate over its enactment and implementation.
If you want more information about any of the specific provisions
in the Patriot Act, my office will be happy to provide you with the
information.
Thank you again for contacting me concerning this issue.
Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are
important to you.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner