Our Right to Security
Debra Burlingame, “the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001″, has written a stirring op-ed titled “Our Right to Security” to remind us of all that’s at stake when we debate the NSA intercepts and renewing the Patriot Act. Here’s some key parts of that op-ed:
One of the most excruciating images of the September 11 attacks is the sight of a man who was trapped in one of the World Trade Center towers. Stripped of his suit jacket and tie and hanging on to what appears to be his office curtains, he is seen trying to lower himself outside a window to the floor immediately below. Frantically kicking his legs in an effort to find a purchase, he loses his grip, and falls.That horrific scene and thousands more were the images that awakened a sleeping nation on that long, brutal morning. Instead of overwhelming fear or paralyzing self-doubt, the attacks were met with defiance, unity and a sense of moral purpose. Following the heroic example of ordinary citizens who put their fellow human beings and the public good ahead of themselves, the country’s leaders cast aside politics and personal ambition and enacted the USA Patriot Act just 45 days later.
A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about “killing” or “playing chicken” with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us.
Critics contend that the Patriot Act was rushed into law in a moment of panic. The truth is, the policies and guidelines it corrected had a long, troubled history and everybody who had to deal with them knew it. The “wall” was a tortuous set of rules promulgated by Justice Department lawyers in 1995 and imagined into law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Conceived as an added protection for civil liberties provisions already built into the statute, it was the wall and its real-world ramifications that hardened the failure-to-share culture between agencies, allowing early information about 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to fall through the cracks. More perversely, even after the significance of these terrorists and their presence in the country was known by the FBI’s intelligence division, the wall prevented it from talking to its own criminal division in order to hunt them down.
What’s caused the Democrats to crow about killing the Patriot Act? Did they forget the horrific pictures of that bright blue September morning? Did they forget that the ‘Gorelick Wall’ had prevented us from passing vital information between the CIA and the FBI, information that might’ve prevented the attacks?
A strong case can be made that they’ve reverted to a pre-9/11 mindset because they’re so interested in getting to ‘their issues’ of healthcare, education and the environment. It’s like they don’t want to pay it proper attention, much like Bill Clinton did during the 90’s.
Before someone jumps my case about Clinton’s unseriousness on the issue, I’ll simply remind you of all the happy talk amongst Congressional Democrats about our “holiday from history” and how there was peace on Earth, etc. They talked about how the Cold War was won and how there were no more real threats to America. That was the real talk of the 90’s. And no, sending in a few cruise missiles into some tents isn’t taking terrorism seriously.
And don’t go there with the argument that the average American didn’t take global terrorism seriously, either. The average American wasn’t charged with protecting us from terrorists and the average American didn’t see the intel reports that talked about AQ’s activities.
In 2002, FISA’s appellate level Court of Review examined the entire statutory scheme for issuing warrants in national security investigations and declared the “wall” a nonsensical piece of legal overkill, based neither on express statutory language nor reasonable interpretation of the FISA statute. The lower court’s attempt to micromanage the execution of national security warrants was deemed an assertion of authority which neither Congress or the Constitution granted it. In other words, those lawyers and judges who created, implemented and so assiduously enforced the FISA guidelines were wrong and the American people paid dearly for it.
“FISA’s appellate level Court of Review” ruled that Jamie Gorelick’s Wall was “legal overkill”. Sadly, it didn’t prevent terrorists from killing American citizens. In fact, I’d say that FISA is legal overkill, stemming from Nixon spying on political opponents.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
January 31st, 2006 at 1:34 am
I agree with you. Here is a novel, “After 9/11: A Korean Girl’s Sexual Journey.” I strongly believe that you will have something to say about it, and especially about chapter 43, “9/11s are forgiveness,” which makes “9/11″ a general noun for the worst disaster that could happen in one’s life. I have never seen any writer put it this way.
If I bothered you, please forgive me. Good luck!
January 31st, 2006 at 7:56 am
Debra Burlingame has a criminal past. Check into it, C.C. Her op-ed means nothing to me. She is a law breaker…nothing more.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:20 am
Benn: So does Tubby Teddy, Billy Bub, and a slew of other moonbats. Jimmy I-can’t-believe- I’m-not-a-goober Carter is guilty of treason, too, but hasn’t been and won’t be charged. So what’s your point?
Interesting how history plays out in the minds of those who refuse to acknowledge it.