March 10, 2008 - 5:52pm
Myers calls out Democrats on FISA
By Max PizarroMedford Township Mayor Chris Myers, GOP candidate in the 3rd Congressional district, today demanded that House Democrats stop stalling and re-authorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"The number one complaint I hear about Congress on the campaign trail is that they’re ineffective do-nothings who continually put politics before the people they are elected to represent," said Myers, who was joined at a press conference outside Fort Dix with U.S. Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
"The House Democrats’ failure to enact comprehensive (FISA) reform is just another example of this, and another reason why we need real change in Washington," added Myers, a vice-president at Lockheed Martin in Moorestown and decorated service veteran.
Dent challenged the Republicans’ likely opponent in the 3rd district, Democratic nominee state Sen. John Adler (D-Camden), to "get off the sidelines and urge House Democrats to act in a bipartisan manner and in the best interests of the nation and its citizens."
"Chris Myers has made his position clear on this issue, he stands with members of both parties in supporting a comprehensive bill that keeps us on the offense against foreign terrorists," said Dent. "As a candidate for Congress, Senator Adler needs to stop hiding behind his spokes-people and either line up with those protecting America, or throw his lot in with those continuing to play politics."
For his part, Adler released a statement today, underscoring his own support for reupping FISA "so that our intelligence community has the tools needed to keep America safe in a dangerous world. We must also protect the freedoms for which our troops have made so many courageous sacrifices."
Said Adler, "I am disappointed by the partisan gridlock in Washington that has kept Congress from reaching bipartisan common sense solutions. I'm running for Congress to change the way business is being done in Washington, and to seek an end to the bitterly partisan culture that prevents agreements on critical issues such as this. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to ensure that the American people are kept safe, secure, and free. We need to make sure our government protects our security and our freedom."
The U.S. Senate already updated the 30-year-old FISA Act, which would re-authorize warrantless wiretapping by intelligence agencies of foreign communications. The legislation would also give immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the federal government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has denounced FISA in its current form.
Ocean County Freeholder Jack Kelly, Myers’ chief primary challenger in the 3rd district contest, agreed with Myers and Adler about the re-authorization of FISA and said he put out a similar statement a week ago.
"The ACLU is the most liberal group in the world," said Kelly. "They don’t care about the security of people in this country. These are foreign nationals we’re talking about here. You can make a thousand excuses for why they are blocking this legislation in Congress, but the fact is that this country has not been attacked since Sept. 11. We need to continue to protect our nation."
Contributors
Wally Edge
Biotech millionaire John Crowley is seriously considering bid for the Republican nomination for Governor in 2009 – although some GOP leaders ... >
Bob Torricelli
The Record announced yesterday that it was closing its Hackensack offices and "reinventing"itself. It was actually announcing its own ... >
Michael Patrick Carroll
NJ STARS, while failing in its intended purpose, nonetheless demonstrates the need for fundamental reform in NJ's high schools. >
Debbie Holtz
Another fiscal-cutting measure still lies on the Governor's desk -- it's the one that reduces spending by way of statutory tweaks to the ... >
Steve Lonegan
The 2009 New Jersey State Budget is not the stunning tribute to sound fiscal policy The Trenton insiders would have you believe, but just a ... >
Dr. Joseph Marbach
The budget proposed by Gov. Jon Corzine has produced myriad negative reactions, featuring various interests seeking to limit the impact of the cuts ... >
Rob Tornoe
Michael P. Riccards
Recently, I walked into a large movie theatre with my wife Barbara to see "Sex and the City," the long, long rendition of themes that ... >
Carla Katz
As the Presidential election draws closer and closer, we tend to focus our attention on the daily horse race between the candidates and lose sight of ... >
Top Tags
Most Active Stories
- Torricelli on The (Bergen) Record
- Jackson likes Obama-Biden
- A thumbnail New Jersey guide to the history of Obamaland, Part I
- Is Murphy on the short list to be Crowley's L.G.?
- Corzine defends budget
- The curse of the legislature
- A thumbnail New Jersey guide to the history of Obamaland, Part II
- Corzine and Christie meet on the campaign trail
- Garrett tells donors he's concerned about Shulman
- Karcher, Panter won't rule out '11 Senate bids
- Dr. Bones goes to Washington
- PoliticsNJ.com Power List 2007
- Eleven arrested in bribery scandal
- Lyndhurst GOP, nearly all of them, switching parties
- Lobbyist arrested
- Governor Paralysis
- Who is the best State Party Chairman in New Jersey
- KYRILLOS, BECK, KEAN & HANDLIN VOW WORK TO KEEP SEASTREAK FERRY UP AND RUNNING
- Torricelli on COAH
- Two N.J. super delegates go to Obama; Norcross backs Obama; key Clinton supporters endorse Obama
Quote of the Day
July 4, 2008
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
-Declaration of Independence, 07/04/1776
Recent Press Releases
- Jul 4 2008
In the News
Read the expanded Wake Up Call, our summary of today’s news media coverage.
Today’s Must Reads:
Bob Torricelli is Mad at the Big, 'Mean' Bergen Record― THE MEDIA MOB
Sweeney-Buono alliance shakes up N.J. Senate― JONATHAN TAMARI
Stile: Pay to play helped to quell party insurgents ― CHARLES STILE
Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker at Midpoint ― DICK BENFIELD
MUCHAS MARGARITAS― ANDY UNANUE
NJ Economic Growth chief leaves office― Gary Rose
Candidates spend plenty of their money― Philadelphia Inquirer
News anchor sizing up run for governor― Star-Ledger
Political parties get right down to business― Daily Record
Ex-city official should give all of it back― Star-Ledger
PolitickerNJ.com Jobs
Syndicate
Irresponsible Reporting
This has nothing to so with any refusan to "re-authorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
First of all, FISA is still in full force, including recent changes made after 9/11 giving the White House expanded surveillance powers. It's not FISA that is the issue here, but changes made last summer called the Protect America Act that were set to sunset after six months.
Second of all, the Democrats in Congress -- both the Senate and the House -- offered to extend the Protect America Act when the sunset was happening and the Bush White House and Congressional Republicans refused to do so.
From February 13:
The suggestion that we are less safe because the Democrats refused to extend the Protect America Act is either a statement of ignorance or deceit, because the Democrats offered to do so and the Republicans blocked the effort.
If Myers were an honest man he would call on the Republicans to remove their block on extending the Protect America Act instead of blaming the Democrats. But the Republicans refuse to do so unless the Democrats add in retroactive immunity for telecom companies that may have broken the law at the behest of the Bush administration, turning over records of our phone calls and making data unrelated to any wrongdoing available to the White House.
But for some reason when you mention the retroactive immunity you only note that the ACLU opposes it, and then let Myers smear them as a left wing organization. What about the highly respected Senators like Chris Dodd, who no one would accuse of being a leftist reactionary? How about Joe Biden, the conservative Democrat from Deleware? No, you have to pick the ACLU and then let Myers smear them with no defense.
This has nothing to do with terrorism, protecting American citizens or FISA. It is an effort to cover up what may be illegal acts by the White House and major American corporations. I say "may be" because we don't know, and we don't know because the White House is trying to block the lawsuits that will tell us.
Part of that blocking effort is the refusal to extend the Protect America Act without retroactive immunity which would instanty end the lawsuits.
All this is public record and widely reported, and should be included in any article about a Republican trying to bamboozle on this issue. Instead we get Myer's position without any counterpoint.
empty posturing
Perfectly stated, Formerly. I find it interesting that Constitutional rights are under attack by the Bush administration, which then counters that Dems have let FISA protections expire. And then Myers, who'll seemingly do whatever stunt necessary to get press attention, criticizes: Talk about being counterintuitive. This the same secretive Administration posturing that has led Miers (Harriet) and that other Bush lackey, Bolten, to have received a civil lawsuit.
You Like Terrorists Getting a Free Ride?
Both of you are pathetic.
Why in the world you believe that the terrorists have "constitutional rights," or that allowing a technological smokescreen to be employed to protect those who are intentionally enabling terror planning is more important that the safety of the American people, is something you both will have to explain to yourselves when you look in the mirror in the morning.
Or, is it the livelihoods of the trial lawyers who are on a fools errand, a fishing expedition employed to the detriment of the rest of us, that is the prime motivating factor in both of you expressing such shortsighted opinions?
Big Democrat contributors, those trial lawyers!
Shame on both of you!
But the rest of us are interested in having the government able to protect our homeland in an efficient manner.
by Trochilus
If Myers wants to pretend to
If Myers wants to pretend to be a conservative, maybe he should review the list of prominent conservatives who are against the Patriot Act, Protect America blah blah blah and all the other ignorantly named laws that operate under the guise of "keeping us safe." Newsflash, I know we haven't had a domestic attack since 9/11 but we didn't have one for over 200 years before either without all these pointless laws.
“The Bush
“The Bush administration argues convincingly that roving wiretaps, reading people’s e-mail, putting video cameras on every corner and perusing their library habits will make it easier to catch terrorists before they act...the problem is that once all this is in place, we will no longer be living in the same country we lived in prior to Sept. 11. Those asking us to give up liberty for security should be careful.”
David Keene - The American Conservative Union
Gee, I guess the American Conservative Union is a bunch of RINO's - right.
History lesson
No attacks before 9/11? What are you smoking? Pearl Harbor ring a bell? How about the Trade Center attacks in the 90s? And if you want to get technical - the bombings of the USS Cole and the Marine Barracks in Beruit would constitute attacks on "US soil". So Justin, keep dreaming you have a shot. You and your "friend" Bret can play in Wonderland with Alice aka Martian.
More hisotry
More history for you Justin. The FISA bill was passed in 1978. How many attacks on US soil have come since?
Spitzer
Let's see, the US Attorney Gereral said "There might be an Al-Qaida attack again...then why is the FBI spending untold millions and manpower and equipment going after protitutes and their "Elliots?"
Obviously, I was referring
Obviously, I was referring to airline attacks. And as for the attacks you mention, the EXACT SAME MECHANISMS were available before the Patriot Act. All the feds had to do was go to the FISA court for the rubber stamp warrant. The probable cause existed at the time to tap phones, search homes, etc.. The feds failed to catch these people.
The key focus of the Patriot Act is to eliminate checks and balances and the warrant system.
Don't pretend to be a conservative if you support the "Patriot Act" because you are not.
And who the hell is Justin?
Right
Right - you don't know who Justin is. You are funny. As for whether I am conservative, I am. Proud of it. However, I understand that in today's day and age, situations call for measures to ensure the safety of my family. I am willing to give up a little to get a lot. And if you are not making calls, sending emails, coversing with foriegn nationals, you have little to worry about. This has been going on for years. Look at the FBI files on John Lennon, MLK Jr. and so on. Please do not try to convince me because I am sane, I am not a conservative. Dig that hole deeper and keep your head in it. By the way, have we been attacked since the Patriot Act went into law? Do you know how many attacks have been thwarted because of it?
Formerly is dead-on right.
Very well said.
And, OC, if someone today said "give me liberty or give me death," you'd probably call them an anti-American liberal commie terrorist sympathizer. What a joke. Amazing how all of the so called tough-on-terror bloviators are the ones so easily giving up their rights so someone can "protect" them. Let me guess- you believe emphatically in the 2nd Amendment. So how about we let the government monitor all conversations and transactions in gun shops? Track all internet activity of gun owners? Certainly would make us "safer".
A certain p word comes to mind...
How on earth can you attempt
How on earth can you attempt to define conservatism better than the following groups who have spoken out against the "Patriot" Act and the other surviellence measures put forth by this administration:
The American Conservatvie Union, David Keene, Gun Owners of America, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, Former Congressman Bob Barr, The Free Congress Foundation, American Policy Center, Andew Napolitano..
These are Consevratives, you my friend, and people like Sean Hannity are far off the reservation when it comes to conservative values on issues like this.
I suggest you dump the RNC talking points and get back to your conservative roots. The problem is that RNC and the Bush Administration feel they can define conservatism because they are pro-life. You are right, if I am not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about. But I do not intend to ever allow the FBI in my home without a warrant - regardless.
^for commentator
^for commentator
Sidd
I could honestly care less whta you think of me. Call me a p word if you'd like. That is fine. IF you are agreeing with formerly then I know you are off of the reservation. And just because David Keane (whom I have met), Andrew Napolitano and the rest of the people you goose step to says one thing does not make it right - politically or legally. And you are going to use Bob ACLU Barr as a "conservative?" He was a nut when he was in Congress and even crazier now. You have weakened your argument.
I was thinking Proud Republican.
What P word did you think I meant?
Where exactly was formerly off the reservation in that comment? To be honest, I have a hard time believing anything the current administration says about "security". (How's that "dead or alive" UBL?) I know Ted Kennedy is the devil, but here's how he put it:
The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
Oh I see, because the ACLU
Oh I see, because the ACLU says it, it must be wrong. Republicans support the Patriot Act - conservatives do not. Plain and simple.
It's funny how some of you people turn against a guy like Bob Barr because he stands on conservative principles and joins a group that is wrongly characterized as liberal. When he was impeacher-in-chief he was the conservative hero.
It's amazing that vehement support for searches and phone taps that require a simple warrant makes some people view you as liberal. But under the "Patriot" Act, FBI agents can write their own. What a wonderful new Republican America.
Barr
Never thought Barr was a good guy. Not before, during, or after impeachment. Speak for yourself and not for me. Conservatives like William F Buckley understood the complexities of the Patriot Act and understood why it was being implemented. Will take his word for it over yours any day of the week.
Ok. So the American
Ok. So the American Conservative Union has it wrong.
As for Buckley, he is akin to a modern religious right conservative. He is not a conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater. Original conservatives championed limited government even in the face of major world events.
Buckley did not adhere to limited government principles. He started the current mantra of strenghtening the federal government to acheive conservative ideas. There is a huge difference. The Goldwater principles of limited government have given way to a new big government conservativism. Modern day Republicans try to take their religious views and justify then into conservatism. They also take their prejudices and emotions on issues like 9/11 and try to tie them into conservatism to justfy their own stances against individual liberties. It's humerous to say the least.
Of course, Goldwater's views of limited government and his disdain for the religious influence in the GOP have made him a "liberal."
My last thought, modern day Republicans like you like to argue that "times have changed" so the constitutional principles need to adapt to things like the "Patriot" Act. But when the issue of the 2nd amendment comes up, they get their panties in a bunch when the same argument is made with respect to the right to bear arms and simple registration of hand guns.
Once again
Once again, do not speak for me. You do not know my veiws on the 2nd Amendment so do not imply that you do. And I love how if you do not goose step the right way, you are not a "true" conservative. And the ACU does not write the manuscript for the conservative movement in this country.
I'd say based on their
I'd say based on their ranking systems (which leave out the Patriot Act) and the popularity of their CPAC convention amongst conservatives that they come pretty darn close to writing themanifest of conservtism.