NSA Data Collection
In response to a recent inquiry regarding data collection by the NSA I offer the following.
Thanks for the question regarding NSA data collection. I think that individual privacy and liberty must be protected. Part of protecting that liberty requires that our government provide security and national defense. Fourth amendment protections need to be enforced. We rely on the FISA court to provide judicial oversight, on use of intelligence data, by warrant. The collection of metadata is controversial with advocates citing the "third party doctrine" that has been found constitutional by Supreme Court decisions in 1976, and in 1979 ( Smith v. Maryland). Essentially, if an individual turns over information to a "third part", such as a phone company, that information can be turned over to the government. The Supreme Court ruled that the "content" of a conversation in a phone call requires a warrant. This would seem to permit "metadata" collection. NSA officials have testified to Congress that this approach has prevented/thwarted many terror plots. As your Congressman it will be my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and provide , on behalf of all constituents, scrutiny and oversight. We can, with judicial and legislative oversight provide necessary national security and simultaneously protect Constitutional privacy and liberty of individuals. This is vitally important. We must be confident that our Representation in Congress is doing that job. As we have seen with the recent IRS scandal, ambitous people will abuse their office and authority for political gain. Congressional oversight has been a disappointment on the IRS scandal and in the Clinton email scandal. We need not, should not, and will not surrender Constitutionally protected rights
Thanks for the question regarding NSA data collection. I think that individual privacy and liberty must be protected. Part of protecting that liberty requires that our government provide security and national defense. Fourth amendment protections need to be enforced. We rely on the FISA court to provide judicial oversight, on use of intelligence data, by warrant. The collection of metadata is controversial with advocates citing the "third party doctrine" that has been found constitutional by Supreme Court decisions in 1976, and in 1979 ( Smith v. Maryland). Essentially, if an individual turns over information to a "third part", such as a phone company, that information can be turned over to the government. The Supreme Court ruled that the "content" of a conversation in a phone call requires a warrant. This would seem to permit "metadata" collection. NSA officials have testified to Congress that this approach has prevented/thwarted many terror plots. As your Congressman it will be my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and provide , on behalf of all constituents, scrutiny and oversight. We can, with judicial and legislative oversight provide necessary national security and simultaneously protect Constitutional privacy and liberty of individuals. This is vitally important. We must be confident that our Representation in Congress is doing that job. As we have seen with the recent IRS scandal, ambitous people will abuse their office and authority for political gain. Congressional oversight has been a disappointment on the IRS scandal and in the Clinton email scandal. We need not, should not, and will not surrender Constitutionally protected rights
Detention Authorization and the 2012 NDAA
In response to a constituent inquiry I wrote the following concerning the 2012 NDAA :
If I may , I will presume that your concern is for the detention authorization by the military and whether it applies to U.S. citizens. To further our discussion , I offer a review from Heritage Foundation on this subject. Do you agree with the conclusion? If not, please advise me. My intention is to serve citizens in a way that takes a strict adherence approach to constitutional rights. I spoke at McNeese University this past week and confirmed for the audience , who asked a similar question, that I do not support any legislation that would sacrifice liberty in exchange for or in pursuit of "security" because as Franklin said - we would surely lose both. As your representative , I would be the most constitutional and firm defender of liberty and national security.
Please see :
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/facts-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act-and-military-detention-of-us-citizens
"In summary, the NDAA detainee provisions do not create or expand the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens. In no way does the NDAA negatively impact or change the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Instead, section 1021 strengthens the military’s authority to detain individuals who are members of or substantially supporting al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. " www.Heritage.org
Thanks for this important question. And thanks for your good citizenship. Please share my contact information , web site and the attached flier with your friends and email contacts.
Sincerely,
Bryan Barrilleaux
Candidate by Petition
U.S. House of Representatives
District 3, Louisiana
If I may , I will presume that your concern is for the detention authorization by the military and whether it applies to U.S. citizens. To further our discussion , I offer a review from Heritage Foundation on this subject. Do you agree with the conclusion? If not, please advise me. My intention is to serve citizens in a way that takes a strict adherence approach to constitutional rights. I spoke at McNeese University this past week and confirmed for the audience , who asked a similar question, that I do not support any legislation that would sacrifice liberty in exchange for or in pursuit of "security" because as Franklin said - we would surely lose both. As your representative , I would be the most constitutional and firm defender of liberty and national security.
Please see :
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/facts-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act-and-military-detention-of-us-citizens
"In summary, the NDAA detainee provisions do not create or expand the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens. In no way does the NDAA negatively impact or change the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Instead, section 1021 strengthens the military’s authority to detain individuals who are members of or substantially supporting al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. " www.Heritage.org
Thanks for this important question. And thanks for your good citizenship. Please share my contact information , web site and the attached flier with your friends and email contacts.
Sincerely,
Bryan Barrilleaux
Candidate by Petition
U.S. House of Representatives
District 3, Louisiana