Is Eric Massa packing? That and other questions were answered at today's Massa press conference.
The first question I asked at today's press conference was simple: Are you packing? Massa's short answer: no. The long answer:
I'm embarrassed by a Member of Congress telling the press he was [considering] packing, which is gansta rap terminology for carrying a gun. At no time did a citizen threaten anyone. They presented a petition and waited for Kuhl to come back. To say that the was threatened and he was [considering] packing is the height of irresponsibility in the use of firearms. I spent 24 years in the military training young Sailors and Marines in the use of firearms. [Our policy was] to never allow the use of deadly force without due cause, and [that it could be used] only if threatened to that degree.
Massa made two other points about Kuhl's visit with the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board (see here and here for more information):
In addition to his critique of Kuhl's comments at the D&C editorial board, he also criticized Kuhl's vote against the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, and repeated his criticism of Kuhl's habit of voting against bills in which he has earmarks. "On the one hand, he issues press releases celebrating pork earmarks, on the other hand he votes against those bills, saying they're riddled with Democratic party excesses in taxes and spending." Massa cited this as one reason that voters reject "business as usual" in Congress. He said that voters want "some integrity, honesty and straight talk." He believes that voters will support someone who they might disagree with, as long as they have some integrity.
I asked Massa whether he would have supported S 1927, which extended and broadened the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Massa said he wouldn't have voted for it:
The war against fundamentalists who would do us harm is not about destroying our civil liberties. We fought World War I, II and Korea, and we did not fight the Constitution. We can bring our enemies to justice, protect the American people, and we can make sure that those who can do us harm are unable to do so without destroying the Constitution.
Massa said that his overall philosophy about the Patriot Act and corollary bills (like S 1927) was that they have "not gone far enough in protecting the country, and they go too far in destroying the Constitution and Bill of Rights." Massa believes that the President had all the authority he needed to have to protect the country, yet he refused to require inspection of 100% of incoming cargo vessels. "We require 100% search of those getting on an airplane, but hundreds of tons of imports aren't inspected." Massa related this back to the corporate donations by companies like Wal-Mart that require imports to survive.
Comments
who else was on the press call?
Julie Sherwood of the Messenger-Post was on it for sure. There were some beeps and bops in the background which made me wonder if someone else was on, but whoever it was didn't ask any questions.
I should include this info in the story...
" The war against fundamentalists who would do us harm is not about destroying our civil liberties. We fought World War I, II and Korea, and we did not fight the Constitution. We can bring our enemies to justice, protect the American people, and we can make sure that those who can do us harm are unable to do so without destroying the Constitution."
Seems like someone forgot about the Japanese internment camps on the west coast???
Good point.
What's interesting about the new FISA legislation is that it is happening 6 years after 9/11. The Japanese internments were inexcusable, but they were a panic reaction to Pearl Harbor. The extension of warrantless wiretapping was passed by Congress long after the initial panic of 9/11 has gone. That's what's most disturbing about them in my view.
Rotten - understand your point, but my point is that a smart man like Eric Massa would remember how Roosevelt trampled on the constitution and not try to make Bush out to be the first one to do it
I wasn't disputing your point - you're right that the US does not have a great track record on preserving civil liberties during the time of war, and Massa's trying for rhetorical flourish when he probably should be paying a little better attention to the facts. It's just interesting to me that we're still restricting our liberties 6 years into this war, where our history in other wars was to panic at first but gradually come to our senses.
While we're at it, the lapses of WW I make WW II look like a high point for civil liberties. During WW I, the Constitution was put in a box in the closet. There was heavy censorship, persecution of Germans, etc.