Congressman Arcuri has announced that he supports Sarah Palin’s crusade to block the construction of a Muslim community center and mosque in lower Manhattan. Why would Arcuri do such a thing? Manhattan isn’t in our congressional district, after all.

Mike Arcuri says he’s using his power as a member of the House of Representatives to support the anti-mosque campaign because of his support for “victims’ rights”. If Arcuri had stopped to think for a moment, he might have remembered that Muslims like Mohammad Chowdhury were among the people in the Word Trade Center when it was hit on September 11, 2001. Muslims like Rahma Salie were among the innocent people who were on the hijacked planes that hit the towers. Muslims like police cadet Salman Hamdani were among the people who were killed when they rushed to the Twin Towers to help rescue as many people as possible.

Given that followers of Islam were among the victims of September 11, 2001, how on earth can Congressman Arcuri think that he’s defending “victims’ rights” by banning the free practice of Islam in Manhattan? Arcuri is actually opposing victims’ rights on this issue.

The very first words of the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Yet, here Representative Arcuri is, using his power as a member of Congress to attempt the free exercise of religion.

Mike Arcuri’s solidarity with Sarah Palin’s hateful anti-Islam purge isn’t merely constitutionally indefensible. It’s also politically incompetent. Just days before Arcuri announced that he is opposed to the free practice of Islam in New York State, his Republican opponent, Richard Hanna, announced that he would never join in such an attack on religious freedom, because he respected the founding principles of the USA too much.

Hanna took the mosque issue out of play. Arcuri didn’t have to play the anti-Muslim hate card. He did it because he wanted to, or because he just plain wasn’t smart enough to understand that encouraging fear against Islam would bring him no competitive advantage.

Either way, Arcuri has shown with the mosque issue that he is profoundly unqualified to represent us in Washington D.C. For years, Democrats have been making excuses for Blue Dog Arcuri. I don’t see how any decent, freedom-loving Trumansburg Democrat can now continue to support the Arcuri re-election campaign, when Arcuri has joined the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs in their hateful anti-Muslim crusade.

If you were at the Trumansburg Public Schools playground construction site, you would have seen a Muslim among the volunteers. She stood out in the dust and the hot sun, working hard so that all of our children could have a place to come together to play. She’s no terrorist. She’s a good citizen.

Congressman Michael Arcuri spits at her contributions, and at the contributions of all the other Muslims that live in our congressional district. If you vote to re-elect Arcuri to Congress, you will be repeating that insult.

Yesterday, the Ulysses Democratic Committee sent a letter to our U.S. Representative, Michael Arcuri. On June 20th, Congressman Arcuri introduced a resolution to limit debate on this far-reaching law to just one hour, with less than ten minutes given for the law’s opponents to speak. Then, Arcuri voted for the FISA Amendments Act.

The Ulysses Democratic Committee’s letter reads,

Dear Michael Arcuri,

We, the Ulysses Democratic Committee, in the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, State of New York, are very disappointed, in your vote for the FISA Amendments Act. While we were petitioning to get you on the ballot, you were working to undermine our Constitution, and give retroactive immunity to telecoms that are illegally spying on us. We hope you continue to support the Constitution and the voters in your district.

The Ulysses Democratic Committee also sent letters to senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Barack Obama has declared that he will vote for the FISA Amendments Act, even if amendments are not passed to improve the law. The committee’s letter to Obama reads,

Senator Obama,

We Democrats in the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, the only county you carried in New York State in the primary election, are deeply disappointed over your support for the FISA Amendments Act. Senator Obama you have said that if elected you would investigate the crimes of the present administration. Passing the FISA Amendments Act would remove some of these crimes from consideration and further damage our rights as citizens as defined by the 4th amendment to the Constitution. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Obama, vowed that you would “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” It is essential that you declare his intention to honor this pledge now. We need 41 senators to maintain a filibuster of this seriously flawed legislation. Senator Obama, as the likely nominee of our party, you are the de-facto head of the party. We need your leadership in-order to find these 41 senators.

Senator Hillary Clinton has not been clear about her intentions with the FISA Amendments Act. The Ulysses Democratic Committee sent her the following letter:

Dear Senator Clinton:

Our community is very disappointed with the House for voting to pass the FISA Amendments Act. We call upon you to join our Senior Senator from NY, and Senators Dodd and Feingold, in acting to filibuster the bill in the Senate if telecom immunity is not stripped from the bill. We also question the need for increased powers for the Executive branch to spy on the American people without a warrant, which we understand to run contrary to our constitutionally-protected rights.

New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, has clearly expressed his opposition to the FISA Amendments Act. Thanks to him for making that stand.

Go to the Library of Congress. Read the law, and try to get over the obscuring legislative language, and you’ll find that the FISA Amendments Act is not at all dry and boring. It’s rather frightening, actually.

The FISA Amendments Act gives the President (through the office of the Attorney General of the U.S.) the power to conduct spy operations against Americans and foreigners alike. These spy operations can completely avoid judicial review and control. They can include electronic surveillance of our personal communications as well as physical searches of our homes. There need be no search warrant, and no proof of suspicion of a crime. The government doesn’t even need to tell you that they’ve searched your home or been reading through your emails.

Don’t buy the spin about supposed protections that the FISA Amendments Act provides. Read the law for yourself, and you’ll see it contains loopholes a mile wide. The Attorney General is given the power under the law to conduct spy operations that violate the law. The Attorney General only has to make the assertion that a spy operation is following the law, and no court, not even the FISA court, will have the power to disagree. These loopholes mean that any supposed limitation on spy programs can be easily nullified by the White House, and no one will have the power to stop it.

It’s clear to anybody who has studied the FISA Amendments Act that the law gives extremely dangerous power to the White House. What has not been clear, however, is where one of our United States Senators stands on the bill.

Charles Schumer is doing the right thing. He opposes the FISA Amendments Act and has worked with other Senators to try to organize a filibuster.

Our other senator, Hillary Clinton, has been extremely unclear. At first, Senator Clinton’s office stated that she opposes the bill’s retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that helped George W. Bush spy on the private communications of millions of Americans. Senator Clinton’s position on the other provisions of the bill, however, was not explained. Last week, however, Clinton’s aides refused to make any statement at all. When the time came for an attempted filibuster of the FISA Amendments Act, Senator Clinton didn’t vote yes or no. She just didn’t show up to work in the Senate that day.

Today, Senator Clinton’s aides are giving a very confusing description of the senator’s position on the FISA Amendments Act. They say that a statement has been issued, but only internally, to Senator Clinton’s offices – not to the public. The aide I talked to said that Senator Clinton opposes the FISA Amendments Act, but that it isn’t known how Senator Clinton will vote tomorrow.

That’s confusing to me, and suggests some lingering uncertainty. If Hillary Clinton truly opposes the FISA Amendments Act, then she wouldn’t have trouble saying simply that she intends to vote against he proposed law.

I’d like to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but given the way that 105 Democrats in the House of Representatives (including our own disappointing Michael Arcuri) turned coat in June and voted with the Republicans in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, nothing can be regarded as certain.

Today may be the last chance you have to make a difference. Please help Senator Clinton decide upon a clear opposition to the FISA Amendments Act. Call her office at (202) 224-4451 and ask her to vote NO on retroactive immunity and NO on the entire FISA Amendments Act.