Media repeat, fail to challenge Republican claims that Democrats oppose wiretapping terrorists' phone calls
SUMMARY: After a federal judge recently struck down the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, some media figures have repeated the false Republican charge that critics of the program are opposed to wiretapping in general. In fact, critics of the program say that the Bush administration is violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens and legal residents without obtaining a warrant from the FISA court
Following U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling striking down the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, some in the media uncritically advanced the false Republican charge that critics of the program, including many Democrats, oppose wiretapping of suspected terrorists and that they question the legality of wiretapping in general. In fact, critics of the program assert that the Bush administration is violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by conducting surveillance of U.S. citizens and legal residents without obtaining a warrant from the FISA court, and those critics have not called for an end to the surveillance of suspected terrorists. During a panel discussion about Democratic responses to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies on the August 19 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Journal editorial board member Robert Pollock repeated the false claim that critics of the National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program oppose surveillance of all kinds, accusing Democrats of saying, "We don't like wiretaps."
As Media Matters also noted, on the August 20 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory interviewed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Taylor's ruling. Gregory did not challenge McCain's assertion, criticizing the ruling, that "[w]e need to have surveillance, we all know that, from the events of, that just took place a few days ago in London." Gregory failed to point out that the dispute is not over whether the administration should be able to conduct "surveillance," but over whether it should be able to monitor domestic communications without warrants -- in violation of FISA. Moments later, McCain asserted that "[w]e need more than FISA right now, and the court, going to court for each one [warrant]." But even then, Gregory neglected to ask McCain whether Bush should have sought a legislative change if he thought FISA was too restrictive rather than deciding unilaterally to disregard it.
In addition, Gregory did not note that according to news reports, intelligence officials flooded the FISA court with requests for warrants to conduct clandestine surveillance prior to the recent terrorism arrests in London, suggesting that intelligence officials can operate within the law. Washington Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu reported on August 13 that "[m]ore than 200 FBI agents and scores of analysts and other personnel" undertook "dozens of clandestine surveillance and search operations on individuals with possible links to the London plotters," including "people who had been called or e-mailed by suspects or their relatives and acquaintances." Eggen and Hsu further reported that the extensive surveillance "produced a noticeable surge in applications for clandestine warrants" from the FISA court.
From the August 19 edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report:
DANIEL HENNINGER [Journal editorial page deputy editor]: Although George Soros was a genius as an investor, I think he's very confused as a philosopher and as a politician. There are no concrete alternatives to the current course expressed in anything George Soros said. And I don't see how the Democrats can go out there and expect the American people, who understand that the threat is real, to sign up for mere sentiments.
PAUL GIGOT [Journal editorial page editor]: Well, wait a minute. There is a concrete alternative. And one of those he's insisting on is negotiation -- let's sit down with Syria, let's sit down with Iran, let's negotiate. I mean, you could call it -- dismiss it as the Rodney King school of foreign policy -- "Can't we all get along?" -- but on the other hand, he is saying something concrete -- let's talk to these people. They're not quite the threat we think they are. What's your response?
BRET STEPHENS [Journal editorial board member]: Well, I mean, that's part of what he's saying, let's talk to Iran and Syria. And the other part of what it says is we need better intelligence. And I think that's actually a valid and important argument. We do need better intelligence. But then, I would imagine, if you put it to George Soros, OK, more aggressive interrogation techniques, wiretapping, monitoring financial transactions -- the whole panoply of programs that the Bush administration has been putting into place has been consistently challenged by George Soros's wing of the party. So it would be easy to take him seriously if he was serious about intelligence. I just don't believe he is.
POLLOCK: And if the Democrats are going to try to capitalize on this stuff, one thing they're going to have to stop doing is claiming American victories in the war on terror as defeats, which is precisely what happened after the foiled London bombing plot. And [Senate Democratic Leader] Harry Reid [NV] and [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] came out and said this shows that Iraq has diverted our focus from the war on terror. Well, how does a foiled plot show that Iraq has diverted our focus from anything? I think that when Americans hear people claiming victory as defeat, they sense something wrong there.
[...]
GIGOT: But can Democrats -- notwithstanding George Soros -- can they get to the right of George Bush and say, "You're not safer. Trust us. We'll do more."
HENNINGER: But they're not saying what they'll do. It's a formula for defeatism. They're simply exploiting a sentiment of failure here without proposing any sort of alternative.
POLLOCK: Exactly. If they could come out and say we're for this, this, and this policy that the president isn't --
GIGOT: Like what? Like what?
POLLOCK: Well, that's exactly the point. They aren't coming out saying we're for this, this, and this policy. They're saying, "We don't like wiretaps. We don't like the Patriot Act. We don't like all the things that are working in the focused war on terror" that they claim to support.
STEPHENS: No, they're for negotiations with Syria and Iran. That's just what they're for.
GIGOT: OK, thanks, gentlemen.
From the August 20 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:
GREGORY: Let me turn to the issue of the NSA domestic surveillance program, and a ruling this past Friday from a district court in -- a district court judge, I should say -- in Detroit, effectively saying that this is an unconstitutional program and comparing at one point the, the president to a king, saying there are no hereditary kings in America and there's no powers granted to him by the Constitution. Do you agree or disagree with that ruling?
McCAIN: I disagree with both the rhetoric and the reasoning, and so do most constitutional scholars. It's a very much of an overreach. Look, I think that, you know, Senator [Arlen] Specter [R-PA] and others have had questions about the broad aspects of this surveillance programs, but nobody believes that we shouldn't have these, and to just declare all of them to, to be eliminated or unconstitutional I think is a drastic overreach. We need to have surveillance, we all know that, from the events of, that just took place a few days ago in London. So I disagree with it. I think that that ruling will be stayed. Do we have to make sure that there's not an executive-branch overreach and that rights of citizens are not violated? Of course, and that's why we have hearings in, in the Congress, and I think we'll continue to discuss that. But this decision I think will be rejected.
GREGORY: But do you think the law should be changed?
McCAIN: I think that we ought to probably look at Senator Specter's agreement that he made with the administration as far as more careful circumspection of the, of the programs. But overall, we need to be able to listen to people's phone calls who want to do bad things to the -- America and the world. I mean, it's that simple.
GREGORY: If you were president of the United States, would you believe that you had the inherent right to order this kind of surveillance?
McCAIN: I would believe it, but I, frankly, I would also sit down with the leaders in Congress and say, "Look, here's what we can agree on. We need more than FISA right now, and the court, going to court for each one. And now let's, let's come to an agreement." I think that we have got the outlines of that agreement between Senator Specter and most members of the [Senate] Judiciary Committee and the administration.
HENNINGER: But they're not saying what they'll do. It's a formula for defeatism. They're simply exploiting a sentiment of failure here without proposing any sort of alternative.
Is this still working on people? That recognizing the GOP's mishandling of things is negative, and erases everything being said?
Let's help; Illegal wire tapping of US citizens is unconstitutional. The alternative, to anyone who's at least semi-conscious, is to do things within the law.
Unless the idea of doing things the RIGHT way is just something you can't grasp after 5 years of defending BushCo,that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
And cutting ones losses and figuring out how to get out of a fake war isn't defeatism, it's called sanity.
Giving your enemies the chance to talk is not weak or giving up, even if you consider them maniacs.
Especially if you think they're maniacs. Letting them talk should expose them for what they are.
Defeatism is being too terrified to talk to your enemies, for fear they might have some good points.
Seriously, why is it there are NEVER any democrats around to rebut this idiotic claims?
Why is it the MSM makes a point of keeping the democrats out of the picture?
AND when they do get one on, they seem to get half informed, mealymouthed dems who seem terrified to pizz of a rethug.
I mean, when are we going to get a democrat on across from McCain, or more importantly Mehlman and turn to him after he makes one of these asnine comments and says:
"You are a LIAR!!"
"in fact everything you have said today is not a distortion, or a misunderstanding of the facts, but OUTRIGHT LIES AND YOU KNOW IT!!!"
In fact if the dems were to put just one guy up there who would call these jerks on the lying liars they are and do it up right, I would drop my independence registration and go back to registering as a democrat.
But we will continue to get mealy mouths. wuss, dems on who let these things slide by without challenge, like they did last week and the week before that and the week before that...etc.
Not at all we are opposed to tapping "anyone you happen to feel like tapping". It's called the Law -- unlike the ban on gay marriage, abortion or they "trifecta" wage/tax cut bill, none of which the Republicans can get passed even when they should be able to. There's a few things to be thankful for at least. And yet they act like it is the law. However, with the exception of the last bill they have no interest in getting it passed, otherwise they would have to come up with answers to the arising social issues and by extension a platform -- because after you get passed the first to planks almost everyone, including the Religious Right, knows they got nothing.
The left has been against the secret FISA Court since day one, whining that is not transparent. Now suddenly media matters tries to hug the FISA court like a long lost friend.
What a joke.
It is the law. Thats the point. While it might not be as much oversight as some on the left feel necessary, though being on the left I have seen only a few real condemnations of FISA, it is SOME oversight. You act like because some lefties think FISA should be more transparent that they shouldnt complain about jetisoning oversight altogether. Which is about like saying hey you didnt like fistfighting you shouldnt complain about the MURDER. One of these days leatherhead you are going to come in here and make sense. ON that day I will feint
" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." All I ask is that President Bush restate this and just follow it. Of course, the Bush apologists will somehow turn this into a guideline rather that an oath. Also, when will someone jump up and say "Listen, everybody is for wiretapping...but within the framework of this thing called the Constitiution..that thing that our President swore to preserve, protect, and defend." PLEASE, will someone have the tenacity to do this?? I am not sure.
then issue a "signing statement" condemning it as too strict during a time of war and that it should not apply to the commander in chief
the hypocrisy thrown about by emporer shrub and his lackeys...
I just wonder if it's just the "terra-ists" that are being monitored...
You give the government a "blank-check", they'll run a mile with it - history has proven that..
Is it that unreasonable to just ask them to follow the laws set by congress with regards to FISA???
Just because shrub is the president doesn't mean he's above the law - even in times of "war" (a conveniently self-started "war" at that)
Your constant belittling of any legitmate complaint is tired and boring and meaningless. You can search for flaws in arguments all day long and find something to "whine" about. But there are serious issues here that deal with national security and the preservation of civil liberties. FISA can be abused and there are real concerns to it's being abused. Beyond that, it's even worse when the only flimsy check on executive power is being not just abused but ignored entirely. I think it's rather cowardly how Bush apologists are so willing to let there government spy on them and mine data on them in a futile attempt at keeping them "safe." I have read your posts before leatherhelmet and they don't offer much to serious discussion. Your a constant reminder of how ignorance and misplaced animosity threatens our democracy. Go read a book on American history, get some real perspective and knock of the petty attempts at mocking people who actually care about the future of this great democracy.
The FISA court is better than nothing.
This is not difficult to understand.
So, I ask for the second time today, is it that you are too ignorant to figure this out, or do you grasp this simple fact, but you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge reality?
that pervades the Republican party. Everything is black and white to them. We, the thinking people, the knowledgable and the ones who give a damn, are the enemy to people like leatherhelmet. Ignorance gives them a smugness that would be comical if they didn't hold so much power. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. If we allow ignorance like leather exhibits to go unchecked the democratic experiment will have ended in failure and the USA will be dead. I love my country and the constitution too much to let that happen.
I found the most interesting aspect of the discussions above bring up the distinct differences of the "- the whole panoply of programs that the Bush administration has been putting into place has been consistently challenged by George Soros's wing of the party. So it would be easy to take him seriously if he was serious about intelligence. I just don't believe he is." (Stephens).
Pollocks point makes a lot of sense, Kennedy and Reid assertions. "I think that when Americans hear people claiming victory as defeat, they sense something wrong there. Then, can dems move to the right of Bush? Wow. Now I have no idea of the stance of these pundits, but, these are ligit questions. It seems the dems are going to have the same tough time making their point if it is not defined past: STEPHENS: "No, they're for negotiations with Syria and Iran. That's just what they're for."
The decision HAS been questioned on several fronts from the status of the complaintants to bring it (no ACTUAL incident(s) of knowingly being listened to (may be C. Hutchinson's daily concern). They only "fear" it may hinder their ability to speak with other's overseas. Then McCAIN: "I disagree with both the rhetoric and the reasoning, and so do most constitutional scholars. It's a very much of an overreach. " Following McCain's points, it looks like FISA will be replaced or re-defined soon.
As I understand the issue so far is that people "fear" that their "domestic" calls are being tapped. I do not yet know of any single verification this is so. It seems the calls monitered are exactly as presented originally, foreign calls into the U.S. only.
It also seems that as I have tried to point out before (VERY POORLY), the 'precedent' of giving the authority to the Attorney General (Chief law enforcement agent), is an inherent right of the president. FISA and warrants would be required in instances where further survalance would be required after a, let's say "flag" , were raised in a monitered call. I do not believe the Soros wing , or the other "freedom-loving stand by the constiution only" crowd will EVER make a valid stand with the public from here on. (That would be the 4th Amendment point, I believe).
"McCain may well sum it up best: "But overall, we need to be able to listen to people's phone calls who want to do bad things to the -- America and the world. I mean, it's that simple."
I would argue that the point dems should be able to effectively make to the people this election cycle is that Congress has not done its job by investigating the program. If the program is in fact being conducted lawfully and constitutionally, then that is it, unless we want to have a discussion about changing the law. At this point, however, all we have is the assurances of the administration, which is woefully inadequate given their track record of lying, deceiving, and making stuff up.
I like the point that Al Franken makes when talking about repubs who see nothing wrong with a program that is not overseen by anyone: Imagine if this program is being run by a future president who is not as trustworthy as Bush.
In other words, how would you feel if a democratIC president were running this program with no oversight, and a refusal to disclose any info to Congress.
The issue is the tapping of domestic phone calls without a warrant. There are indications that the NSA has turned into a giant data mining agency. This has nothing to do with tapping terrorists or foreign calls. Furthermore it's despicable that the MSM and the Republicans continue to misrepresent Democratic positions suggesting they don't want to wire tap people who mean to do us harm.
that the NYT was running wire taps without warrants to do so. And if they're not then how did they know it was going on?
The NYT is an integral part of the scam.
Not so? Leaking state secrets in time of war is a firing squad rewarded crime. Why hasn't anyone gone after the leaker? The leaker is the state that's supposed to be keeping the secret. States are abstractions so the leaker must be the person in charge. What's his name, ah, don't tell me. I'll jsut check and see who's MO is leaking.
big oil + big religion = big trouble
should hold a contest to see who can guess what the next leak will be. Vegas bookies could give odds on it.
We are seeing history being made, government by leak. This accounts for why so many people are saying p**s on Bush, Chaney, Rove, a seemingly endless list of leakers.
It's gotten so bad the Alaskan pipe line sprung a leak.
What the country needs is Nixxon's plumbers to plug up those leaks. Of course that would shut the administration down. You know, I think that's what the voters are going to do real soon, shut the administration down. That'll plug them leaks right up before the whole country goes under.