NPR's Simon, Coleman falsely claimed FISA "expires tonight"
SUMMARY: NPR Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon and NPR newscaster Korva Coleman both falsely claimed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "expires tonight." In fact, what is set to expire are the Protect America Act's revisions to FISA; the government would retain all surveillance powers under FISA if the PAA expired.
Opening the "week in review" segment on the February 16 broadcast of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon falsely claimed that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] expires tonight." Similarly, during the, 9 a.m. ET NPR news summary on February 16, newscaster Korva Coleman falsely claimed that the "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires tonight at midnight." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, what is set to expire are the Protect America Act's (PAA) revisions to FISA, which, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant.
The Washington Post reported in an article titled "If the Law Expires" that if the PAA expired, "The government would retain all the powers it had before last August under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain court approval for surveillance conducted on U.S. soil or against U.S. targets." Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted in a February 13 statement, "[T]he underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported:
The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.
If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In addition, Coleman uncritically reported that President Bush "accused House leaders of blocking [FISA's] renewal." However, as Media Matters noted, the House did vote on a 21-day extension of the PAA on February 13. All 195 House Republicans who cast a vote on the extension bill voted against it -- which President Bush had said he would veto -- and the measure failed to pass by a vote of 191 to 229.
Media Matters has documented numerous instances of media outlets falsely reporting that the government's ability to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists would expire if the PAA were not extended.
From the February 16 broadcast of National Public Radio's Weekend Edition Saturday:
SIMON: This is Weekend Edition from NPR News. I'm Scott Simon. Senators Barack Obama [D-IL] and John McCain [R-AZ] had a good week; they picked up primary victories in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires tonight. The Senate approved a revision but this week, the bill was stalled in the House.
From the 9 a.m. ET National Public Radio news summary on February 16:
COLEMAN: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires tonight at midnight. President Bush has accused House leaders of blocking the bill's renewal, allowing some domestic spying without warrants. He says it'll be harder to protect American people. Democrats say that's not true, and they're in no hurry to act. NPR's David Nogueras reports.
NOGUERAS: Speaking from the Oval Office, Mr. Bush thanked Democrats in the Senate for passing their version of the bill this week. But with a Saturday deadline looming, House legislators have been deadlocked over a provision giving phone companies retroactive immunity, shielding them from lawsuits related to warrantless wiretapping. The president criticized the House for not passing what he said was a strong piece of legislation.
BUSH: By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack. By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America.
NOGUERAS: In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said even if the law expires, intelligence agencies will still be able to protect the nation. David Nogueras, NPR News, Washington.
So what you're saying is that you are glad the US gov't is now not allowed to surveille foreign terrorists in the US who are communicating with foreign terrorists outside the US who are planning to kill as many Americans as possible?
...because that certainly is the case.
Are you telling us that Bush updated FISA but it doesn't cover that scenario? Because FISA is still applicable.
And if it didn't, then Bush obviously thinks that telecom immunity is more important than our security.
That would be a pretty twisted set of priorities.
(Sigh) The cluelessness of the American left is so depressing.
It is exactly that scenario that the PAA covered..and it's set to expire in about 15 minutes.
The PAA permitted, without court authorization for up to one year, surveillance of foreign targets inside the U.S. who were communicating with other foreigners outside the U.S. The PAA was passed in August 2007 with a six-month sunset provision . though the end of the PAA does not mean the immediate end of all surveillance authorized by the PAA, new surveillance cannot be initiated.
Even though the PAA renewal was passed by a 2-1 margin in the Democrat dominated Senate, Pelosi refused to allow a vote on it. I believe she did that for two reasons:1) her terrorist-supporting extreme left sympathies, and 2) pressure from the lawyers who have the Dems in their back pocket.
They expect to make millions from their kangaroo court lawsuits against the telecoms.
We can still do it, we just need to have warrants. Why is that a problem?
When Bush updated FISA he said it was sufficient. Now that we're going back to it the end of the world is at hand, seemingly.
We can still do it, we just need to have warrants. Why is that a problem?
Very simple...if it is learned that a foreign terrorist in the US is communicating with a another foreign terrorist outside the US...it is imperative that we have as much as that communication as possible. as soon as possible in the event an immediate and compelling response in necessitated.
Furthermore, since these foreign born terrorists are known to communicate in code. The communication must be thoroughly analzed in order to detemine pertinent data points.
It has been shown that plots of other attacks have been thwarted due to this type of surveillence.
To suggest that this scenario should fall under the mitigation of the Bill of Rights is idiotic to begin with. These foreign terrorists are exactly that...foreign terrorists and are not covered by the Constitution protections.
Brabantio, this is not fear mongering. We know that these people have the intent, means, and ability to do create harm on a massive scale. We nust have every ability necessary to be able to prevent such an occurence from happening again. The President of the US would be remiss if he did not give authorization to do whatever necessary...while at the same time following the law.
OK...Solon spews more inanity in 5...4..3..
Very simple...if it is learned that a foreign terrorist in the US is communicating with a another foreign terrorist outside the US...it is imperative that we have as much as that communication as possible. as soon as possible in the event an immediate and compelling response in necessitated.
What's preventing our spy agencies from doing this?
Furthermore, since these foreign born terrorists are known to communicate in code. The communication must be thoroughly analzed in order to detemine pertinent data points.
Again, what's preventing our spy agencies from doing this?
It has been shown that plots of other attacks have been thwarted due to this type of surveillence.
No it hasn't. All we've heard is a bunch of mindless rhetoric from our War Criminal in Chief.
To suggest that this scenario should fall under the mitigation of the Bill of Rights is idiotic to begin with. These foreign terrorists are exactly that...foreign terrorists and are not covered by the Constitution protections.
The scenario you gave is nonsensical. There's nothing preventing our spy agencies from doing surveillance.
Brabantio, this is not fear mongering. We know that these people have the intent, means, and ability to do create harm on a massive scale. We nust have every ability necessary to be able to prevent such an occurence from happening again. The President of the US would be remiss if he did not give authorization to do whatever necessary...while at the same time following the law.
It's paranoia/fear mongering. And why are you here posting here? You should be hiding under you bed from the terrorists.
Your scenario is covered under FISA. They can get a retroactive warrant. This shouldn't be news to anyone.
"To suggest that this scenario should fall under the mitigation of the Bill of Rights is idiotic to begin with. These foreign terrorists are exactly that...foreign terrorists and are not covered by the Constitution protections."
If the surveillance is over a foreign terrorist, then you shouldn't have any worries about warrants. But when you don't know who is being monitored, then the government could be monitoring journalists and political enemies. By this standard, a Democratic administration could be watching people like you. I'm sure you really wouldn't care about your Constitutional rights then.
Since when do conservatives trust the government? Telling us that we're supposed to do something conservatives have never done before, something that goes against everything we've ever stood for just because of a threat is absolutely fear-mongering.
Exactly right, that's the retroactive warrant I was referring to. They can begin surveillance and then get a warrant, for the "immediate need" scenario we hear about so often.
If the surveillance is over a foreign terrorist, then you shouldn't have any worries about warrants
You're right. it should not be an issue, but unfortunately it is. That's what this whole discussion is about.
As far as the retroactivity of a warrant, yes one can be applied for within 72 hours. BUT, what I do not like about that is that the powers to surveille are taken away from the accountable party (the Executive Branch) and put into the hands of a non-accountable party (the judiciary).
If something happens, it is the President who will be blamed, not the court.
This is national security and the lives of Americans at stake.
Just who the FISA judges are is secret. The proceedings are held in secret. That is too much power with too much at stake to be held in secrecy.
...and I will be honest, I do not trust the left with security and intelligence.
They are all too willing to play around with it for political purposes. Leahy was kicked off the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. Rockefeller should be also. A memo from him saying that the Dems should use intelligence for political ploys was discovered...but nothing ever happened to him..
...not surprised though
Your desire to have warrantless surveillance approved solely through the Executive Branch removes a level of accountability. It's not as though it's only the judges making the determination. The use of the FISA court makes it a shared determination, adding credibility to the decision.
The historical record of almost no requests being denied puts the lie to your bogus fears. The administration takes care that their surveillance is justified and the FISA court has historically confirmed their judgment in an overwhelming number of those cases.
Someone would almost get the idea that you're desparately scrambling to come up with some imaginary threat posed by the FISA court in a complete absence of concrete threats.
Your desire to have warrantless surveillance approved solely through the Executive Branch removes a level of accountability
Not true. It is monitored by senate and House oversight committees...which again are controlled by Dems who cannot be trusted to keep politics out of it
Stranger:
Are you claiming that Republicans keep politics out of national security issues? Remember that Tom Ridge has said that Bush & Co. were changing the terrorist alert levels with no data to support these changes. Republicans have screamed about the need to spy on anybody they choose because of 9/11, but they started spying before 9/11. They are not monitoring the ports. The no-fly list is a joke. Do you think that they have been SUCCESSFUL?
Remember that Tom Ridge has said that Bush & Co. were changing the terrorist alert levels with no data to support these changes.
Nope...not quite. What Ridge said was there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level,
Again...who does ulimate responsibilty fall on? Not Ridge. it is the president. Moreover, Ridge had no clue as to what all the president knew. The intelligence is compartmented for security purposes..because there are too many Democrats who would leak
be careful...Stranger thinks Armitage was a Democrat. So of course he's going to think the Democrats did it.
Perhaps Fox News showed a press conference of Armitage and labelled him as a "D," just like they did with Mark Foley, and John McCain. I can see where he would get confused.
Let me see if I have this clear. You want the Executive Branch to apply for surveillance warrants to the Congressional oversight committees? Or does the EB initiate the surveillance on their own honor with oversight committees reviewing them after the fact? I see huge potential for (continuing) abuse of the system by the EB as well as an increased potential for playing politics by the LB.
Use of the FISA court is the best way to keep politics out of the decisions. The history of the court provides the support for that.
Lastly, we've seen ample evidence of the republicans' willingness, even eagerness, to play politics with national security. They can't be trusted at all.
"BUT, what I do not like about that is that the powers to surveille are taken away from the accountable party (the Executive Branch) and put into the hands of a non-accountable party (the judiciary)...If something happens, it is the President who will be blamed, not the court."
Yes, Bush's approval rating just bottomed out right after 9/11, didn't it? "Who's to blame" is a very odd reason for eliminating checks and balances.
"This is national security and the lives of Americans at stake...Just who the FISA judges are is secret. The proceedings are held in secret. That is too much power with too much at stake to be held in secrecy."
And what happens with warrantless wiretaps is public knowledge, or what? I don't see any attempt on your part to explain this distinction.
"...and I will be honest, I do not trust the left with security and intelligence...They are all too willing to play around with it for political purposes."
So why would you want to consolidate all power in the executive branch, which could shift to the left next year? Wouldn't you want there to be a more objective force involved, to make sure they don't play any games?
Wouldn't you want there to be a more objective force involved, to make sure they don't play any games?
Give the proceedings a little sunshine. Make those who making the decisions about warrants accountable.
easy enough
Sunshine? Accountable? This from an administration that is the most secretive and the most unaccountable.
Not gonna happen, my friend.
So, Stranger, you think all of those contingency fee lawyers will win their cases?
It is very possible. What do they have to lose. The benefits outweigh the costs by orders of magnitude.
With the help of Democrats, they can control the process as what happened in the tobacco lawsuit. There are some firms that made BILLIONS...not millions...but BILLIONS of dollars.
It is no secret that trial lawyers have the Dems in their back pockets.
Look at this particular issue. As they say, follow the money. From66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs (which by the way include terrorist front groups) $1.5 million went to Dems...to GOP'ers $4000.
Of the 29 Democrat Senators that voted againt the renewal of the PAA FISA attachment, 28 received $$$ from these trial lawyers.
The Dems are so effing corrupt and are willing to sacriifice national security for cash..it's disgusting
The Repugs are so effing corrupt and are willing to sacriifice national security for cash..it's disgusting
There, I fixed your post for you. Reference cost-plus contracts, mercenaries, and cronyism.
Stranger:
Yes, follow the money. Oil money, Blackwater money, $8.8 billion missing in Iraq, tax cuts for the top 1%...
Yes, follow the money. Oil money, Blackwater money, $8.8 billion missing in Iraq, tax cuts for the top 1%...
1) Iraq is getting their oil money.
2) There is not $8.8 B missing in Iraq. That is just a lie peddled by the MSM to the easliy fooled. The money in question is the Iraqi oil money...which is controlled by a UN program. The money never was in Iraq. It is in myriad financial institutions and instruments around the world. It is nothing more than an accounting problem created by the inept UN. They don't know what the hell they did with the money.
3) I have no problem with Blackwater at all. They are providing necessary functions which frees up troops for operational uses...which was the intent
4) Hey I got a tax cut also. I imagine you did as well...if you do pay taxes that is
So you can provide evidence that the $8.8 billion isn't really missing? Because it was an audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority (which acts primarily under US control) that produced that amount. They had specific reports of thousands of guards being paid who didn't exist, payments for construction projects that didn't get done or were done shoddily and cash being handed out with no accounting for how much or how it was used. David Oliver, the head of finance for the CPA (previously finance adviser for Bremer) stated "I have no idea, I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important."
Please share with us the support you have for your version of the missing billions.
So, Stranger, you think all of those contingency fee lawyers will win their cases?
It is very possible. What do they have to lose. The benefits outweigh the costs by orders of magnitude.
Not if they don't win. If the telecoms did nothing wrong they don't need immunity, if they did break the law, they should be held accountable, shouldn't they?
With the help of Democrats, they can control the process as what happened in the tobacco lawsuit. There are some firms that made BILLIONS...not millions...but BILLIONS of dollars.
Do you contend that the verdicts were fixed and the tobacco companies were not guilty? If so, your problem is with the judges and juries, not the lawyers.
It is no secret that trial lawyers have the Dems in their back pockets.
Funny that you want to bring a libel suit. Why do Republicans hate lawyers until they need them?
Look at this particular issue. As they say, follow the money. From66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs (which by the way include terrorist front groups) $1.5 million went to Dems...to GOP'ers $4000.
Name the terrorist front groups RIGHT NOW. Report them immediately. If you are the patriot you claim to be, shut these "terrorist front groups" down. Do it now. Put up or shut up on this one, Stranger.
Of the 29 Democrat Senators that voted againt the renewal of the PAA FISA attachment, 28 received $$$ from these trial lawyers.
And how many of the senators who authorized the war in Iraq received money from oil companies? How much money did the President get from oil companies? How much has Cheney received?
The Dems are so effing corrupt and are willing to sacriifice national security for cash..it's disgusting.
Until you can even think to prove this, I suggest you worry about the mess in your own party. What is wrong with getting warrants up to 72 hours AFTER the surveillance? You said yourself that the FISA judges' identities are pretty much secret. There would be no reason for the information to be leaked.
As far as not trusting the Left with these powers, are you sure you want these bills renewed if Obama or HRC is elected? By Bush's own policies, he may have created the most powerful President ever, but it will be either HRC or Obama.
Stranger,
What do you make of this quote on NPR from McConnell:
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn’t made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn’t it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn’t renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it’s a very complex issue. It’s true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
It doesn't matter what laws are in force. The administration does what it wants and doesn't pay any consequences. How will anyone's behavior change whether PAA is on the books or not?
The bill that takes away freedom of speech will be called the Cuddly Kittens act and will be passed by a majority of democrats.
By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack - Fearless Leader Bush.
Fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear.
Why not tell the truth, Mr. Bush - you started spying before 9/11, insisted the telecoms get immunity because the pending lawsuits might bankrupt them, and then didn't even pay the bill so the spying/data mining was suspended.
By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America.
They've always had the tools - there was just that pesky thing called "oversight" that gets in the way of your illegal actions.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
In a few short paragraphs he effectively reveals how dishonest and downright stupid this right-wing talking point is, in the process reminding us that it was Bush himself who refused to pass and then threatened to veto an extension on the Protect America Act.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=109131
Lone Stranger, Shouldn't you and your ilk be hiding in some bunkers around midnight? The world is coming to an end at midnight. Or are the Republans just crying like babies because they didn't get their way? We will call you when the coast is clear. Til then, adios.
*sigh* was anything he said actually incorrect? Ah, why do I bother.
The "Protect AT&T Act" -- priceless.
YOU are constantly embarassing yourself with your astonishing stupidity. Moron.
May I quote McConnell then?
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn’t made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn’t it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn’t renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it’s a very complex issue. It’s true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
It's yet another example of behavior that can only come down to two possible explanations: they're either stupid or they're lying.
I think they're just incompetent. Lazy doesn't really describe it, because they are probably all hard working. They just work on the wrong things, like getting their camera angles right, cues perfect, audio & video...hmm, have we forgotten anything?
CONTENT!!!
Mary, I think you're exactly right. Most of the reporters just don't care. They'll read their cue cards without knowing what the hell they're about. They don't care enough to question whether the info they're feeded is accurate. That takes some actual work . . ., not just putting on makeup and whatnot
While Pelosi and the House Democrats play politics with national security, trial lawyers are salivating in the wings, waiting for the opportunity to go ahead with lawsuits against phone companies that cooperated with the government.
Surely a proud moment for the Democratic party.
The only reason for demanding retroactive immunity is to protect the telecoms from having their crimes exposed in public. It is of no benefit whatever to our national security to give them immunity for their crimes.
The House was perfectly willing to extend the PAA temporarily without including immunity, but that wasn't enough for Bush--he threatened to veto any bill that doesn't contain immunity.
It's Bush who is playing politics here. If PAA is so absolutely crucial to national security, why is he threatening to veto it? The only explanation is that he cares more for protecting the telecoms' lawbreaking than he does for our national security.
And even if PAA does expire, we're not naked before the big bad "turrists"; we simply revert to the thirty-year-old FISA law, which allows for retroactive approval of surveillance by the FISA court.
Bush has no leg to stand on here. Finally Congress has stood up to Bush's fearmongering; let's hope they don't cave in one more time.
The telecom companies participated in an illegal, warrantless program that spied on Americans.
Are you seriously suggesting the phone companies not be held accountable for breaking the law?
What the hell are you talking about? The moment the WTC was hit, all laws became archaic and invalid. It doesn't matter if it has to do with privacy, CIA agents or waging a war of attrition. It changed everything!
Seriously though, it is rather amusing to see the transition of the Republican message from "rule of law!" in 1998 to "damn these bloodsucking lawyers!" today.
While Pelosi and the House Democrats play politics with national security, trial lawyers are salivating in the wings, waiting for the opportunity to go ahead with lawsuits against phone companies that cooperated with the government.
The companies broke the law and they should be held accountable. I hope they all go bankrupt.
The companies broke the law and they should be held accountable. I hope they all go bankrupt.
...for helping to surveille terrorists inside the US communicating with terrorists outside the US?
Why do you have a problem with that?
Why do you have a problem with warrants, even ones that can be obtained after the surveillance? The bill wasn't passed because of the telecom immunity wasn't a part of it.
If Bush thinks that the we are endangering the American people this badly, why does he insist that telecom immunity is more important than the security of our nation?
...for helping to surveille terrorists inside the US communicating with terrorists outside the US?
No, for illegal activity. No one knows who the idiot in the White House is spying on. He may very well be doing a Nixon on us.
...for helping to surveille terrorists inside the US communicating with terrorists outside the US?
No, for illegal activity. No one knows who the idiot in the White House is spying on. He may very well be doing a Nixon on us.
The surveillence was actually targeted against known or strongly suspected foreign terrorists.
I have a question, why doesn't the left have a problem with the fact that Clinton spied on millions of Americans with the Echelon program.
Tell me, why this ridiculous faux outrage against Bush...and none against Bubba, wher it should be directed?
The surveillence was actually targeted against known or strongly suspected foreign terrorists. - The StrangeOne
Except that we can't know that for a fact. There is absolutely no way to know that this administration, or any subsequent administration that disregards FISA, isn't using the warrantless surveillance for political purposes. I'm not prepared to grant any President that power on their word of honor.
I, and most liberals, do have misgivings about the way Echelon operated, but all at least all targeted surveillance was done in compliance with FISA. This administration disregards FISA.
"Tell me, why this ridiculous faux outrage against Bush...and none against Bubba, wher it should be directed?"
There's some interesting logic. Didn't you say something about having to take measures because terrorists proved they could strike here? Terrorists struck the WTC in 1993, one month into Clinton's presidency.
So why is it when terrorists prove to be a threat in 1993, then Clinton shouldn't take extraordinary measures to prevent more attacks, but when they do it in 2001, then Bush should be able to do whatever he wants?
The surveillence was actually targeted against known or strongly suspected foreign terrorists.
Isn't this one of the excuses Nixon used?
Stranger:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That means that it is not legal to spy on us without a warrent. The administration has admitted it has done so. Now Bush wants retroactive immunity for crimes they acknowledge they have committed. How can you possibly defend this?
"While Pelosi and the House Democrats play politics with national security, trial lawyers are salivating in the wings, waiting for the opportunity to go ahead with lawsuits against phone companies that cooperated with the government.
Surely a proud moment for the Democratic party." - Edrossinoelwein9669
Hey, Edrossinoelwein, I'm impressed. You didn't say "Democrat party"...though you did get all the other talking points down.
What happened? Were you napping at the time of one of your spoon feedings? You'll have to be more careful in the future. If you keep missing your feedings, you might inadvertently go sane.
"Those are the words of that prophet..Georgie Bush."
Well, Prince, goldang if he wasn't right! Everywhere I look, the streets are awash with Mullahs and scimitars glinting in the moonlight! All is lost! All is lost!
Don't worry, Georgie, Laura will get you a nice kiddie book down from the shelf that's your "Presidential Library". I'm sure you'll find the colorful pictures soothing.
I'll take any book from Georgie as long as he colors within the lines. Too much to expect?
P.S. Are you going to the same bunker as Pres. Cheney. Seems like a good place to hide..He only comes out to kill birds and defend his puppet. Something like you...By jove, I've got it...you are Dick Cheney.
Seriously 9669, I would move if I were you. And if they are not on cell phones, how is the act in question going to save us? Maybe you can lend your logic to that question?
I think any questions about why the press isn't more dilgent are moot. As demonstrated by Strangy and EdRossin somewhere, the media only has to frighten a small percentage of pussy-Americans to sell advertising.And they can do this by getting their script directly from the White House.
Why in the Hell would they go and do a bunch of research, get their facts straight, just to appeal to the 20 or 30% of Americans who are paying attention?
Great segment on Bill Moyers Journal this weekend, with Susan Jacoby, re: the ignorance of Americans. She didn't just focus on the numbskulls who are registered Repoobs, but on those non-Repoops who think the fact that a majority of our fellow voters want the Bushies out means that we're getting smarter as a country.
Even idiots are anti-Bush, that doesn't mean they're not going to fall for the GOP scam again.
Money doesn't explain the media. If it did, someone would have dipped into that large, untapped well of sane people.
Olbermann is MSNBC's highest-rated show. If money were involved, MSNBC would have hired more Olbermanns.
So if there's no possible way you could tell if your rights were violated, then there's no problem? And if it doesn't affect you personally, then you shouldn't care?
Nice principled stand.
Your rights would still be violated. Seems to me like our rights is what makes our country special, perhaps you don't agree.
If your wife is having an affair, it's wrong even if you don't know about it.
EDROSS: If you knew anything about the history of online services you would know that the vast majority of the industry pioneers were left-wing freedom-of-speech zealots. I ran an online service which used telephone lines even before the name “internet” was ever invented (they were called “Bulletin Board Systems” or BBS back then) and I can tell you that the number one priority was a right to personal privacy. Most owners and entrepreneurs that I knew would rather lose every limb of their body than to give up private information of their customers – especially to the government.
The commercialization of the internet and corporate takeover of ISP’s throughout the country is of great concern to the founding fathers of online services. I’m sure that those who still remain at the helm are hanging on to their dreams of an open communications network, free of government intervention. I am sure this is a big factor in the opposition to immunity. These people know that what the government is trying to pull over on the American public is illegal and if they are forced to comply, they want the right to litigation against the government for forcing them to abuse the constitutional rights of their customers. More power to them – and power to the people!
Al is that you? Just kidding of course.
You know what the troll was referring to anyway. He was in a backhanded way referring to the right wing talking point about democrats trying to re-install the Fairness Doctrine that Ronnie Reagan ripped out from law a bunch of years ago. And it's really funny, and strange to me that these right wing type folks keep talking about the Fairness Doctrine and how it's going to take away from their freedom of speech (even though it doesn't), and how it will ruin America, and how the democrats are evil for wanting it. The sad truth is that there really aren't any democrats talking about getting it going again, and making it law again. Nobody. Zip. Zilch. Nadda. I think I remember the only one talking about it was Trent Lott, last I knew he was both retiring from the Senate to make some big dollars with a lobbying firm, and also he's one of them there republicans and all.
Let's review one more time for all of the folks out there who don't seem to understand this. Having a radio show, or a TV show is not a form of freedom of speech. It's not everyone's absolute "right" to have a show from which to broadcast their opinions, and or facts. The airwaves are owned by the American people, not the corporations. Even if people had to adhere to the Fairness Doctrine, that would just mean that for political shows there would actually have to be back and forth, and both sides of an issue, which in my opinion might actually make better shows, at least on the political scale. It still wouldn't stop the bloviating, it still wouldn't stop the talking points from getting out. Republicans or I should say conservatives seem to be scared of 2 things these days. That their opinions and misinformation won't be given cart blanche any longer, and that there are terrorists around every corner in Anytown USA.
I doubt you will ever hear the words “Fairness Doctrine” in the presidential campaign, but to me it is near the top of the list of issues that need to be addressed by the next administration.
If the exaggerations, misinformation, and outright lies that have been coming out of the media (especially right-wing media)– much of it well documented by MMFA – isn’t enough to raise this issue to the attention it deserves, I will really be let disappointed. With the average American no longer able to separate fact from fiction when it comes to what is being reported by the news media, this country will be down the tubes in short term if we do not at least bring back – and enforce – the “Political Editorial” and “Personal Attacks” guidelines addressed in The Fairness Doctrine. I’m sure that the majority of Americans now realize the importance and would support such an executive order – whether corporate America and the Republicans like it or not.
The telecoms that played ball got huge government contracts. The one that didn't, Qwest, was left out in the cold.
As always, cash is king for the corporations, ethics be damned.
I just as soon have the president or his designee make the decision. I don't put much stock in the likes of judges.
i was involved in a law suit that i brought against a former business partner. this guy had embezzled money from the company, cooked the books, hid important information from me, and eventually cheated me out of a few million dollars.
the judge in the case was clueless. he understood nothing about business. he was a political hack, appointed, not elected. he made so many decisions contrary to law and commonsense, it was ridiculous. in the end he threw us out of court, saying, we, the plaintiffs, were so sophisticated that we could not have been cheated without our knowing it.
i don't see how relying on a judge gains you anything.
So we should just dismantle the entire legal system because you got a bad judge once. And no, that's not an exaggeration of your post. You have to rely on judges as part of the system, even if it's not absolutely perfect.
Your logic is consistently poor, as well. You complain that the judge was a political appointee, but then you want to put more power into the hands of someone who is political and makes those types of appointments in the first place. If that's not the perfect example of "out of the frying pan and into the fire", I don't know what is.
no, no, you misread me. i think it makss no difference who you have in power, but do not rely on judges. i saw this particular jucge, william fahey, screw up many peoples' lives, not just my case.
i was represented by the guy who was played by peter coyote in the eren brokovich movie. i thought he would be great. they were the biggest bomb you could imagine.
when i sold my interest in the company i hired a woman, agnieszka klich, a stanford grad to review the documents. i told her in particular that i wanted to be protected against side deals between my partner and the buyer. her firm, milbank tweed, got paid.
the court ruled that the document did not protect me. i spoke to her on the phone with my lawyer and she said the provision, which i asked her specifically to draft, did not protect me.
she is now a partner is some big firm in london, and everybody thinks she knows what she is doing.
i don' t trust lawyers, and i really don't trust judges.
You are not going to get much worse if you just let the president make all the decisons.
"the court ruled that the document did not protect me. i spoke to her on the phone with my lawyer and she said the provision, which i asked her specifically to draft, did not protect me."
The judge ruled that the provision didn't protect you...and the woman who wrote the provision said it didn't protect you. So he screwed up by reading what was written as opposed to being prejudiced in your favor?
I don't see how I misread you, and I don't see how you addressed what I said. "Don't rely on judges". The whole system relies on judges. And when talking about FISA specifically, if you're worried about judges being political hacks, then it doesn't do you any good to turn their role over to politicians. You're giving up any chance at objective checks and balances for no gain whatsoever. If it really doesn't make any difference, then there's no point in fighting for that change. If there's even a possibility of that level of checks and balances making a difference, then you should obviously keep it.
It boils down to;"I don't like judges so you might as well give the President a blank check to spy on whoever he sees fit". Less than compelling, to say the least.
that was only a small part of the case. i mention it because the lawyer--so called-- was not even apologetic that she screwed it up. i still think the judge was wrong on that issue, and on many more. he just decided what the result should be, and got there. throwing an ass like that into the mix just muddles things up.
as for profanity on this site, it seems jane fonda can get away with whatever she wants to say, but we peons have to tow the line.
"i still think the judge was wrong on that issue, and on many more. he just decided what the result should be, and got there. throwing an ass like that into the mix just muddles things up."
It still sounds like you don't like the judge because he didn't call it in your favor. You've suggested that he had a sound basis for his ruling. Besides, you haven't explained how having Hillary (for instance) making all the decisions is an improvement over that.
"as for profanity on this site, it seems jane fonda can get away with whatever she wants to say, but we peons have to tow the line."
What the hell are you babbling about?