NBC's Lauer falsely suggested only "the far left" is concerned about Bush's alleged civil liberties violations
SUMMARY: On Today, during an interview with former CIA agent Michael Sheehan about his new book, Matt Lauer said, "You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties." In fact, Americans across the political spectrum have denounced the Bush administration for alleged violations of civil liberties.
On the May 14 edition of NBC's Today, during an interview with former CIA agent Michael Sheehan about his new book, Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves (Crown, May 2008), host Matt Lauer said, "You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties." In fact, despite Lauer's suggestion that it is only "the far left" that is concerned about "trample[d] civil liberties," Americans across the political spectrum have denounced the Bush administration for alleged violations of civil liberties, including conservatives such as former congressman (and current Libertarian Party presidential candidate) Bob Barr, former Reagan administration associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, other members of the conservative American Freedom Agenda, and members of the libertarian Cato Institute.
In addition, Lauer did not challenge Sheehan's assertion that the wiretapping and investigative authorities of the CIA, FBI, and NYPD have not "been abused over the last seven years." Sheehan stated: "What you need is good oversight involved. You need oversight within the agencies; you need congressional oversight; oversight from the press -- and make sure that when we give our CIA or FBI or NYPD the authority to do wiretaps or do investigations, that they're not going to abuse it. I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years." Lauer did not point to any of the reports of abuses of authority by the Department of Justice inspector general or to the reports of dissent from within the administration regarding the warrantless domestic surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA).
As Media Matters for America has noted, in a March 2007 report, the Justice Department inspector general (IG) found many "instances of illegal or improper use of national security letters [NSLs]" by the FBI between 2003 and 2005. NSLs, the report explains, "are written directives to provide information" and "are issued by the FBI directly to third parties such as telephone companies, financial institutions, Internet service providers and consumer credit agencies, without judicial review." The IG's report stated that its investigation "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies" and identified multiple ways that the FBI had done so.
Further, the report also found that the FBI acquired information in some cases without obtaining grand jury warrants or even issuing NSLs. As The Washington Post reported in a March 9, 2007, article:
The inspector general's report discloses that on 739 occasions, the FBI obtained telephone toll or subscriber records without first having a required national security letter or grand jury subpoena, according to an unclassified version. Instead, the report says, the FBI used a tactic called "exigent letters" that claimed there were emergencies that warranted getting the information immediately. Many times, no such emergencies existed, the inspector general found.
"On over 700 occasions the FBI obtained telephone billing records or subscriber information from three telephone companies without first issuing national security letters or grand jury subpoenas," the report says. It notes that many times the FBI supervisors who approved such requests did not even have the legal authority to sign national security letters.
The IG report stated that the FBI's use of such "exigent letters" "circumvented the ECPA [Electronic Communications Privacy Act] NSL statute and violated the Attorney General's Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection (NSI Guidelines) and internal FBI policy."
Lauer also could have pointed to reports of dissent within the Bush administration over the legality of the NSA's domestic surveillance activities. In their December 16, 2005, New York Times article on NSA "eavesdropping," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen wrote: "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight."
In a March 30 Times article adapted from his book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice (Pantheon, April 2008), Lichtblau wrote:
In one previously undisclosed episode, [then-]Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson refused to sign off on any of the secret wiretapping requests that grew out of the program because of the secrecy and legal uncertainties surrounding it, the officials said. With the veil of secrecy around the program, Mr. Thompson was not given access to details of the N.S.A. operation, and he was so uncomfortable with the idea of approving this new breed of wiretap applications that he had a top adviser write a memorandum assessing the legal ramifications. The adviser warned him not to sign the warrant applications because it was unclear where the wiretaps were coming from.
In addition, as Media Matters documented, Lichtblau and Risen reported on another instance of dissent over the NSA program in a January 1, 2006, Times article. Lichtblau and Risen noted that in March 2004, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey was serving as acting attorney general while then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital. Lichtblau and Risen reported that Comey objected strenuously to the continuation of the NSA program, prompting Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, White House counsel at the time, to visit Ashcroft's hospital room to obtain Department of Justice approval for "aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program." At a May 15, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Comey testified that after the hospital meeting, the program under discussion at the hospital "was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality." He also said of the attempt to get Ashcroft to sign off on the program: "I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."
Concerns over the legality of the domestic surveillance program also reportedly extended to members of the judiciary. Lichtblau reported in a January 10, 2006, Times article that "the Justice Department held an unusual closed-door briefing Monday for judges on a secret foreign-intelligence court in response to concerns about President Bush's decision to allow domestic eavesdropping without warrants." He added that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), "raised objections in 2004 to aspects of the program and instructed for a time that no material obtained by the N.S.A. without warrants could be presented to the court in warrant applications." In addition, according to media reports, Judge James Robertson resigned from the FISC in December 2005 in protest of the NSA's eavesdropping program.
From the May 14 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: The third point -- and this is really the crux of your book here -- is that: "Only spying works." And when you talk about spying, let me just go through some of the things you call for -- demand. You say we've got to use more undercover agents, informants, wiretapping, email surveillance, the works. The sound you just heard, Michael, is the far left, grabbing for their remote controls, 'cause they say, you're going to do this, you're going to trample civil liberties.
SHEEHAN: Well, I hope not, and actually, I believe very firmly you can do both. What you need is good oversight involved. You need oversight within the agencies; you need congressional oversight; oversight from the press -- and make sure that when we give our CIA or FBI or NYPD the authority to do wiretaps or do investigations, that they're not going to abuse it.
I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years. And even when President Bush pushed the NSA wiretapping thing, I think as people began to understand what he was doing, they became -- they understood it more. It's just the way he went about it. I think if we have a little bit more dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress with the American people, we can get through that.
LAUER: And it takes us to the title of you book, which is Crush the Cell, and your thought here is, once you see a cell forming, you break it up before that gang has a chance to dream big.















Matt Lauer has been a slavish fan of President Bush since January of 2001.
I can remember several instances where he expressed adulation for "Dubya".
But hey, NBC is part of the "Liberal media", right?
Werner, the lying right's "Liberal Media" lie is just that, a big LIE. The lying right wingers KNOW that the media is RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE, and we have a right wing conservative media, or to keep it simple, a "Conservative Media."
Second, it's clear to everyone that Matt Lauer is a lying right wing conservative Republican himself overall, in addition to the fact that Lauer is also a lying right wing conservative Republican Bush lover in particular.
Being the good Republican that Lauer is, this is his way of giving an assist to the unprincipled Republican Liar John McCain.
"You should write humor for a living...I almost peed my pants reading your comedy."-- mikerhyner8202
Prove to us that the mainstream media is Liberally biased, instead of writing off handed remarks that one expects from a 12 year old. Over the years, I've yet to recieve an intelligent answer to a question I've asked many Conservatives:
If the media is Liberally biased, why did the Reagan administration abolish The Fairness Doctrine?
Let's see if you have a good answer.
THERICK, I can answer this as any good Con would answer this(using the G. Bush priciple of answering questions).
Why did Reagen abolish the Fairness Doctrine...here is a ConBush answer...because I believe in education for everyone and a strong defense. Their THE RICK..that is the answer to the question.
Simple: Reagan was senile and didn't know what he was doing. Like all Republicans.
Randy
"Prove to us"- therick.
Any words about bias in the media from me is from a point of view different from yours...so will we disagree. Your comments on never yet receiving an intelligent answer shows your level of experiance is that of a 11 year old...it all goes over your head.
Got an answer, Mike? Even if it goes over the heads of all of the stoopid liberals, at least you'll be on record for the bright conservatives.
and... GO!
"Any words about bias in the media from me is from a point of view different from yours...so will we disagree." -- mikerhyner8202
I'll concede your point that we'll disagree, yet, it would seem that you could give at least one flaming example of mainstream media Liberal bias. I personally know of none. My guess, and your answer shows that neither do you.
" . . . it all goes over your head"-- mikerhyner8202
Since you obviouselly seem unfamilliar with the Fairness Docterine, you could Google it, learn a little something about it and it's demise, then give me an answer that an 11 year old can understand. I might surprise you, I often have no problem understanding 12 year old dialect. I've found that nothing far righters say goes over any 11 year old's head. . .but keep your hand where I can see them.
"If the media is Liberally biased, why did the Reagan administration abolish The Fairness Doctrine? Let's see if you have a good answer."
Does it have to be a "good" answer, or just one we think is right? I think he did it because he wanted to use the media as a tool to fight the evil unions. I don't think Reagan liked unions too much and what better way to fight them than to give more access of 'bad reports' to the general public.
If what you say is true, which it probably is partially true, Reagan's intentions probably served the broader strategy of the conservative movement to change the fundamental assumptions of the general public on the way America ought to look.
If what you say is true, that Reagan was out to get the unions, have the means justified the ends? Are Americans more prosperous without strong unions than with strong unions?
I almost peed my pants.
Recommendation.........Adult Depends
Matt Lauer is a rightist. I agree with you.
Charles Gibson(and George S) turned in a tabloid style, gossipy and gotcha style debate moderation.
Meanwhile CBS fired Dan Rather.
Etc. the list goes on and on.
I've long been of the mind that civil liberties and privacy are the areas where elements on the left and the right circle around and find common cause. And of course, as MMFA points out, there have been those on the right as well as the left who have been worried about the losses suffered in both those areas over the last several years.
But beyond noting that this hardly started with the Shrub gang, I wanted to say that to the extent that Lauer is right that concern about losing civil liberties is a project of the left, to that very same extent the center and the right should be ashamed of themselves.
NBC's Lauer falsely suggested only "the far left" is concerned about Bush's alleged civil liberties violations
Alleged? We are way past.... alleged! You would have to be either a right wing lunatic or missing large sections of your brain to think that we are only at the alleged stage!
I dare anyone that thinks that these assclowns haven't destroyed our liberty and freedoms to go out and do nothing more than wear a t-shirt that is anti-war and display it within eyeshot of Bush at a rally and see what happens to you and your precieved liberty and see if it still exists the way you think it does!
Does anyone at all think even for a second that the USAPATRIOT Act or the Protect America Act do what you have been told they do?
These 'laws' are so anti-democracy they would be a hilarious joke if not for the damage it has done to this country!
I weep for my country and I weep for my fellow citizens that have been brainwashed to believe that Bush and his corporate created policies protect us...... these sick 'laws' were created to keep us afraid enough so that these bastards can rape and pilage our country while we bicker and blame eachother for the ills of the world.......
Bush and Cheney and all these pyscho's could care less about themselves as individuals, so long as they stay together as a group and keep their story straight.... what makes any of you Bush defenders think that they care about any of us as a whole?
This looks like yet another Right winger who's begging for both parties to come together. I've been noticing recent commercials for "Divided We Fail," put out by the AARP--another predominantly conservative orginization.
For the last eight years, I don't remember any prominate Conservatives, Republicans, or Right wingers pleading for us to unite. In fact, they did everything in their power to polorize the parties. Funny how they suddenly want us all to get along, knowing they're in for a major ass whooping come November.
Funny how they suddenly want us all to get along, knowing they're in for a major ass whooping come November
The right-wing is losing their collective mind...... they know that McCain is another four years of Bush and this country has had it with their bullcrap!
Yes, there are still a not so silent minority in this country that is flipping out of control...... I fear for Obama that one of these lunatics might try something?
So of course they speak a good game now that we all must get along..... because they know that come Jan 21, 2009, it will be the end of the road for their kind of idiocy as they know it!
However, I say let them have their time to spew their garbage.... it is a free country after all..... those that listen to that right-wing slime won't change any time soon..... so let them have their Limbaughs and Ingerhams......
Not to change the subject...... but did anyone catch Ingerham claiming that Olbermann (in his Special Comment the other night) was saying that it was the troops and not the political hacks in the White House he was saying were cold blooded killers that may yet be brought up on charges.
Over at olbermannwatch.com they condensed this dimwits words over three hours of ignorance into eight minutes of stupid......
And these lovely people now demand that we all get along? We on the left have been trying that for years..... the right-wing deserves everything it gets!
Yeah, Capt., they're pretty loud for a fringe group, but let's be nice to the wingnuts. Look at Mikerhyners post above; he's so senile, he thinks the fact that the media is conservative is comedy, and he's so incontinent that he urinates on himself when he hears it.
Let's have a little respect for our fellow Americans whose below -the- neck is almost as dead as their above- the- neck.
You must have created some seriously wicked karma in your past to be saddled with such an interesting circumstance.
Indeed, the Cons so richly deserve another major ass whoopin',
Let's hope they get it in November.
In the last few months they've lost 3 House seats in special elections in ruby red districts. Maybe the American people are at last starting to see through the Con job.
Matt Lauer was intertaining, popular, and appeared an honest Joe right from the beginning. Well,it didn't take long for the Bushco propaganda machine to recruit him,and it appears he's proud to be among the Retired Generals,military experts,and others, including the likes of William Cohen,and now, they have recruited the big fat weatherman.
I admired Lauer for a few years,and when he got more involved in politics, and Bushcos war, I was somewhat taken aback when I began to see the lies. at first I thought maybe it was mistakes,then realized he's lying,and he knows he's lying,then all respect for Matt Lauer went out the window. He had been recruited
All of you have got the picture correctly. There is very little I can add to what you have said about the myth of the "liberal" MSM. The extreme right has always complained about the "bias" of the network and cable news coverage that did not toe the line for them. As more and more on-air "journalists" began to spout the party line in support for conservative ideas the happier they became. Lauer is but one example. We should not lump all of the MSM into this bag. Some of the most well-known are just plain dumb. They start things from the diaphragm, up through the throat and out the mouth without ever passing through the brain. I don't think it is intentional; just stupid. Will Rodgers said, "All I know is what I read in the papers."
I suggest we all re-read William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich",
published way back in 1956, and Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarian Specter", published in 1996 (before George Bush, but NOT before Cheney). "Conservatives Without Conscience", by John W. Dean is a dilly, also.
Legalized torture is definitely an infringement of human rights and therefore an infringement of my civil liberties.
That the Bush administration claims, without having to disclose to anyone, it has the inherent power to ignore or alter existing executive orders issued either by him or previous presidents is an affront to our model of open government. That is a violation of the public trust.
There's more but why continue? I have the feeling you would deem these tactics appropriate.
"I don't think it has been abused over the last seven years. And even when President Bush pushed the NSA wiretapping thing, I think as people began to understand what he was doing, they became -- they understood it more. It's just the way he went about it."
"The way he went about it?" Like the way he ignored FISA law and how one branch of the government authorized warrantless wiretaps without another branch's supervison?
"With respect to the terrorist surveilance program, can anyone cite any specific instances of the unnecessary infringement of civil liberties that has come to light?"
What do you call wiretaps on US citizens without court orders in violation of the 4th amendment?
"With respect to habeas corpus, the lunacy of granting habeas corpus to THE ENEMY would seem to be self evident and I would agree with Lauer, ONLY the far left is concerned about it."
Feel free to explain why telling prisoners what crimes they are being charged with is "lunacy?" You of course know that some of these prisoners are citizens of our allies and that hundreds of them have been found innocent and set free (after years of detention and torture)?