NY Times falsely suggested that only Democrats believe domestic spying program is illegal
SUMMARY: A story in The New York Times falsely suggested that only Democrats have challenged the legality of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program. But the Times itself has reported on Republican concerns about the program's legality.
In a March 3 article in The New York Times, reporter Eric Lichtblau suggested that only Democrats consider the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program to be illegal. But as noted in a number of Times stories -- including several by Lichtblau himself -- Republicans have also raised concerns about the program's legality.
In the article, Lichtblau wrote:
The developments reflected continued uncertainty in Congress over whether lawmakers should authorize the surveillance program, or seek to rein in an operation that Democrats contend is illegal.
But it is not only Democrats who contend the program is illegal, as the Times has previously reported. For example, a February 18 Times article stated:
Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Some Republicans are also skeptical of the Bush administration's assertion that it has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct the eavesdropping, and that Congress authorized the program when it passed a resolution after Sept. 11 giving Mr. Bush authority to use military force to defend the nation."
The following are other examples of reporting by The New York Times on Republicans who have taken issue with the legality of the domestic wiretapping program:
- Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), February 17 (by Lichtblau and reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg):
But the DeWine proposal [a proposal by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to explicitly authorize the wiretapping, without court warrants, but create small congressional subcommittees to oversee it] is unlikely to satisfy other critics of the program, including some Republicans, who say it must be brought within the scope of the intelligence court. Among them is Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is circulating legislation that would require the court to pass judgment on whether the wiretapping is constitutional.
''Unless they're prepared to have a determination on constitutionality as to their programs, window dressing oversight will not be sufficient,'' Mr. Specter said.
And also February 7 (by Lichtblau and reporter James Risen):
But while Democrats led the attack on the surveillance program, several Republican senators -- including Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham [SC], Sam Brownback [KS] and Arlen Specter -- also raised concerns. On the program's legality, Mr. Specter told the attorney general, ''You think you're right, but there are a lot of people who think you're wrong.''
And February 4:
Senate Republicans, too, are raising questions over the legal authority the White House has advanced to justify the spy program. Mr. Specter initially described the program as ''inappropriate,'' although he has softened his rhetoric in recent days.
And December 17, 2005 (by Lichtblau and Stolberg):
Mr. Specter and other lawmakers from both parties questioned the legality of Mr. Bush's executive order.
''The law prohibits this type of electronic surveillance,'' Mr. Specter said, ''and there are a lot of basic questions that need to be answered about how this program was authorized and used.''
''I want to know precisely what they did,'' he said. ''How N.S.A. [National Security Agency] utilized their technical equipment; whose conversations they overheard; how many conversations they overheard; what they did with the material; what purported justification there was -- and I use the word 'purported' to emphasize -- and we will go from there.''
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), February 8 (by Lichtblau):
A growing number of Republicans have called in recent days for Congress to consider amending federal wiretap law to address the constitutional issues raised by the N.S.A. operation.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, for one, said he considered some of the administration's legal justifications for the program ''dangerous'' in their implications, and he told Mr. Gonzales that he wanted to work on new legislation that would help those tracking terrorism ''know what they can and can't do.''
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), February 18:
''I think we do have to have judicial review,'' she said, adding, ''Whether it's the FISA approach or not I think remains in question, but it can't go on in perpetuity, and it can't be unfettered warrantless surveillance.''
- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), chairman of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee, February 11:
Ms. Wilson said she decided to speak out this week because she had become increasingly "frustrated that the administration was not giving us the information we needed to do our job." With Mr. [Attorney General Alberto R.] Gonzales unable or unwilling to answer questions at the Senate hearing, she said, there was no way to determine whether the surveillance law needed to be updated.
"I think the argument that somehow, in passing the use-of-force resolution, that that was authorizing the president and the administration free rein to do whatever they wanted to do, so long as they tied it to the war on terror, was a bit of a stretch," she said. "And I don't think that's what most members of Congress felt they were doing."
Please; my fellow citizen I begg you awake from your slumber to see the distruction around you, please stand with me to protect our home, our family, our lives under a free loving democracy.
Please; tell our Congress that the President’s spying on citizens without the benefit of oversight of anykind is a sacred violation of our Constitution, and saving this President, or any President from the consequence of violating the law will never justify any argument used to do such a thing. Making laws retroactively to protect this behavior implies that his leadership is more important than the nation’s liberties he swore to protect and preserve. This is a cardinal sin of a true patriot, of a true American.
Please; tell our President that Halliburton was not on the ticket in either election, and I don’t remember the Republicans campaigning for Halliburton/KBR or the Carlisle Group to be a new branch of our Constitutional Democracy. I don’t think that the Coast Guard or any branch of American government realized that they were handing over their public trust to a corporation of any kind. Corporate trust is for the stockholders, not the domain of an American Democracy. That transition is the definition of Fascism.
Please; my fellow American awaken from your apathy, we fellow patriots whom would scream against the tides of Fascism need your voice to be heard, and save our Freedoms. The time for your slumber has ended, if you stay silent much longer you’ll awaken to an America that dictates all of what you may see, read, think, or do in the context of how it affects the Republican Leadership, and a new American Fascism.
Please; try to remember a proud, free, and honorable American Democracy. A true patriot protects against those whom would tread on the rights of others, and would never tolerate tyranny that would infringe on the freedoms of any fellow American, as though it were on every American citizen.
Please; believe we were a nation of citizens whom are governed with the consent of its citizens, and not subservient to its government; you must demand that our Congress respect the law by holding this President to the letter of the law, as is their sworn duty.
Please; if you love your country, if you love your freedoms, if you love your family and would want the same America for yours that your ancestors protected and preserved for you, if you believe in American honor and freedom, you must do the right thing this coming November, and VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Why, the last time I read such an impassioned plea it was in the writings of some kook ..., what was his name, Jefferson? Adams? Henry? Not sure ... anyway, some nut case who thought we needed independence or a Constitution or a bill of rights or something to protect us from King George. But, that's sort of quaint now, like the Geneva Accords and international law. King George is just all right with me, oh yeah.
Among them I would count a right to privacy. If I'm minding my own business, doing nothing wrong, why does the government, which cannot properly digest hard intelligence data derived from intelligence operations, need to eavesdrop on my cell phone calls and e-mails? To what end? To add me to some paranoia induced enemies list because I said to a friend in a private conversation that "George Bush can suck my Cheney" or "Bush is mallet-headed ne'er-do-well lobotomy patient whose syphilitic DNA ought to be skimmed from the gene pool, ASAP"?
That and worse was spoken behind Bill Clinton's back, and to his face, by the rabid reactionaries that have usurped the flag, "Americanism", and "family values" as their exclusive property. Be afraid, people. Their behavior patterns indicate they like to collect things. You and I are next.