AP's Shrader echoed White House's "terrorist surveillance" terminology
SUMMARY: Associated Press staff writer Katherine Shrader referred to the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program as a "terrorist monitoring" program, once again echoing the White House's preferred terminology -- "terrorist surveillance program" -- to describe the controversial operation.
In a March 8 article on the recent agreement between the White House and Republican senators concerning the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Associated Press staff writer Katherine Shrader referred to the operation as "terrorist monitoring." In doing so, she echoed the White House's preferred description of the controversial program -- "terrorist surveillance" -- terminology that Shrader has used in two previous articles. Moreover, Shrader waited until the end of the article to disclose why the program is controversial: It allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on U.S. residents without warrants, in apparent violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
It was not until the penultimate paragraph that Shrader first referred to the NSA surveillance program as "warrantless." This information was not specifically noted anywhere else in the article, despite its clear relevance to the widespread criticism of the program. She instead misleadingly referred to the NSA program as "terrorist monitoring" and wrote that it allows "the government to monitor suspected terrorists." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted in response to Shrader's prior use of the White House's preferred terminology in her articles, there is ample evidence that the NSA program goes far beyond merely monitoring terrorists or suspected terrorists. Reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post have described the program as monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no relationship to terrorist organizations.
Further, forgoing mention that the NSA surveillance is conducted without warrants until the end of the article obscured the substance of lawmakers' objections to the program Shrader had noted earlier in her story. Since the program became public in December 2005, Democratic lawmakers -- along with numerous Republicans -- have argued that it violates FISA, the law that requires a warrant be obtained to conduct domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Under the proposed legislation, agreed to by the White House and Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the administration would be allowed to conduct warrantless surveillance for up to 45 days. If it seeks to conduct this surveillance for a longer period, it would be required to either request a FISA warrant or explain to a newly formed, seven-member Senate subcommittee why it is necessary to continue eavesdropping without one.
At no point in the article did Shrader explicitly state that critics of the program argue it violates the law. Shrader noted the Democratic criticism of the committee's rejection of a proposal to fully investigate the NSA surveillance operations, but she again failed to provide the larger context for the opposition to the program or even note that it involves domestic surveillance without warrants:
Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee expressed outrage after a meeting Tuesday that senators voted -- along party lines -- to reject an investigation of the surveillance proposed by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat.
"The committee -- to put it bluntly -- basically is in the control of the White House," a visibly angry Rockefeller said.
[..]
Rockefeller said he spent all of Friday at the NSA, seeking answers to more than 400 questions. He said it would take several visits to have a full understanding of the program, which allowed the administration to eavesdrop on international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents when terrorism is suspected.
By contrast, a March 8 Los Angeles Times article on the agreement laid out the substance of the larger controversy. It noted that the program involves domestic surveillance "without first obtaining a court order" and explained that members of both parties have "questioned its legality and asked whether it was necessary to bypass" FISA:
The House Intelligence Committee took a similar step last week, saying it would designate one of its existing subcommittees to examine and hold regular hearings on the operation, which involves intercepting the communications of Americans or others in the United States without first obtaining a court order.
The White House has defended the operation, saying it has been a crucial tool in fighting terrorism and that it only allows eavesdropping on individuals who are in contact with people overseas suspected of having ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
But critics have argued that Bush had no authority to start the program, and that it violates 1970s statutes that placed strict limits on domestic spying operations in response to abuses during the Nixon administration.
Bush's program has prompted an outcry even among some Republicans, who have questioned its legality and asked whether it was necessary to bypass a system that allows domestic eavesdropping as long as the government obtains the permission of a special foreign-intelligence court.
I thought that Reagan got a pass when it came to the media, but Bush not only gets a pass, the media is his mouthpiece.
she used "terrorist monitoring" because the law is called the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006."
I'm glad Rockefeller is hot on the trail to get the answers to 400 questions, since he is one of the few privileged to be informed on the program all along. I would hate to think he was sleeping on the job during the last several years.
Also, the reporter neglected to mention that part of FISA may be unconstitutional, due to its conflict with the president's inherent powers. She really should be more careful when describing the controversial FISA law, which the ACLU has been against since 1978 due to it's secretive court system. She also failed to mention the numerous warrantless surveillance opportunities for law enforcement under the new Patriot Act. She is leaving open the suggestion that the NSA has the only warrantless survillance system out there.
The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 is proposed legislation, not law.
You must actually believe that "Inherent Powers" are in effect here ? You must believe that we're at war. Did I miss something? Did congress decair war? What the. . .
The president has magical, invisible powers, not explicitly written into the Constitution that overrule what IS EXPLICITLY written in the Constitution. You just keep repeating the magical, invisible powers mantra like the good little propaganda parrot you are but it will never make it true. The president MUST obey the law, that is explicity written into Article two, the Because I said so clause you keep wishing were there, ISNT.
It probably will never go to the Supreme Court in my lifetime so I won't get a chance to gloat.
But it will turn out exactly like I told you it would, that they would set aside a special congressional oversight committee and Bush would keep his inherent powers.
I guess if you believe in the law so much, you will be joyful if the NY Times is prosecuted with the Espionage Act. After all, no one is above the law.
Only partisan delusional insanity could make you claim that Bush's magical, invisible, powers that are NOT in the constitution, you can ONLY claim they are implied but unwritten could trump prohibitions which ARE in the constitution like that he must obey the law and that he cannot wiretap Americans without a warrant. There is NOTHING you have ever posted that contradicts this. I know you are itching to have a God-King, fascists never want their leaders constrained by law, but sorry America doesnt have one and Bush has to follow the law like everyone else.
The great part of this is I have the FISA Court of Review on my side. The very court that you claim Bush is violating, in their dicta in th Sealed Case decision in 2002 said:
The In re sealed case decision in section III says, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
-------------------
I just love it. I have the FISA Court of Review on my side. FISA AMPLIFIES the president's power!!! Yes, AMPLIFIES his inherent powers!!!
You tried this before and I ate you alive on the issue. The Troung case was pre FISA and dealing WITH the presidents powers in the absense of a FISA law. This ruling was specifically about the limits of the FISA law when trying to draw a bright line between what they found during Foriegn intelligence and what could or could not be used in a domestic criminal case. That was only saying that Troung was dealing with presidential power in the ABSENCE of a FISA law, they assume he had the authority in such absence, the next sentence which you left out says THEIR role was the reverse, in other words to rule on where the line is drawn WHEN THERE IS SUCH A LAW. Other places in that decision it makes clear as I showed last time you tried this that they did NOT find FISA to be unconstitutional NOR that the Presidents power is unlimited in this area. They did find FISAs drawing of the hard line between criminal activity and Foriegn intelligence gathering overstepped its authority they did NOT find the President had unlimited authority to wiretap anyone he wanted anytime he wanted and in fact stated directly that the fourth amendment restrictions were part of what they were looking at. You do NOT have ANYTHING on your side except blind partisanship. I showed that LAST time you tried this weak argument.
The ruling was made in 2002, post-FISA. The Court of Review found FISA constitutional for sure, but as I quoted, which you keep conveniently choosing to ignore, is that the court fretted that FISA may not be constitutional to the point it infringes on the President's inherent powers. Your pounding the table that these cases were pre-FISA is just dumb because the court acknowleges that yet still recognizes the inherent powers.
You keep making the strawman claim that I am claiming the President has unlimited powers. He does not. He does however, have the power to do warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens in contact with foreign agents and the court recognized this power. If FISA tries to encroach too heavily on that power, they will be swatted away like a fly.
So, no, I ate your lunch on the argument. And, my prediction on the resolution is also coming true.
Yes the case was post FISA, so why did they mention the Troung case in your little selective quote? To say that ABSENT a specific law the president may have such powers but THEY were dealing with the law. Bottom line FISA went too far dealing with the line to draw between foriegn inteligence and criminal prosecution, THIS is what your case was about. YOU are claiming the President has powers he has been denied in writing. The case did NOT say FISA was unconstitutional, the part you quote is dicta. They could have found the President can just wiretap anyone for foriegn intelligence reasons. They did not. They said in THIS instance FISA encroached too far. Fourth amendment protections were cited. In FISA it says the attorney general can make a determination that allows warrantless wiretaps but that determination is that there is not a likelihood US citizens will be part of the search. THAT is the law, the PRESIDENT MUST FOLLOW THE LAW. IF he thinks it unconstitutional which no one is claiming right now. HE must take it to the Supreme Court. He cannot simply ignore the law because he wants to and of course you are saying he has unlimited power. Once you give him magical, mystical, invisible power to ignore the law because he doesnt want to follow it exactly WHAT constrains him. He can use the same magical invisible power argument to disband Congress, cancell elections and declare himself most highest Pharoah. God-King for life and exactly what is the difference in the logic. The power to hold elections infringes on my God like magical invisible powers to run things the way I darn well please, which is pretty much the argument you are making now. I understand you want a God-King instead of a president which is exactly what you have when he can claim the law doesnt apply to him. AMERICA DOESNT HAVE ONE