Citing no evidence, NY Post claimed decline in "terrorist calls" being monitored following disclosure of NSA program
SUMMARY: In an editorial condemning The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, the New York Post asserted that "[e]ver since" Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed the existence of the program on December 16, 2005, "federal officials have reported a dropoff in the terrorist calls they were monitoring." The Post did not name the purported "federal officials," nor did it provide evidence or elaboration to support the claim.
In an April 24 editorial condemning The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, the New York Post asserted that "[e]ver since" Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed the existence of the program on December 16, 2005, "federal officials have reported a dropoff in the terrorist calls they were monitoring." The Post did not name the purported "federal officials," nor did it provide evidence or elaboration to support the claim.
In addition, the Post's suggestion that the surveillance program actually monitored "terrorist calls" has been disputed by media reports. As Media Matters for America has noted, The Washington Post reported on February 5 that according to "current and former government officials and private-sector sources," intelligence officers used the program to eavesdrop "on thousands of Americans in overseas calls" but "dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat":
Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.
Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.
Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.
Also, a January 17 New York Times article reported that, according to "current and former officials," "virtually all" of the tips provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) to the FBI under the surveillance program "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."
From the New York Post's April 24 editorial, "No Oscar for Claudia":
James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times won the "National Reporting" award "for their carefully sourced stories on secret domestic eavesdropping that stirred a national debate on the boundary line between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberty." (Ever since, federal officials have reported a dropoff in the terrorist calls they were monitoring.)
Long gone are the days when journalists paid respect to the notion of national security. Now, journalism's most prestigious awards seem to encourage the opposite: undermining national security for the sake of individual self-aggrandizement.
Funny how MMFA chastizes the New York Post for not naming purported "federal officials" in their editorial, but then MMFA uses "current and former government officials and private sector sources" to offer a rebuttal. Funny how that is.
Now try again once you quit drinking the GOP Kool-Aid.
Bruce is pointing out that MMfA has done exactly the same thing they are calling the NY Post on.
Perhaps it's you that ought to put down the kool-aid.
MMFA did not just criticize the NY Post piece for not revealing their source, or you would have a point.
Media Matters criticized them for also failing to "provide evidence or elaboration to support the claim".
The NY Times piece elaborated on their claim, and MMFA even provided links to other media sources that support them.
An editorial is not an act of reporting, it is an opinion based on reporting. Thus MMFA is correct. Although MMFA cited its source (Wa Post), the NY Post editorial opinion failed to cite any media source of its allegation. Why? Because there are none. They oh so conveniently made it up and by rhetorically characterizing domestic wiretaps as interceptions of "terrorist calls," they reveal their bias. (Their gossip columnists aren't the only ones getting paid off to plant stories)
The only people who would fall for this rhetorical trick are either corrupt, stupid or incredibly gullible.
...between newspapers reporting based on sources they won't disclose and MMFA quoting the newspapers. MMFA isn't the one hiding sources. They are, however, pointing out the conflicting reports.
In any event, there's another difference between the WaPo and NY Post articles. By the time of the February 5 WaPo article, some of the "current and former government officials" had already been established in prior reporting. Russell Tice is one name that comes to mind. By comparison, the NY Post should have clarified the identity of "federal officials" given the lack of prior reporting on the claim.
The very notion that terrorists would now halt their phone coversations because the government is not always obtaining a warrant to spy on them is ridiculous.
If they had any kind of basic link to any terror group or terrorist, it would be very easy for the government to obtain a warrant to monitor their calls. That has not changed in any way. The government has always been able to spy on those people, and terrorists are very aware of that fact judging by the sophistication of their communications.
So exactly what changed for the terrorist? They could be spied on before with a warrant, and can still be spied on with a warrant. The NSA can even obtain the warrant up to 72 hours after starting surveillance.
I'm so sick of people like you failing to look at Bush's illegal warrantless spying program objectively. Any real conservative would be up in arms about that erosion of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Requiring a warrant does not hamper the "War on Terror" in any way.
Just for the record, my post had nothing to do with the content of the editorial. I was simply responding to the MMFA assertion that the editorial cited "zero evidence" as referenced in the headline. So in MMFAs wisdom, "federal officials" equals "zero evidence".
I never offered an opinion on the validity of their claim. On the surface it seems dubious that there would be a correlation between the two. Oh, and since when has it been established as fact that this warrantless domestic surveillance was declared illegal by any controlling legal authority on the matter? (to quote Al Gore). I guess I missed that one.
Thanks for the clarification.
I see your point, but, if you check my post above, MMFA was not just criticizing the Post for failing to reveal their source. Their main criticism is the NY Post provided no elaboration or evidence to back up their claim. Even the title of this MMFA article begins with, "Citing no evidence...."
He didn't really have anything to factually attack so he decided to try to derail the thread by attacking MMFA for something he attributed to them.
Heru,
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to take it easy on Bruce. Bruce was not hurling invective. He brought up a good point, whether you or I agree with it or not.
I could understand your tone if Bruce was doing something to inflame everyone. He clearly isn't.
Just calm down and address his point. You don't need to rail against Republicans or the President in order to do that.
You can take my advice or leave it, but your comments (and others like it) are driving away reasonable posters from both sides of the debate.
You couldn't see what he was doing? Pure strawman.
You can take my advice or leave it, but your comments (and others like it) are driving away reasonable posters from both sides of the debate.- open_mind
Though the comment could easily be seen as an attempt to derail the thread (I dont see it that way but its not unreasonable to) Bruce has earned some benifit-of-the-doubt, he is one of the reasonable conservatives on this site. His point seems weak to me but not out of bounds
After the 863rd time he says "Funny how Media Matters..." and continues with a strawman he loses the benefit of the doubt.
But the 4th Amendment and FISA laws seem pretty straight forward, we have been all over this before, and I see no way to claim Bush's circumventing FISA as NOT violating them. In the debates we have had about this subject I have seen not one single argument put forward by those supporting the program that hasnt been blown out of the water fairly easily
I have to agree with this comment--it's not like the Post or other articles naming anonymous sources are being chastized when the story supports progressives.
Rupert Murdoch's fishwrap is up to their ass in an extortion scandal involving one of their "star" gossip reporters, not to mention all the total screwups they had in the past. (Remember when they totally screwed up who they though Kerry's VP pick?)
The NY Post isn't even worht being a fishwrap.
It only deserves being recycled into what it's only good for, toilet paper.
I was going to compare the Post to the supermarket tabloids, but I changed my mind. The supermarket tabloids at least have some standards.
The Supermarket Tabloids do have standards. They're also the only ones who reported that the majority of Space Aliens supported George W. Bush in the 2004 election. They even provide pictures of the meeting between Bush and one of the Space Aliens. That's the only explanation for how he got re-elected.
On researching this post I found the following link:
[link to weeklyworldnews.com]
Even the Space Alien is dropping his support for Bush.
James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times won the "National Reporting" award "for their carefully sourced stories on secret domestic eavesdropping that stirred a national debate on the boundary line between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberty." (Ever since, federal officials have reported a dropoff in the terrorist calls they were monitoring.)
After reading the offending editorial (see above), I must say sorry, Bruce, MMFA is correct to report this as media misinformation. The Times article is a researched piece that sites numerous sources throughout with quotes from interviewed ex-FBI agents and so forth (read it, you'll see what I mean) whereas this is just an off-the-cuff remark backed by ZERO sources or research or ANYTHING. It's an OPINION disguised as fact.
Your paralleling the snippet MMFA provided to the editorial is itself dishonest, given the inherent world of difference between the two pieces of "journalism" (the quotes are for the Post piece). I suppose to make you happy, Bruce, they ought to have replicated the entire article, since quoting, by your standards, is hypocritical regardless of the source of the quote (e.g., a researched article backed up with quotes from living people and facts).
The bottom line here is that the Bush-backing NY Post's motive is to minimize and discredit these Pulitzer-Prize winners at their rival newspaper, who had the audacity to publish information that made the administration look bad. The Post's attempt to do so by making a statement that they do not expand on or support with any evidence whatsoever is laughably ridiculous.
The Post's article stated that officials had reported "a dropoff in the terrorist calls they were monitoring."
The statment doesn't necessarily mean that the number of calls has lessened. It could mean that the number of calls that the NSA is monitoring has lessened.
I just mean that the NSA could simply monitor fewer calls and make the statement true.
...that the NY Post article is completely accurate, but that MMFA missed the more subtle implication. The NSA may indeed be monitoring fewer calls between terrorists. However, that says nothing about the total number of calls the NSA is monitoring, which could be more, less or unchanged. Of course, not knowing the identity of the "federal officials" makes asking follow-up questions problematic.
mmfa is just like all the other pandering political sites. Unnamed sources are okay if it suits their cause. Many of the threads are just Brock catfighting with his competitors.
While mmfa is usually well researched they are not above using selective wording and dubious quotes...something they continually decry.
mmfa provides a lot of very helpful sources and links...as well as being a self-avowed partisan site...caveat emptor.
I've been reading this site, among others, for a while (including the laughable MRC) and I have yet to find an article that was not fully or at least reasonably substantiated by outside sources and/or other research.
MMFA may be partisan, but they've yet to miss.
Your remarks on 'partisan' commentary are laugable -- coming from an undeniable partisan hack yourself. Talk about no credibility.
I wouldn't be suprised if that were ture. The NSA above all else knows that terrorists, especially their leaders are probably using other forms of communication. Why would they even attempt to communicate through public phone switches when they can encrypt data w/ PGP and never have to worry about anyone cracking it in any reasonable amount of time? Even I think the domestic spying is wrong and will probalby lead to nowhere, and I'm just an ignorant USA-Hole........