NY Times, CNN, Fox News uncritically reported GOP suggestion that unwarranted surveillance helped foil U.K. terror plot
SUMMARY: Despite several reports that the recently foiled London terrorist plot had no connections to the United States, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News uncritically repeated Republican assertions that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program played a role in the plot's breakup.
In an August 18 article on a federal judge's ruling striking down as unconstitutional the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, New York Times reporters Adam Liptak and Eric Lichtblau uncritically quoted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) claim that the program "saved the day by foiling the London terror plot." Liptak and Lichtblau reported that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has not said "whether the program played any role in foiling" the British terror plot, but then reported Hastert's assertion. The report went on to note that Hastert's office "declined to elaborate" on the claim, but, as Media Matters for America has noted, media reports cast considerable doubt on his assertion that intelligence gathered through the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and legal residents helped thwart the attack. Indeed, Lichtblau himself reported on August 15 that U.S. law-enforcement agencies found "no direct connection" between the London plotters and anyone within the United States. In their reports on the news, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena and Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier similarly linked the warrantless domestic surveillance program to the recently foiled plot.
On August 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court in Detroit rejected the Bush administration's legal defense of the program -- which since 2001 has authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. persons without court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Taylor ruled that the program violates FISA, as well as the First and Fourth Amendments, and ordered that the program be halted.
In their August 18 article on the ruling, Liptak and Lichtblau reported:
Mr. Gonzales would not say whether the program played any role in foiling a plot last week to set off bombs in airliners bound for the United States from Britain. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, suggested that it did play a role in the investigation.
In a written statement criticizing Judge Taylor's ruling, Mr. Hastert defended the wiretapping operation and said that "our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."
His office declined to elaborate.
But Liptak and Lichtblau failed to note that the Bush administration and various news outlets -- including the Times -- have asserted that there is no evidence of any U.S. connection to the London plotters -- a fact that would seem to undermine Hastert's claim that the domestic surveillance program "saved the day." For instance, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated in an August 11 press conference that "we do not have evidence ... that the plotting [for the attack] was done in the United States." He later added that "we did not see any U.S. internal activity in this plot." Washington Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu reported on August 13 that U.S. law enforcement agencies found "no links" between the plotters and anyone inside the United States. And Lichtblau himself reported in an August 15 article that, according to law enforcement officials, "no links to any Americans have surfaced."
Furthermore, while it has been confirmed that U.S. authorities, once alerted to the London plot, conducted extensive surveillance of suspects within the United States, news reports indicate that the eavesdropping occurred in accordance with FISA, as Media Matters for America noted. Indeed, Lichtblau reported on August 15 that "the Justice Department sought double or triple the usual rate of court-approved wiretaps to monitor the communications of American suspects" in the plot (while, again, Lichtblau reported that U.S. officials found no direct connection to anyone in this country). Eggen and Hsu, in their August 13 article, reported that hundreds of law enforcement officials undertook "dozens of clandestine surveillance and search operations on individuals with possible links to the London plotters," including "people who had been called or e-mailed by suspects or their relatives and acquaintances." But Eggen and Hsu further noted that this surveillance "produced a noticeable surge in applications for clandestine warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Despite the above evidence that the warrantless domestic surveillance program had little -- if anything -- to do with uncovering the London terror plot, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena uncritically reported on the August 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight an argument attributed to unnamed "[g]overnment officials" that the incident is "a primary example of why the U.S. government sometimes needs to listen in on international communications without a warrant." Similarly, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier noted on the August 17 edition of Special Report that Taylor's ruling "comes one week to the day after the British terror plot to blow up jetliners was thwarted." He then reported that Gonzales "called the terrorist surveillance program a critical tool to stop more terrorist plots."
From the August 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
ARENA: Government officials point to the alleged plot to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic as a primary example of why the U.S. government sometimes needs to listen in on international communications without a warrant. But a federal judge in Detroit says the National Security Agency's controversial wiretapping program violates free speech and privacy rights.
From the August 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: The ruling comes one week to the day after the British terror plot to blow up jetliners was thwarted. In a late-afternoon news conference, the attorney general called the terrorist surveillance program a critical tool to stop more terrorist plots.
GONZALES: I believe very strongly that the president does have the authority to authorize this kind of conduct and particularly in a time of war.
The arrests took place in London . . .
The info that led to the arrests were attributed at least in part to a Pakistani informant . . .
Sooo . . .
Just how does THAT justify warrantless surveillance INSIDE THE UNITED STATES, on such persons as Quakers, nuns, and PeTA, no less?
The Pakistani source is but one example of why America needs friends in Muslim conuntries to provide such information if we are to locate and destroy terror networks. The same kind of friends that we have fewer and fewer of these days thanks to Dubya Chimpy and his gang.
One, if warrantless wiretapping awas so useful, can they explain how using FISA would have prevented the US from playing whatever rold in the UK arrests? FISA allows the gov't to begin a wiretap and then get a warrant up to three days LATER. The FISA court has very very rarely ever turned down a request for a warrant. How would compliance with FISA been a hindrance?
Second, given the near-uniform conservatism in major media organizations (network and Cable programs, national and major regional papers, etc.), is there anywhere to learn who is funding journalism education in the US? I know www.mediatransparency.org covers right-wing foundations, think tanks, etc., but how can we find out if right-wing funders (Scaife, Olin Found., etc) are bankrolling J schools?
Let’s assume for a moment that the illegal warrantless spying program played a role in capturing the alleged terrorists; what the media fails to point out is that these guys could have been captured just as effectively if the Bush administration had obtained warrants.
So many implied links in so few words.
Implied a link between foiling of the "alleged plot" and US foreign surveillance.
Implied that international surveillance requires a warrant
and
Implied a link between said implied warrant failure of such surveillance.
Implied a link between said foreign surveillance and the Detroit ruling.
Implied - by omission - a lack of any link between the Detroit ruling and FISA.
Ergo, federal judges who require our government officials to obey the law are ultimately responsible for your children being blown out of the sky by some terrorist with a bottle of Diet Coke and a roll of Menthos.
[link to www.eyesonfox.org]
Great report but-so what! Unless you folks are following the concept that "if ya keep posting these reports they will at some time become accepted"! Well I got new for you- It aint gonna work. Unless and or until you can get the major media outlets to begin to seriously start to report (on a regular basis) then all your efforts are simply playing to the choir. I have to say that at this time what is going to wake up the folks out there are the actions of these corruptors that directly hurt the folks. Stop the traffic, Massive marches, Sit-ins, Non-violent acts-- Remember? That is what it took and that is what it will take! billjpa
Been reading some articles from the British. Seems this "plot" may be just a political ploy by the Blair regime to justify support for Israel during their bombing of Lebanon. No evidence has been presented, suspects are being released, etc. Of course our treasonous "news" outlets will chant the mantra of "All moslems are terrorists" at us so their beloved neo-fascists can grab ultimate power and use any allegation as total proof that we must rally around Der Fuhrer in defense of the Vaterland. Fascists just love their scapegoats, right, fellow liberals?
You set forth a hypotheisis that the US had no involvement in the foiling the recent terroist plot in the UK. How the hell would you know? Are you on the NSA or CIA payroll with direct access to all the confidential data this country has? You castigate the conservatives for misinformation! I would say you should be kicked for it as well!
Your glee in the federal judges ruling on the unwarranted wiretaps ia applalling. This is our contry jac it is under attack by fanatics that do not subscribe to your liberal niceties of "hey lets talk and work out our differences". Look at the polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer safety to priotecting the phone conversation between people trying to kill us and yes if that meant tapping my phone too go ahead. I operate to an old value " that if what you say cannot be told publically then you should not say it."
Support your country and stop p0liticizing ever issue as we versus them.
First of all, no one is making a hypothesis of any kind. There simply is no evidence that what is objectionable about the NSA eavesdropping program was involved. Objection to the NSA program centers around a lack of warrants while listening to conversations of US Citizens.
Secondly the glee that you are reading comes from the affirmation that the US Constitution and its Amendments actually mean something. Yes, unfortunately, our standards would seem to be very low these days. It used to be taken for granted.
That's why we hate those fanatics who think the Bill of Rights is just toilet paper for their pet politicians.
Please take my constitutional rights. I am afraid of freedom. Take them all, I will be under my bed so the scary wolves, I mean terrorists dont get me. Those who would give up essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither a paraphrase from Ben Franklin. Cowardice might make YOU want to give up YOUR rights. I dont want to give up mine. I would rather die free than live as a slave or in a Police state. When the government tells you that the constitution doesnt apply because they are hear to help you the proper response is to laugh hysterically or quiver from the chills down your spine. Nodding mindlessly in agreement is NOT an appropriate response from free men
The values I hold dear are guaranteed in the constitution that I swore to defend.
You are correct in stating that our country is under attack. It is being systematically attacked by the media and the Chickenhawks of the right, who to a man, did all they could to avoid their own involvement in war, yet feel no shame about sending others to kill and to die in my name.
And by the way, that constitution I spoke of gives me the right to say whatever I wish to say, whenever I wish to say it. That constitution also implies my duty to speak out when the leaders of this nation violate the rights of American citizens.
In closing, you and your kind should look in the dictionary and see the definition of the words "mandate" and "overwhelming majority". I'm sure you'll see that narrow margin could in no way be said to mean "overwhelming majority".
What terror plot? No bombs-the recent suitcase discovery is like the intact passport found at ground zero. The young Pakistanis neither had airline tickets nor passports. It is a reprisal of Bojinka. The alleged explosive, TATP, cannot be manufactured in an airplane bathroom in a few hours from the unassembled components. Gutting science in America has paid off for the neocons. Fox and all the MSM were hyping it as bigger than 9-11. They neglected to mention the previous instance of a pre-prepared TATP explosion on a jetliner that managed to kill one person-ONE GUY. The pilot managed to land the jet with a minivan-sized hole in it. Other planes have fared worse with merely the cargo door failing. What do you expect the best pilots to do when their pay is slashed in a constructive effort to wipe out one of the last bastions of unionized labor in the US? You are going to end up with less-experienced pilots.
Back to the point- there was nothing there folks, move along. Why do you think they jumped on JonBenet so quick, even though it is horrible exploitation of a tragic death? Bush and Blair were tanking, and fast, with the invasion of Lebanon blowing up in their faces. WMR has detailed Prince Charles' coup attempt to ouster Blair. We all know the timing was meant to groin-kick Democrats after Lieberman's drumming. Cheney's blue-moon conference call with reporters is the smoking gun.
The dogs of war will continue to play the Rove's hand of using their own blunders against their opponents in a Bizzaroworld reversal. They've slaughtered the Constitution to the extent that it will take decades if not centuries to undo the damage. Its going to be a long war, alright. Except the fighting is going to be a lot more local than surmised. There are terrorists out there. Their cell is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, WDC. With lots of other cells in Potomac, MD. And if we don't take to the streets soon, en masse, we might as well call ourselves accomplices.
I thought when the people in power told the media what to say, it was called propoganda. I guess like any propoganda you appeal to the lowest thinkers of the masses, "no NSA wiretaps without warrants, More terrorist attacks." according to Bush and the other Cons.
well lets assume for one minute that in fact the warrantless wiretaps were vital to the "War on Terror", why can't Monkey brains tell his conservative buddies in congress to throw it in a bill to make it legal, maybe a medicare spending bill that way they can use it for political gain too. Now back to reality, if Bush tried that many republicans would say no, simply because they know the constitution, albeit the part that tells them that they can vote for pay raises, while the normal american worker gets Higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher medical prices but thats a different topic.