O'Reilly baselessly claimed judge who struck down warrantless wiretapping "would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration would put in just because they are the Bush administration"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly baselessly claimed that the federal judge who struck down the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program "would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they are the Bush administration." In fact, the judge made a ruling in the administration's favor, dismissing the claim that the National Security Agency's "data-mining practices" are unconstitutional.
On the August 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly baselessly asserted that U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who recently struck down the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, was an "activist, far-left jurist" who "would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they are the Bush administration." In fact, while Taylor's August 17 ruling found the Bush administration's surveillance of U.S. persons without a warrant to be unconstitutional, Taylor made a ruling in the administration's favor, dismissing the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) claim that the National Security Agency's (NSA) "data-mining practices" are unconstitutional. Taylor ruled that the ACLU could not present evidence to show the government violated the law without impermissibly relying on "state secrets."
O'Reilly also suggested Taylor "want[s] Americans to die" and "want[s] dead people in the street here in America." He further baselessly called the NSA program "very effective." As Media Matters for America has noted, The New York Times reported that "law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks" and that "current and former officials" insisted the program almost always "led to dead ends or innocent Americans": Further, the Times and The Washington Post have reported that according to current and former intelligence officials, of the thousands of individuals who were reportedly at one time under surveillance, only a few have merited further investigation.
On August 17, Taylor rejected the Bush administration's legal defense of the domestic surveillance program -- which since 2001 has authorized the 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. The complaint, ACLU vs. NSA, was brought by the ACLU on behalf of a group of Michigan-based "journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations who frequently communicate by telephone and email with people outside the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia."
However, contrary to O'Reilly's claim that Taylor "would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they are the Bush administration," Taylor did rule in the Bush administration's favor with respect to the use of "data mining." In its complaint, the ACLU alleged that:
[T]he NSA engages in wholesale datamining of domestic and international communications. It uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time. One purpose of this datamining is to identify individuals for targeted surveillance.
The ACLU made clear that its data-mining claim was separate from its warrantless wiretapping claims in subsequent briefs. Taylor ruled that the government's "state secrets privilege" required the court to dismiss claims by the ACLU related to data-mining because the plaintiffs could not establish their case "without the use of privileged information" and that further litigation "would force the disclosure" of privileged information.
By contrast, Taylor ruled that the "state secrets privilege" did not apply to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program because the government has not only acknowledged the existence of the program but has, on multiple occasions, publicly discussed details of the program.
O'Reilly also baselessly called the NSA program "a very effective anti-terror program." But, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, the domestic surveillance program has reportedly been largely ineffective. According to a February 5 Post article, which cited "current and former government officials," "nearly all" of the people whose calls were monitored under the NSA program were later "dismissed ... as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." The Post further noted that "[f]ewer 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." Though it is unknown how many individuals have been arrested and charged in connection with the warrantless wiretapping program, as a January 17 Times article reported on the effectiveness and utility of the program:
The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots -- not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.
The Times article also cited "current and former officials" who insisted the program almost always "led to dead ends or innocent Americans":
In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
Additionally, while discussing Taylor's ruling with Investor's Business Daily senior writer Tom McArdle, O'Reilly repeatedly asked, "Does she [Taylor] want Americans to die?" "Does she want people to die?" and "Does she want dead people in the street here in America?" For his part, McArdle asserted that Taylor "has a long history as a left-leaning political operative," claimed she was "in the pocket of the ACLU," and asked whether Taylor "really wish[es] ill will upon our forces" or whether her ruling is "some kind of pacifistic naiveté." Noting that Taylor "helped set up the Mississippi office of the National Lawyers Guild [NLG]," McArdle stated that the NLG, "throughout its long, sordid history, has had connections to the Communist Party and has been on the side of every enemy of America you can think of, over the years, whether you're talking about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or Fidel Castro in Cuba." Concluding, McArdle declared: "Anna Diggs Taylor is not just trying to shut down the NSA's program, she is dropping a nuclear bomb on the program."
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Coming right back with a federal judge saying no to a very effective anti-terror program. Right back with it.
[...]
O'REILLY: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, as you know, federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor says the NSA surveillance program that is listening to conversations without warrants is unconstitutional and illegal. Her decision is being appealed. The Bush administration is saying there is no criminal aspect to the program, it's purely about national defense and intelligence, and thus entirely legal. The Supreme Court will probably decide.
Joining us now from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, is Tom McArdle, a senior writer at Investor's Business Daily, which has criticized Judge Taylor.
See, I don't understand Judge Taylor. Maybe you can help me. Does she want Americans to die? There isn't any criminal proceeding in this case. This is an overarch to try to get intelligence information from calls to suspected Al Qaeda overseas, not domestic. Does she want people to die?
McARDLE: Well, we at Investor's Business Daily exposed Anna Diggs Taylor more than two months ago, and it's really no mystery what's going on here. She has a long history as a left-leaning political operative. Of course, she was appointed to the federal bench by President Carter in 1979. But going back to 1964, she helped set up the Mississippi office of the National Lawyers Guild.
The National Lawyers Guild, throughout its long, sordid history, has had connections to the Communist Party and has been on the side of every enemy of America you can think of, over the years, whether you're talking about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or Fidel Castro in Cuba. And she has been also in the pocket of the ACLU on a number of rulings, whether we're talking about national --
O'REILLY: But say she is -- and I do believe this, I know her background -- she is an activist, far-left jurist. OK. Say that's true.
McARDLE: Right.
O'REILLY: Does she want dead people in the street here in America? Because I'm sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose coercive interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they're the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.
McARDLE: That's right. That's right. Well, I don't have a crystal ball, and none of us do as far as looking into this woman's mind and seeing what her motivation is. Does she really wish ill will upon our forces, or is it some kind of pacifistic naiveté?
All you can do is observe her behavior over the years. And she's -- as I said -- as I said -- been in the pocket of the ACLU in a number of different areas --
O'REILLY: OK, let's talk about the ACLU. You know, in my upcoming book, Culture Warrior, I label them as the most dangerous organization in the country.
McARDLE: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: I think you concur.
McARDLE: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: Again, do these people at the ACLU want the terrorists to win? Do they want another attack on America? What is it behind it?
McARDLE: Well, you just have to look at what they've been doing over the years. They're always on the side of America's enemies. Just this year in Florida, they are trying to stop a school district from preventing elementary school children from being indoctrinated by what essentially are children's books with pro-Castro communist propaganda.
I mean, I don't know if these people are dream-walking or if they really do wish ill will. You just have to look at their behavior, and there's no doubt about it. You look at this decision, I mean she's -- Anna Diggs Taylor is not just trying to shut down the NSA's program, she is dropping a nuclear bomb on the program.
O'REILLY: But she'll -- it'll be overturned. I believe it will be. Mr. McArdle, thanks very much. We appreciate it.
Plenty more ahead as the Factor moves along this evening. This man is accused of exploiting the deaths of American military people. We'll confront him. Moments away.
that the murderous contras in Nicaragua were our 'friends.' You know, the ones we empowered to subvert democracy and murder the population. Yes, we were the best of friends.
At least these people are consistent. Wire tapping - unconstitutional, counter to the democratic process. Batista, Contras, Pinochet - counter forces to democracy.
Friends? Hell, the Contras were CIA employees...Reagan's private locally-recruited mercenary army. When the US money stopped flowing, the Contras were reduced to banditry and begging in the streets. They were never out to "free" Nicaragua, they were just there to kill for the Gringos for a few US dollars.
and i think media matters should be more concerned with this comment from O'Reilly's distinguished guest. This idea that the ACLU is the root of all evil, that a friend of Castro's is an enemy of the US, its all very black and white, and it's all contrary to the historical reality. Pre-Castro Cuba was in the grip of a 60 year old dictatorship that saw the profits of sugar exported to the US along with the product, and the vast majority of the Island, particularly the East, in poverty, and with political power out of their hands. Is Castro's government perfect? No, of course not, but the literacy rates and health statistics and land ownership indicates the improvements that have been made despite the hugely destabalising economic embargo from the north.
The US government and backers like O'Reilly are split-personalities - we apparently champion democracy if, and ONLY if, it suits our national interests. Democracies from Allende to Chavez have been distrupted or destroyed, despite the wishes of the population whom we seek to 'liberate.' Hamas is elected? Then we dismiss or belittle democracy. Hezbollah elected? It's a blight on democracy. We need to realise that 'democracy' and 'what the US wants' are not synonymous.
The Sandinista army may be an enemy of O'Reilly, but I can assure it was no enemy of the population of Nicaragua.
" and the vast majority of the Island, particularly the East, in poverty, and with political power out of their hands. "
So, you're reasononing that the involvment of the US in pre-Castro era was bad is that? What is the condition of that part of the island now? Is the "political power" in their hands now, too?
Im no expert. But consider this - even if the comparison were to yeild exactly the same living conditions - why would this commentator consider Castro to be the enemy and Batista, who preceeded him, to be the opposite?
Because Batista was a corrupt dictator who knelt to US interests. Castro does not, and that is the difference. It demonstrates the double standard glaring in US foreign policy - democracy is only a requirement if said country is not sufficiently yeilding to US interests.
As time goes on, O'Reilly plunges deeper into making wild and unsubstantiated claims. Like a drug addict needing ever greater amounts of smack in order to get "high", O'Reilly is caught competing with himself to be more outrageous today than he was yesterday.
As a result, the "Number One Cable News" personality has abandoned even a shred of credibility, and has become a screeching paranoid partisan, lashing out at any perceived "threat" with hyperbolic assertions that are insane on their face.
To be fair, it's clear that O'Reilly's descent into nonsensical demagoguery is tracking closely with the polling on how dismally "his" party, the Republicans, are faring with the public. The more Americans REJECT the Rightwing's policies, the more O'Reilly emotionally sees it as a personal attack on HIMSELF, and his reaction is that of a punch-drunk street fighter, swinging wildly in the hopes of staying on his feet.
He's going down.
Hmm..maybe you should reduce your language to that which o'lielly can understand. Any more than a couple of syllables and he's lost.
We can't change him if he has to rely on big words...
"See Billy lie. Lie, billy, lie...."
when you become so smug because you are convinced you can tell what's worth knowing. Bill O'Reilly has no idea what he's talking about because he gets his opinons from headlines. I think the last book he read was his own. MMFA effectively pointed out everything O'Reilly chooses to remain ignorant about.
MMFA should find a replacement for "baselessly" when describing BO's torrent of ripped-right-from-his-ass claims.
He aims his stream directly at his base - you know, the "nuke 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" crowd.
I'd wager that you'll find at least 95% of BO's viewers are also among the 35% or so that still support Duhhbya and his doings.
I bet that same 95% never served. All their experience comes from playing risk.
My husband and I watched that last night as he was going through that rant. Neither one of us could believe how he kept asking whether she wanted to see dead Americans, and how the guest then trotted out an organization she belonged to in 1964 tieing her to Communists. I also couldn't figure out how the guest tied her to wanting to do ill will to the forces? I guess between - hating Bush - Communists - ACLU - hurting forces - dead Americans - they covered all the hot buttons they could. The guests comment "They're always on the side of America's enemies. " was rather funny in the fact are they now declaring Rush Limbaugh an American enemy, since the ACLU took his case? I also read elsewhere now they are tryng to say she should have recused herself over sitting on a board that made donations to the ACLU. I said to my husband that it didn't seem to bother republicans when Scalia refused to recuse himself from judging on the Cheney suit. What do you do in cases like this where the rhetoric is so over the top - does writing to Fox really have any effect or is it really a waste of time?
you can count on increasing the number of 'dead people in the street here in America.' One would be the inconceivable possibility of failing to respond to a forecast national disaster. The other would be to illegally invade a country already devastated by our policies, against the advice and wishes of almost the entire world, for ficticious reasons. The increase in terrorist activity from this action was predicted, and not just by the Rand Corp.
So, Bill-o, its fair to say you're barking up the wrong tree.
It’s not an Anti-terror tool; it’s a criminally impeachable offense.
It is willful lawbreaking. It contributes nothing towards catching terrorists.
If no warrant is obtained, then each case is kept secret from the public.
If a warrant IS obtained, then each case is still kept secret from the public.
There is one reason and one reason only for not getting warrants. The reason is to spy on people who are specifically NOT terrorists.
this lunatic. Wonder if he gets invited to White House functions ?
I read in the newspaper a year ago or so (don't remember which paper or I'd link it for you) that when our Vice Draft Dodger Cheney travels, one of the demands/requests that his advance staff makes is that TVs in his hotel rooms be tuned to the local Fox station and the radios tuned to the local right-wing talk stations.
He might. But he has so much trouble reading the invitations.
If you are Bill O'Reilly. He sees them under his bed, in his closet, lurking beneath his window in the dark of night. The data mining seems perfectly reasonable if you are a paranoid fruitcake, and now that it's been shot down as illegal, I guess ol' Billy Boy is gonna have to resume snuggling down with a golf club in one hand, a .38 special in the other.
Sleep tight, Bill.
You have to wonder about how it must be to live in the world of the criminally insane. What it must be like to be wealthy enough that those around you agree with your delusions and idiocy.
It's the same thing that happened to Elvis. No one around him would dare to tell him he was crazy and it cost him his life. No one had the courage to say NO.
Same with B.O.(ever notice how his initials reflect his odious personality?) no one has the balls around him to say, "Dude, you're delusional, you're lying, your crazy and the world would be a better place without you". Be even better if it was said live on the air.
Nutjob extrardinaire.
I had just shown my elderly folks a couple of DVDs on Joe McCarthy. My father, who's a 82 year old WWII vet always saw McC for what he was: a lunatic drunk. And now o'lielly, the Spineless Phone Sex Freak, has a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy on his show...
I like the previous posters who've called o'lielly criminally insane. We have to start taking legal action against Faux News and it's gas producers, o'lielly and Hannnity, for their nonsense. It truly is criminally insane.
And they accuse the rest of us of being anti-American? Tie o'lielly down for a year and a half, treat him like they do those accused of nothing at Gitmo, and teach him to spell C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N. He knows nothing about it. He has a medium, and he blows his own horn.
We MUST rid the country of that perverted nonsense.
O'Reilly ain't going anywhere, which is too bad because I'm sick of reading about him here. He's going nowhere, he'll never get fired, he's a loser, a liar, duplicitous, unethical, a sexist, myopic, and ignorant commentator. But he's not going anywhere. Nor is Limbaugh.
Mentioning that the judge helped form the Mississippi chapter of the NLG in 1964, then tying the NLG to the Communist party. Just enough notes from those classic Southern hate melodies to spark a frisson of wicked glee in all the seventy-plus-year-old racists in O'Reilly's audience.
I watched O'Reilly's show on Monday evening in which he railed against almost all other media outlets on his viewer email segment. He called almost all mainstream media sources far left and out of touch with the values of ordinary Americans. He stated that for objective news viewers should go to Fox or the Wall Street Journal. I find it interesting that besides misstating the sum and substance of Judge Taylor's opinion, he has a far-right guest who parrots the GOP talking points on the subject rather than a credible guest who defends or agrees with the decision of the judge. So what we have here is O'Reilly advocating the Republican position and for context a lone guest who sits and agrees with everything he says. Guess we should be glad that O'Reilly and Fox have presented us with this objective and balanced analysis of the issue
Of course not. As usual BOR is completely missing the point. Judge Taylor wants to make sure our government does not stoop to a level lower than the people we are supposedly fighting.
This guy McArdle by the way was a typical BOR guest. Look at some of the red flags he mentioned concerning Taylor:
"Appointed by Carter, National Lawyers Guild (connections to Communist Party), in the pocket of the ACLU in a number of rulings...."
Jeez!!!
What does an investment magazine have anything to do with warrentless wiretapping or the legal actions of this administration????
ziiiiiiiiiiiip
she and her leftist ways made some rulings or work cases unpopular in the corporate world. They could not attack her then successfully -- so they chose now.
do you think he meant law abiding judge?