Barone: Democrats want to "hang up the phone and go to court" rather than intercept terrorist phone calls
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Michael Barone falsely claimed that Democrats would prefer to "hang up the phone and go to court," rather than "listening to what ... terrorists are plotting." In fact, Democrats -- and numerous Republicans and conservatives -- have said nothing of the sort, pointing to a provision in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the Bush administration has apparently violated, that allows the government to undertake surveillance in emergency situations for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant.
On the October 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, U.S. News & World Report senior writer and Fox News contributor Michael Barone falsely claimed that Democrats would prefer to "hang up the phone and go to court," rather than "listening to what ... terrorists are plotting." His assertion is a reference to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which, except as otherwise specifically provided, requires the government to obtain a warrant to intercept communications that include someone in the United States. Democrats -- and numerous Republicans and conservatives -- have sharply criticized the Bush administration for its apparent violation of FISA, which, contrary to Barone's suggestion, includes an emergency provision that allows the government to wait up to 72 hours to obtain a warrant. In other words, in the situation Barone described, under FISA, the government would not have to "hang up the phone and go to court" before "listening to what ... terrorists are plotting."
Barone's assertion echoed Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who recently suggested on NBC's Today that a Democratic Congress would come at the expense of "all the post-9-11 tools we've had," as Media Matters noted, and who stated on the August 13 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that Democrats "oppose efforts to surveil the enemy." Variations of that false claim have been repeated by other top officials in the Bush administration, including White House senior adviser Karl Rove, who said on January 20 that "[s]ome important Democrats clearly disagree" with President Bush, who "believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why."
From the October 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Less than a minute left, and you know, I think that most of these politicians would say that it does not -- November 8th doesn't even exist between now and November 7th. Do Democrats pay a price if they don't have an alternative?
BARONE: Well, that's one of the questions. I think it's possible some of them may pay a price on this terrorist interrogation issue, where most of them opposed the measure supported by Senator [John] McCain [R-AZ], as well as President Bush. On the question of whether NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda suspects abroad should have to hang up the phone when they call persons in the United States -- most Democrats said hang up the phone and go to court. Most Republicans said, keep listening to what these terrorists are plotting. Those are issues that could work for them. [Rep.] Harold Ford [D-TN] and [Rep.] Sherrod Brown [D-OH], two Democrats running for the Senate, voted for those measures in the House.
"On the question of whether NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda suspects abroad should have to hang up the phone when they call persons in the United States "
We obviousely can do whatever it take to find AlQaeda ABROAD, we don't want big brother monitoring U.S. citizens!!!
Why are conservatives afraid of the rule of law?
Why do conservatives have no faith in the Constitution?
Why do conservatives embrace torture?
The issue here is also surveillance of domestic-to-domestic calls, and surveillance of ALL domestic-to-foreign calls (if they were ONLY surveilling "known Al Qaeda," which is easily the most laughable assertion this administration has ever made, why don't they go to where that call is coming from and apprehend or kill them?). From day one the issue has been the abuse of wiretapping, data-mining, and other tools under the guise of "terrorist surveillance" and to this day there is something extremely shady about a government casts a wide net, listens to nearly every call made in the US, does not get court approval for it, and doesn't even bother to tell congress.
"known Al Qaeda"--, Hey, tough-on-terror guys, why are you just listening to "known Al Qaeda" guys? Shouldn't they be locked up with those "suspects" down in Gitmo?
Barone's a zombie and this has to be one of the most idiotic items on MMFA.I wonder if the Dems want to stay on the phone long enough to surrender, at least.Har.
I'm not going to look it up now, but I remember a little-reported stat that something like less than 10% of the calls monitored involved a suspected - suspected - terrorist. The number of Al Qaeda captured by warrantless wiretapping? Zero.
I love this mis-interpretation of things. No democrat on the Hill or anywhere for that matter has ever said don't go after terrorists. Nobody has said that. Nobody has ever said don't tap into their phone calls overseas, for they are not American citizens, and the rules of our Constitution stop at our borders. But they have said, and republicans have said as well, get a warrant if you're listening into phone calls intercepted in the US, either originating or ending in the US. Domestic is the key. And as MMFA has pointed out FISA allows for wiretaping up to and including 72 hours before they can get a warrant, and as it has been reported time and again, the FISA court has turned down what? 2 warrants in the time it has been in existence? It sounds to me like it would be easy to tap away, and then get a warrant, or just get a warrant and then phonetap away.
Why do republicans, let me correct that, why does the Bush administration think that they're above the law. The President has said, and admitted that he wiretapped, and continues to do so, without warrants. I would like to see this issue front and center when the dems take back the House and Senate in a week's time. He, Bush, cannot be allowed to break the law. It's absurd.
beer commercials, without the dissent or debate. bush(lowercase intentional) simply "claims" whatever power he decides he needs and the republican congress simply looks the other way, or comes right out in support of him, regardless of what the constitution says. bush(lowercase still intentional) claims all this power by virtue of his position as "commander-in-chief". Someone needs to remind him that he is "commander-in-chief" of the "military", not the country. THAT is why we need a new congress.