NY Times mischaracterized GOP eavesdropping measure
SUMMARY: A New York Times article adopted House Republicans' characterization of their proposed measure to revise the RESTORE Act, a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The article claimed that "on its face," the measure "asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again." In fact, the measure would have exempted the president from requirements of the bill as long as he claimed to be acting to protect the country from attack.
Reporting that House Republicans "used a parliamentary maneuver to scuttle a vote" on the RESTORE Act, a bill aimed at amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), an October 18 New York Times article adopted the House Republicans' characterization of their proposed measure, claiming that "on its face," it "asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again." In fact, the proposed Republican measure neither "on its face" asked lawmakers to make such a declaration, nor would have had that effect. According to House chief deputy minority whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), the measure would have "clarif[ied] that nothing in the bill [to amend FISA] 'shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization ... from attacking the United States or any United States person.' " In other words, the measure (to use the Times' language) "asked lawmakers to declare where they stood" on exempting the president from the requirements of the bill as long as he takes the position he is acting to protect the United States from attack.
The article's assertion that the measure would have forced a declaration on the part of lawmakers of where they stood on "stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again" echoes Cantor's own rhetoric about the measure. Of the measure he planned to introduce, Cantor wrote: "[L]et's put all Members of Congress on the record -- which do they care more about, pleasing their Moveon.org liberal base or making sure America is safe and secure?" He later wrote that Democrats are "so desperately against allowing our intelligence agencies to fight OBL [Osama Bin Laden] and AQ [Al Qaeda] that they pulled the entire bill to prevent a vote" on the measure. The Times' assertion also echoes what supporters of the president have said about opponents of his warrantless domestic spying program. Similar to The New York Times' characterization of the measure as being about one's position on stopping terrorism -- and similar to Cantor's reference to the Democrats' "desperate[]" efforts "against allowing our intelligence agencies to fight OBL" -- Bush supporters have accused opponents of the warrantless surveillance program of wanting to prevent the administration from spying on terrorists. In fact, like the opponents of the Cantor measure, opponents of the president's program presumably want to ensure that the U.S. Code and the Constitution govern the president's actions, and not his own virtually unfettered discretion.
Media Matters for America has documented a number of instances in which media outlets have uncritically reported Republican allegations that critics of the president oppose eavesdropping on terrorists, or have asserted so themselves.
What happened to the story about Bush's attempts to expand this program BEFORE 9/11? I guess the GOP lapdog press doesn't find that very interesting.
"where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again"
How typical of the troglodyte fearmongers. Let's extrapolate this strawman to it's logical conclusion, shell we?
Do you favor stopping all commercial airline flights? Do you favor confiscation of all cell phones? Do you favor cancelling all visas and passports, in and out of the country? Do you favor imposition of martial law, deportation of all people of Arab descent, or erecting concrete barriers around all public buildings, with strip searches for all people who seek to enter these buildings?
Do you oppose any of those measures? Aren't you willing to do whatever it takes to stop Osama from attacking the United States?
Yes to all those, as judged needed by authorities.
Would you be willing to live in a concentration camp in order to be "safe", if that's what the "authorities" determined to be necessary?
Yes, if alternative was worse.
Well, go and hide under your bed. We'll call you when it's safe to come out, probably after the next Presidential election. Don't bother to go vote...turrists lurk around polling places, you know.
Hey, Chuck...read this; you'll LOVE it!
[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
I'm not scared, I'm resolute to defeat the enemy.
How will you know when that enemy is "defeated"?
We need to remove their control over strategic assets.
Like what...oil?
Yes.
An honest conservative. I like that.
How did OUR oil get in THEIR country anyway?
I think Jesus put it there.
As good an explanation as I have seen so far.
So give some worse alternatives, chances of a terrorist doing them and the chances of a terrorist doing it to you.
Which means the terrorists win.
This goes beyond the simple-minded rhetoric that terrorists simply want to kill us. They are trying to CHANGE us. By threatening and attacking us, they are pushing us to see how far we are willing to go beyond our founding principles, how much of our identity as a nation we are willing to sacrifice, even how much we are willing to turn on each other. They are testing the resiliency of our grand democratic experiment.
Excellent point. It all comes back around to conservative black and white thinking. They simply don't recognize the irony of their willingness to surrender the very freedoms which they claim we are fighting to preserve. It just boggles the mind.
This isn't the first time in this countrys' history and it won't be the last time when freedoms need to be restricted.
Well, after all, President Numbnuts says they hate us for our freedoms. If we get rid of enough freedoms, maybe they'll stop hating us! Problem solved! We'll be just like THEM!
Why the enemy hate us or if they hate us is immaterial in my opinion.
I strongly disagree with your opinion. The reason the enemy hates us and their motivation is absolutely material.
Choosing to ignore decades of meddling in Middle East politics, territory and resource control while attempting to "win hearts and minds" with bombs and a never-ending military presence is a fruitless, foolhardy endeavor.
Hey, Chuck, I'll ask you: Is there any right or privilege you would NOT give up to be kept "safe" from the Islamojihadifascist hoardes?
No, and neither would you, whether you liked it or not. If a draft were implemented and you were drafted, you would lose contol of your entire life. And draft age is subject to change.
Wow. The threat is graver than I thought. Why aren't they drafting people to defeat the Islamojihadifascist hoarde?
There should be a draft. And I think there will be in the near future.
Ever read "1984", Chuck? I think you'd like it.
Yeah, it would be a shame if Bush starts another war and noone comes.
Give up the belief you have amazing mind reading powers. You have no idea what Nerzog would do.
Hey, Chuck, I'll ask you: Is there any right or privilege you would NOT give up to be kept "safe" from the Islamojihadifascist hoardes?Nerzog
No, and neither would you, whether you liked it or not. Charles
Got some bad news for Charles, you are no better than the Islamojihadifascist are. When you become like the people you hate, you don't get to take the high road. Principles and standards and morals are what separate us from them and when you are willing to give them up, you become just those you hate and want to kill.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."Benjamin Franklin
We'll do our best without you then.
I guess that was supposed to mean something. I suppose WE will do our best to maintain our freedoms WITHOUT YOU. So go hide under your bed. We will carry on without YOU. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance not sychophantic compliance.
Won't be the last time we looked back and said,"Well that was stupid."Some us are already saying this about such things as: A war for someboby elses oil,Torture and rendition, failing to support childrens health care because of the bad old socialism monster, not just the fear that Iranians might not just be able to someday, 10+ years on, have the capabilty of producing nuclear weapons, but that they might even understand how to feaking build one.
Restriction of rights to support an endless war, that is above all else good for business and sends us further and further into debt. Sorry can't find any support for that in me.
Yes we need to restrict Bush and Cheney who think they have the freedom to run roughshod over the constitution.
Gee Chuck, Hitler and Stalin would've loved you..
They were expantionist. America is not, but does wish to survive.
How do our actions in the middle east, which such radicals as Greenspan said, it was about the oil, not fall under the term expansionist?
We have per, a recently fired anti terrorism Adm, created a fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorist's, in Iraq. Any guesses as to why the ADM now seems to feel that he needs to spend more time with his family?
International police cooperation against terrorist's trumps military action anyway you want to slice it. More effective, and several orders of magnitude less bloody and wasteful of life.
Bush is simply engaging in a different type of expansionism. His doesn't involve expanding control of foreign peoples, but of foreign resources.
Sieg Heil
What possible phone call or other type of communications with Anti-American groups are you worried about the Gov from hearing ?
I have nothing to hide, let em frinking listen.
I worry more about the "far left" in this country bring us down then I do terrorists. Libs giving 11 year olds condoms and pills in PUBLIC schools in Maine and Mass now, books about the 2 gay Princes being read to PUBLIC school kids at 5 and 6 in New York. Socilized health care for folks that could already purchase it by being self reliant or wasting funds on a big screen, new car, bling, or fancy cars. Reaching into our pockets for more and more socilized programs that were never intended to take away peoples desire to be personaly responsible.
The things you Libs worry about are not even on my list, I guess that is the difference. We Cons belive the Gov should help the truly needy, NOT everyone.
And don't forget teaching evolution in schools. You better believe that the turrists don't teach evolution to THEIR kids, by God.
Oh yeah, and the war on Christmas, too.
Why don't people say Merry Christmas anymore?
I hear it all the time.
Christmas was 9 months ago.Wait a month or so, and they;ll be saying it again.
Maybe becuz its only October. Just a guess tho.
Merry Christmas
And furthermore, how dare public schools teach my kids not to hate gay people? The nerve. I'll teach them who to hate, thank you very much! Sheeesh!
Hey, Garnett, is there any right or privilege you would NOT give up to be kept "safe" from the Islamojihadifascist hoardes? Just curious.
Yes you have nothing to hide why not LET the police come into your house and search it whenever they want, why not let them listen in to every phone call made. While you are cowering under your bed I think we will continue to say the Bill of RIGHTS is something we ought to keep. I mean we have had it a long time and all. Go ahead and give up ALL your freedoms I am not going along. You have no need for privacy good for you. I like mine.
Hi MG, you're strange.
The problems with overhearing everybodies commuication, besides being pretty much unconstitutional? Well think of all the closeted conservatives, their communications regarding sex of types well outside the of that of the ten comandments. We'd be forced to know about things we'd rather remain between consenting wingnuts. I assume at least one of them would be concenting.
Frinking, I'm not going to touch that one.
"Far left bring us down", ugh, ugly far lefty die at dawn! Don't remeber the deal on the condoms. Refresh my memory. I believe the pills were in connection with a staph outbreak. If I'm wrong,let me know. The gay fear is coming though loud and clear, thank you. Check an applicable thread here abouts. Your coments on the "Frost Family" you got on a conservative web site. Other than certain parts of the mythological liberal media They're considered suseptable to evporation upon exposure to the truth situation.
Minor point given for social programs that create a dependant population. Recognised error, corrections to welfare were done by the Clinton Adminstration. Futher work is no doubt needed.
The government is supposed to mediate against abuse of all of its population. The current one seems overly concerned with the care and comfort of the richest 10%. Anybody else,"Weclome to social darwinism. What ever bad happens to you rest asured that you deserve it. You suffer,we enjoy."
Bet you were down right pissed when you found out women got the right to vote and blacks were given equal rights, huh? Bet you were none to happy with those women getting to choose whether they wanted to remain pregnant too.
Sheryl Crow has a song called 'Change will do you good'. You should buy it!
Maybe you Islamojihadifascistxenophobes should add this to your Christmas list...oops, I mean Holiday Shopping list:
[link to www.cnn.com]
If you put one in your window, maybe the hoardes will pass you by.
I remember somebody saying something about rather having death than no liberty. Then there was that other person who said something about giving up freedoms for safety and not deserving either. Must have been John Yoo right?
Yeah, well, those founding fathers were just a bunch of pointy-headed liberals, you know...and that was before 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.
The problem with conservatives of this type is they are SOOO pre 1776 in their thinking
They long for the good old days...before all that Enlightenment nonsense.