Candidates still not asked about wiretaps, FISA, or telecom immunity in debates
SUMMARY: Despite the controversy over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance and whether telecommunications companies should receive immunity for their alleged involvement, only one question about wiretapping has been asked of any presidential candidate of either party during the numerous debates over the past year. The lone question was asked of Republican Mitt Romney in September 2007; no Democrat has been asked any question relating to the topic.
Despite the ongoing controversy surrounding the Bush administration's claims that executive power alone allows it to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance that public officials and legal experts across the political spectrum have said violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the U.S. Constitution, only one question on the issue has been asked of any presidential candidate of either party during the numerous debates over the past year.
The New York Times first reported on December 16, 2005, that President Bush had issued a secret presidential order shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international phone calls and email communications that originate from or are received within the United States and to do so without the court approval normally required under FISA.
In August 2007, after months of heated debate over civil liberties and the administration's claim of executive power, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which, as The Washington Post reported, gave "U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order." The New York Times further reported that the act "broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants," "as long as the target of the government's surveillance is 'reasonably believed' to be overseas." According to the Times, the law "gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court." The bill contains a 180-day "sunset provision" and will expire February 1. Congress resumed debate on the issue on January 24.
One of the issues surrounding the debate over Bush's warrantless surveillance concerns the telecommunication firms that assisted the NSA program. On May 11, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA "has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth." Following additional reporting on the issue, several organizations filed lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, FISA, and other state and federal laws. In a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleged that the company is "collaborating with the NSA in a massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks the domestic and foreign communications and communication records of millions of Americans." On October 22, 2007, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell stated in an interview with the El Paso Times that "under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us. Because if you're going to get access you've got to have a partner."
In the wake of litigation against several telecommunication companies over their alleged cooperation with the NSA program, a debate emerged on Capitol Hill over whether to provide these companies with retroactive immunity. The Protect America Act did not include a provision granting the telecommunication companies legal immunity for their compliance with the program, and the debate continues over whether Congress should provide for such a provision when it considers the act's renewal.
However, in the numerous presidential debates conducted over the past year, not one question has been asked of any of the Democratic candidates regarding wiretapping, FISA, or immunity for telecommunications companies, and only one has been asked of a Republican candidate. At least 10 of the candidates who have participated in presidential debates in the past year have been in Congress as it has considered legislation concerning FISA, wiretapping, and the immunity issue. As Media Matters for America Executive Vice President Jamison Foser documented on November 16, 2007, the debates held prior to November 15 featured "[o]nly one question about wiretapping" and "[n]ot a single question about FISA." The sole question on the issue of wiretapping occurred during the September 5, 2007, Fox News-sponsored Republican debate and did not relate to retroactive immunity. During the debate, Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler asked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney about eavesdropping on mosques "even without a judge's approval."
A Media Matters review of all the nationally televised debates held since November 15, 2007 -- as well as a Democratic debate on National Public Radio, two Democratic presidential forums, and a Republican forum -- found that the pattern has continued. Not one question has been asked of any of the candidates regarding issues related to Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program during any of the subsequent debates. The following debates were included in the follow-up review:
- The January 21 Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
- The January 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
- The January 10 Republican debate in Myrtle Beach
- The January 6 Republican forum in Manchester, New Hampshire
- The January 5 Republican debate in Manchester
- The January 5 Democratic debate in Manchester
- The December 13 Democratic debate in Johnston, Iowa
- The December 12 Republican debate in Johnston
- The December 9 Republican debate in Coral Gables, Florida
- The December 4 Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa
- The December 1 Democratic forum in Des Moines (Brown & Black Forum)
- The December 1 Democratic forum in Des Moines (Heartland Presidential Forum)
- The November 28, 2007, Republican debate in St. Petersburg, Florida















http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
As I and others have pointed out...these same people carpeted their programming in the late 90s with All Monica All the Time. Bill Clinton's indiscretions pale in comparison to the outright crimes committed by Bush/Cheney...yet these overpaid talking heads can't seem to find time to even ask questions about it.
Anybody want to tell me about the "Drive-by Liberal Media" again?
Since there were only 935 false statements, I guess it's OK for them to ignore it.
Tell me again MMFHRC WITH?
Oh yeah.. This thread has nothing to do with the mission-statement but rather is trying to take the onus off Billary and salvage the Clinton dynasty. ;-)
AA come on, they said "candidates." If Hillary is the only candidate in your mind, then you've got bigger problems...
Do you really believe the tripe that this web-site is a Hillary front group?
DB,
Good point. When I read the post, I interpreted it to be referring to the Republican candidates.
I apologize for my snarkiness. Thanks for setting me straight.
DB,
Do I believe MMFA is a Hillary front group?
"In a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress, we’re beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side.” - Hillary Clinton
I've read where MMFA was developed with the help of the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. To help organize it, they recruited Harold Ickes, former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Clinton White House.
Funded with "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals. Among MMFA's original donors was Susie Tompkins Buell, a close friend to Senator HRC.
Harold Ickes is Hillaries chief campaign advisor.
So the answer to your question is... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....Links? Sources to back up these claims?
Sorry, but "I've read..." doesn't cut it.
Ok, I guess I should ask "What constitutes a Hillary front group?"
Do they have to be actively engaging in getting Hillary, and only Hillary, into the White House?
Does Hillary Ciinton have to actively monitor this site and approve the information?
I just don't get it. I guess it's a little too conspiratorial for me.
Some other blogs that are following this today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/You know what? This is terrible, and yet, tax-exempted!
(warning: vulgar language)
1. Intelligence, and intelligence gathering (surveillance or spying), is the single most important tool Law Enforcement authorities have, to detect or prevent an attack in the U.S., anything like the attacks of September 11 2001. Those who plan and execute attacks like that of 9/11, are truly a narrow and distinct group in the world (they aren't disgruntled postal workers, or 'mafia' or 'bloods and crips'). Regular Law Enforcement authorities (City and State Police) are near helpless to know whether members of that narrow group are in the U.S., never mind where they are and what they're doing. So Intelligence is the single most important element in this Law Enforcement matter, and the gathering of it, the single most important tool.
2. This tool is presently in the hands of George W. Bush and his administration, and we don't have any faith or trust in his and their use of this tool. And why should we? These are the people who allowed 3,000 Americans to be murdered on September 11 2001, and not only have they gotten no Justice for the American People for what happened that day, but have incessantly weaseled out of any responsibility for those attacks, and distracted us all into Iraq, for no good National Security reason at all. So why should we trust the Bush administration with this powerful tool of gathering Intelligence domestically?
3. The hideous leering cackling faces of Bush and Cheney, are not the true and real faces of Law Enforcement in America. Those people who we need to protect us from any type of attack like that of 9/11, are not Bush or Cheney or even folks who would say they liked or respected Bush or Cheney. They are career Law Enforcement Officers, in several parts of the Federal Government (like the FBI), and they need this tool of Intelligence gathering, and they don't give a squat about what you're saying on the telephone to your secretary when your wifes not around. And they are not Bush or Cheney, so we need not mistrust or hate them, the way we do Bush and Cheney, and the hideous leering cackling faces they make (which again, are not the faces of our true protectors in these matters).
4. Bush and Cheney didn't follow the Law of the FISA... they broke the Law when they circumvented the FISA Court.
5. Bush and Cheney and the rest of their mob, are "short-timers" and on the way out: we have only to suffer their administration for less than a year, and then they'll never ever be a thing called a "Bush administration" to plague us again. And this powerful and absouluely necessary tool for gathering Intelligence about the narrow group of murderers like those who attacked us on 9/11, this tool will be in someone else's hands... someone we might trust...
But in either and all cases, not Bush or Cheney or whoever else administers the next Session of our Federal Government, is the true face of Law Enforcement and our true protectors domestically against any attack like that of 9/11.
So don't oppose the expanded FISA simply because you oppose Bush and Cheney. The tool is too powerful for them to be trusted with, I know...
But it's too important to take away, from those who need it and use it in the name of our Safety.
We had the tools and a great deal of the information necessary to stop 9/11 before it happened. I'm not talking about a wild conspiracy theory or even blaming Bush and Co for ignoring the briefings. Our protective and intelligence agencies simply failed for a variety of reasons, many of them having to do with too much bureaucracy and failure to share information amongst agencies. Nothing in the expanded FISA legislation would have made a difference then.
All FISA really needed was some updating of definitions to accomodate the changes in technology since it was originally written. What is being railroaded through is a bill that grants immunity for unconstitutional and criminal behavior on the part of the telephone companies, removal of many of the protections for US citizens from 4th Amendment violations and far too much unchecked and unaccountable surveillance abilities in the hands of domestic law enforcement agencies.
In its history the FISA court has very rarely denied any applications for warrants. The only reason that rejections have increased at all over the past 7 years is because the number of applications have increased in a far greater proportion.
"What is being railroaded through is a bill that grants immunity for unconstitutional and criminal behavior on the part of the telephone companies, removal of many of the protections for US citizens from 4th Amendment violations and far too much unchecked and unaccountable surveillance abilities in the hands of domestic law enforcement agencies."
Here's hopin' that Dodd & friends can be successful in the "filibuster" of this betrayal of us all. I want a definitive answer to whom the Bungloids were surveilling in April, 2001 - the date the NYT has established a the "no later than" for this program. If the "turrists", why did not that stop 9/11? If not the "turrists" whom that Administration denied existed, then whom? And for what national security purpose?