NBC falsely suggested House Democrats refused to extend expiring FISA amendments
SUMMARY: NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams stated that the Republicans "left the House chamber to protest the Democrats' refusal to renew the foreign intelligence surveillance law, which expires this week." In fact, the House voted on a measure to extend the law in question, the Protect America Act, for another 21 days, but all 195 Republicans who voted on the matter voted against it. Moreover, the "foreign intelligence surveillance law" doesn't expire this week; the Protect America Act, giving the president broad authority to intercept communications involving people in the U.S. without a warrant, expires. Even without its renewal, the government has the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
In a February 14 report on House Republicans' walkout from the House chamber earlier that day, NBC's Nightly News falsely suggested that House Democrats had refused to allow votes relating to the extension of the Protect America Act (PAA), a bill that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is set to expire on February 15. Anchor Brian Williams stated that the Republicans "left the House chamber to protest the Democrats' refusal to renew the foreign intelligence surveillance law, which expires this week." In fact, on February 13, the House voted on a measure to extend the PAA for another 21 days, but the measure failed, with a vote of 191 in favor and 229 opposed; all 195 Republicans who voted on the matter voted against the extension.
Moreover, Williams' assertion that "the foreign intelligence surveillance law ... expires this week" is false. While the PAA is set to expire this week, FISA will not.
The PAA, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in August 2007, is a revision to FISA that, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. According to the PAA's "transition procedures," if those revisions are allowed to expire on February 15, all new authorizations for surveillance would be governed by the FISA statute as it existed prior to the PAA revisions, while all current authorizations would remain in effect until their scheduled expiration date.
On February 13, after the House vote on a 21-day extension of the PAA failed, Pelosi stated: "Today, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted to extend that law for three weeks so that agreement could be reached with the Senate on a better version of that law. The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national security consequences result."
Additionally, Nightly News did not report the full reason for the Republican decision to walk off the House floor. As The Washington Post reported, House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) led a Republican walkout just before the House was set to vote on "contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys." In calling for the walkout, Boehner stated: "We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us. ... Let's just get up and leave." The House then approved the citations by a vote of 223-32. Neither ABC nor NBC reported on the contempt citations, consistent with a pattern on the part of both networks to ignore developments relating to the U.S. attorney scandal in their nightly news broadcasts.
From the February 14 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: With all the hubbub surrounding this presidential election season, it's important to remember the business of Congress goes on -- at least it's supposed to. The Republicans, though, in the House stopped all work for a time today and staged a walkout. They left the House chamber to protest the Democrats' refusal to renew the foreign intelligence surveillance law, which expires this week.















Moreover, the "foreign intelligence surveillance law" doesn't expire this week; the Protect America Act, giving the president broad authority to intercept communications involving people in the U.S. without a warrant, expires
Expires when?
..the Protect America Act, giving the president broad authority to intercept communications involving people in the U.S. without a warrant, expires, removing the superfluous nipple from the mouths of the most timid and submissive bed-wetting, teat-suckling Americans, at the moment we decide to secure defeat at the hands of Islamofascists.
Is that better, Carn? ;0)
It appears the only things that have expired is the United States Constitution, the rule of law, and paying of fines.
Is it now time to suspend the rule of law and paying of fines for all the rest of the people now that the country is being dissolved?
How g*ddamned hard is it for these talking heads to actually do their jobs? I'm not sure that at NBC there was a conscious effort to blatantly spin the story. In my opinion, they probably are lazy and stupid and wrote the story using their preconceived talking points about dems and republicans. Dems are weak on terror and want to do things to hurt the administrations hunt for the bad guys. So, if a law is expiring, it must be that 1. it was a critical law, and 2. the dems are responsible for killing it. The GOP spin machine fed the story for this, but where is the equivelant on the Dem side? Nowhere to be found.
This story is infuriating me more and more as it unfolds. How can the media be so p*ss-poor that it gives the story as the exact opposite of reality? I mean, a little off I can see, but the exact opposite? How do we expect to make headway with the general public who doesn't pay much attention to politics when we're swimming against the tide with idiots like Brian Williams?
Hey guys, here's the real reason why the democrat leaders in the house refused to bring this to a vote...They didn't want to make the trial lawyers and their wallets, mad at them by not allowing them sue the telecommunication companies that assisted the government in hunting down terrorists all over the world following 911.
This is from truthout.org: The main sticking point is a provision in the Senate bill that provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that, at the Bush administration's request, cooperated in providing private data after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Many House Democrats oppose that immunity.
And from the Aging Commie and Liberal Union: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/33906leg20080204.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K
Could there be any other motive than that for the democrat party?
Wait a minute...are you saying that the controversy surrounding this bill was over immunity for the telecom companies? I've never heard that!
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT IMMUNITY IS THE ISSUE! My question to you is why do you want your government to allow billion-dollar corporations to get off the hook for breaking the law? And if you think they acted in good faith, just ask the high-priced lawyers for Qwest why they were smart enough to see that the request was illegal. And then ask the equally high-priced lawyers for the other telecoms why they could not see that? Or could it be that they knew it was illegal but went along anyway because they were threatened about losing their gov't ontracts? And if they were just doing their civic duty, why did they cut off the thousands of wiretaps the FBI had when they didn't pay the bill?
What is your threshold for who should be able to break the law and get away with it, and who shouldn't?
Speaking of immunity, LoudCon seems to be pretty immune to having his/her ass handed to him/her. It comes back just as arrogant as ever.
AnotherAmerican seems to be missing lately, so LoudCon may be vying for the Deputy Barney Fife title.Doing well, good luck!
C'mon guys, the first part of any recovery program is acceptance. Accept that this is about the money, the money the democrat party will loose in contributions from the trial lawyer's association when they can no longer droole in anticipation of exorbitant fees they would have collected in any suits against the telecom industry. It's ok to accept powerlessness against the addiction.
When the Senate version passed, Hairy Reid fumed that the couldn't get it done again and asked the house to join in the demagogary. And by the way, Sickchin, you clearly made my point that this was not about the constitution but about protecting or not protecting the Verizons of the world.
As far as the meaning of this, has representative McDermott ever paid his debt to society yet?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/washington/02court.html?ei=5124&en=b48e71263b1372ef&ex=1335758400&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1203289583-PKFkGGe2pTumXScYEXHuSg
Or any resolution to Bill Clinton's 'undercover work'?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=421754&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Have a lovely evening.