About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News' Centanni conflated the PAA with FISA

February 28, 2008 2:53 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On America's Newsroom, Fox News' Steve Centanni conflated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the Protect America Act, asserting that President Bush is "urging Congress, pushing Congress, to pass the extension of FISA, or what he calls the Protect America Act." In fact, the 1978 FISA law established the federal government's underlying statutory authority to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists, while the PAA, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant.

18 Comments

On the February 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, previewing President Bush's press conference that day, Fox News national correspondent Steve Centanni asserted that Bush is "urging Congress, pushing Congress, to pass the extension of FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], or what he calls the Protect America Act [PAA]," falsely suggesting that FISA and the PAA are one and the same. Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented media conflating the 1978 FISA law, which established the federal government's underlying statutory authority to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists, and revisions to FISA under the PAA, which, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. By conflating the two statutes, the media are promoting the false suggestion -- advanced by supporters of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program -- that upon the expiration of the PAA on February 15, the government no longer has the authority to spy on suspected terrorists. In fact, under FISA, it still does. Further, contrary to Centanni's suggestion, the PAA is the name given the legislation by Congress and not Bush's preferred name for FISA.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted in a February 13 statement that "the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported:

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

From the February 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

MEGYN KELLY (co-host): Back now to Washington, D.C., and just about an hour from now, President Bush will hold a press conference in the White House briefing room -- the president expected to talk about several concerns, including his two big issues right now: One, a terrorist surveillance law that Congress let expire; and two, an economic growth package that will help ease the mortgage crisis.

Steve Centanni is live for us at the White House. Steve, hi. Let's start with this terrorist surveillance issue. Where exactly does that law stand now?

CENTANNI: Well, it's stalled on Capitol Hill, and this has made the president very agitated and angry. Every time he gets near a microphone lately, he's been talking about that, urging Congress, pushing Congress, to pass the extension of FISA, or what he calls the Protect America Act. Now, this is a law that makes it easier to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists.

This law has expired. The president wants Congress to pass the Senate version of that bill, which allows for granting immunity to the telecommunications companies, or the phone companies, that have been cooperating with the U.S. government in trying to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists overseas. Democrats have opposed that, saying they do not want to supply that kind of immunity to the private enterprise system. The White House saying without that there is no program at all, and America is a much more dangerous place. We need this to be passed. We expect him to say that again today during his eight-minute opening statement, Megyn.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (February 28, 2008 2:59 pm ET)
         
      OK.. I'm confused- all the republicant's voted AGAINST the PAA, MOST of the democrats voted FOR the PAA.  WHAT are Bush and these *media* outlets trying to do?  I don't get it.  Was it some VERSION of the bill Bush didn't like, or what?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 28, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
           

        Mr. L,

        I think the Dems voted for a 3-week extension as a compromise.  The Repubs wanted it for a longer duration and voted against the extension.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (February 28, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
             
          That makes sense... in a way... IF the republicants were TRUELY interested in *security*, though, it would seem to behoove them to take 3 weeks instead of nothing.  But, compromising sure as hill doesn't appear to be their strong suit...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 28, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
               

            Missing that point is exactly why we have a problem with the media in this country.  If the expiration of this was so vital, Bush never should have gone to Africa.  If the program's lapse is going to cause deaths of Americans because of these three weeks, how can the blame go anywhere but at the feet of those who voted against the extension and the President who left the country?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 28, 2008 3:25 pm ET)
         

      Ok here is my best attempt at a solution:

       Have the telecoms turn over their lists of eavesdropped upon numbers over to the Senate Intelligence Committee who will review the lists/people eavesdropped upon in camera).  If they followed what Bush claims they are doing (calls from foreign countries or "suspicious" people i.e. people on the terrorist watch list) and there are no exceptions, there is no liability. 

      However, if it is found that the telecoms are cooperating and this administration is listening to strictly domestic calls of folks that are NOT on any terrorist watch list, the people listened to should be notified and given the option to sue.  Same process for emails.

      The Republicans who I know who consistently tell me that this program is vital to our national security tell me that if I have "nothing to hide" than I have "nothing to worry about."  Shouldn't the same principle apply to the government?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 28, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
           

        "The Republicans who I know who consistently tell me that this program is vital to our national security tell me that if I have "nothing to hide" than I have "nothing to worry about."  Shouldn't the same principle apply to the government?"

        That, in a nutshell, is completely fascist.  (I know, I know, it gets thrown around a lot, but in this case, ultimately true.)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 28, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
             

          DBen, which part is completely fascist?  The people talking about "nothing to hide?"

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (February 28, 2008 4:33 pm ET)
               
            Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear on that. 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 28, 2008 4:40 pm ET)
                 
              Not a problem, what do you think of my proposed solution?  I would even volunteer to help ;).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dbeden4153 (February 28, 2008 4:48 pm ET)
                   
                It's a good sentiment, but it's never gonna happen.  Bush is only calling for immunity because they've already done something unlawful.  For what you propose to work, Bush would have to concede that the telecoms, and thus the Bush administration, have broken the law, which will never happen, unfortunately :/
                Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (February 28, 2008 10:27 pm ET)
           

        FRIED,

        As much as that makes sense....... you might as well ask everyone involved to simply drink poison right now...... don't hold your breath for either.

        My take on this, and I think I can safely presume to speak for several million of my fellow citizens with these questions:

        If, as the Bush regime is claiming that no laws were broken, no illegal wiretaps took place, none of my conversations were illegally obtained or no splices within any hardware exists anywhere that may have allowed these 'taps' to occur and/or sent to an NSA, CIA, or FBI lab for analysis........ then why the hell is Bush demanding immunity for the telecom companies? If all is well, then what are they so afraid of? If no laws were broken, why the moaning and groaning?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 29, 2008 10:33 am ET)
             

          Capt,

          I completely agree with your post.  I guess I was trying to be optimistic with mine :).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
         

      That's the big lie being pushed by the right-wing wackos and the corporate-controlled media.  FISA is still in effect - the supplemtal law that allows wiretalling without a warrant is what expired.  And there should be no loss of national security as a result, seeing as all the Bush Misadministration needs to do is go to the FISA court and get a warrant if they want to tap the phones of a suspected terrorist.

      They just want to be able to do things in secret......

      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (February 28, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
           
        Don't forget that they can also get a warrant 72 hours AFTER THEY START wiretapping.  This was never about security.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
             

          Exactly.  It was about Bush and his accomplices being able to keep tabs on their enemies.....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (February 28, 2008 5:32 pm ET)
               

            Especially since the program of "enhanced" wiretapping began BEFORE 9/11!

            I want to know who was spied on then - because it obviously wasn't those evil arabs.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (February 29, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
         
      The only way we will find out about the extent of this "illegal wiretaps" is to not push it under the rug by allowing immunity to the telecoms.  That is why Bush is fighting so hard for it.  Fried got it right it has nothing to do with national security or with trivial lawsuits but everything to do with breaking the law.  Just listen to Bush's news conference yesterday.  Was their anyone with a 5th grade education who couldn't debunk every reason he gave for immunity, yet did you notice the question he got from a Fox correspondant?  Even Bush wouldn't back that BS. This is not the 1st time courts have decided on secret matters, there are means to deal with that.  Bush's alternative of just believe us is BS.  The companies won't cooperate with us unless they have immunity.  More BS!  How about if you get a warrant? Glenn Greenwald has more on this over @ Solon.com
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (February 29, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
         
      Also if we were under so much danger why would he leave on a 5 day trip to Africa as Friedergboy points out! 
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.