CNN's Foreman let Cliff May falsely accuse Dems of trying to prevent government from "bug[ging] terrorists and terrorist suspects abroad"
SUMMARY: On CNN's This Week in Politics, Cliff May falsely asserted, unchallenged, that Nancy Pelosi "is not letting a vote come on" a "bipartisan bill passed by the Senate that would restore to intelligence agencies the authority they used to have to ... surveil, to bug terrorists and terrorist suspects abroad." May further claimed, falsely, that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "have said they're against this bill that would restore intelligence authority." In fact, the U.S. government currently has the authority to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
On the March 9 edition of CNN's This Week in Politics, correspondent Tom Foreman did not challenge Foundation for the Defense of Democracies president Cliff May's false assertion that "there's a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate that would restore to intelligence agencies the authority they used to have to ... surveil, to bug terrorists and terrorist suspects abroad," but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "is not letting a vote come on it" and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "have said they're against this bill that would restore intelligence authority." May then suggested that Sen. John McCain should use this as a line of attack against his Democratic rivals: "What McCain needs to explain ... is, 'Hey, they're not serious about intelligence. We are safe because we're listening in on the phone calls of terrorists, and Obama and Hillary don't want us to do that.' " In fact, the U.S. government currently has the authority to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists primarily through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), whereas the Protect America Act (PAA), which expired in mid-February, expanded the government's authority to spy on people in the United States without a warrant. As The Washington Post reported on February 13, the PAA "expanded the government's authority to intercept -- without a court order -- the phone calls and emails of people in the United States communicating with others overseas. U.S. intelligence agencies previously had broad leeway to monitor the communications of foreign terrorism suspects but needed warrants to monitor calls intercepted in the United States, regardless of where they originated."
Defense of Democracies, an advocacy organization affiliated with May's Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has also recently been running an ad that falsely claims the government's authority to conduct surveillance of terrorist suspects expired when the PAA expired. The ad states:
Midnight, February 16th: The law that lets intelligence agencies intercept Al Qaeda communications expires. Senate Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly to extend terrorist surveillance, but the House refuses to vote and instead goes on vacation. So, new surveillance against terrorists is crippled. Tell the House of Representatives to do its job and pass the Senate's Terror Surveillance Bill, to keep us all safe.
Defense of Democracies also pushes the false assertion in a similar ad that targets Pelosi. But contrary to the suggestion that Pelosi is seeking to obstruct efforts to allow the surveillance of suspected terrorists, in a February 13 statement, Pelosi specifically noted 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." As Media Matters for America has documented, House Republicans tried to get the House to approve a Senate-passed bill that would, for the most part, extend until the end of 2013 the PAA revisions to FISA that were enacted by Congress in August 2007. Further, regarding the PAA's expiration, 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 [February 16], 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.
Media Matters has documented numerous media outlets conflating the 1978 FISA law and the PAA, thereby advancing the falsehood -- promoted by supporters of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program and parroted by the media -- that since the PAA expired, the government no longer has the authority to spy on suspected terrorists.
As Media Matters noted, in October 2007, during a conversation with MSNBC host Tucker Carlson about gender issues in the presidential campaign and Carlson's professed disapproval of supporting candidates on the basis of gender, May said of Clinton: "At least call her a Vaginal-American."
From the March 9 edition of CNN's This Week in Politics:
FOREMAN: Jonathan, what does McCain try to stick on the Democrats then?
JONATHAN MARTIN (Politico senior political writer): Well, that they are not ready for prime time, essentially, and in a dangerous world, you need a steady hand at the tiller. Neither Clinton or Obama have the experience that he does.
But let me just reiterate what Cliff is saying. I talked to McCain folks this week. They want to take that red-blue map and tear it up, and stomp all over it. They really want to campaign across the country, and that implicitly is a rebuke of the Bush model -- go to places that Republicans have not been to.
As part of that planning, in April, they're gonna do a tour. It's sort of a different kind of Republican tour. They're gonna go to ghettos, barrios, places that most candidates on the Republican side typically haven't ventured to, to really drive this theme that he's gonna really go different kind of places.
FOREMAN: Cliff, there's a sense also that they may go after states that the Democrats consider safe states for them.
MAY: They absolutely can, because, again, McCain has crossover potential. He appeals to independents and he appeals to conservative Democrats. So, he absolutely should do that, and he should focus in on issues as well.
For example, there's a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate that would restore to intelligence agencies the authority they used to have to surveil a -- surveil, to bug terrorists and terrorist suspects abroad. Passed in the Senate bipartisan, would pass in the House, but Nancy Pelosi is not letting a vote come on it. Both Obama and Hillary have said they're against this bill that would restore intelligence authority.
What McCain needs to explain, more simply than I just did, is, "Hey, they're not serious about intelligence. We are safe because we're listening in on the phone calls of terrorists, and Obama and Hillary don't want us to do that."
FOREMAN: Jonathan, what is the bigger challenge for him right now? There's a lot of talk about this electability issue. Would McCain rather run against Hillary or would he rather run against Barack?
Well now that you have regurgitated the Rush Limbaugh show and while the stink of it still hangs in the air how about some reality?
1 I keep reading that Bush was doing this domestic surviellence BEFORE 9/11
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920
2 A FEW Congessmen were informed about the TOP SECRET PROGRAM. One they COULDNT complain about without compromising their security clearance and BREAKING THE LAW. To say that means they didnt care is ludicrous. Please stop insulting our intelligence with THAT kind of tripe.
3 Since there is NO OVERSITE you dont KNOW who is and isnt being wiretapped. THAT is what the oversight is FOR. To make any claims about who isnt being wiretapped is dishonest.
4 BUNK. Its plain DUMB to claim the President has magical, invisible powers, INHERENT, that is UNWRITTEN, in the constitution to do what the Constitution itsef EXPLICITLY and in black and white says he CANT DO. Article two of the Constitution has no because I said so clause but it DOES say the President will take care that the LAWS are faithfully executed, that is LAWS, you know like FISA is.
5 Calling it a terrorist surviellence program is dishonest spin. You dont KNOW who is and isnt being wiretapped but if it is ONLY terrorists suspects what is the problem with getting a warrant? Do you have some evidence that the part of FISA that allows the administration to get their warrants 72hrs AFTER the tap begins is NEW? It is my understanding that part of the law PREDATES the Bush presidency.
6 The judiciary is who is SUPPOSED to oversee the executive branch in matters of the law. If you dont LIKE checks and balances thats tough. It is the American way. The alternative is to say TRUST US. If you are willing to give a blank check to the government because they said to trust them you are niave beyond belief.
Pete,
Thanks for the criticism. What I posted was not the complete article although it was most of it. However if MMFA wants to censor my post, it is their website. My apologies. I didn't realize I was violating their rules.
Here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080225/cm_weeklystandard/hearnoevil
When I read the MMFA article above, I felt it was very one sided.(No surprises there.) I did a simple search and came across this article. Looking at the link, I saw it was on yahoo.com. When I started reading it, it looked to me that if filled in much of what is missing in MMFA's take. So I thought others might find it interesting.
As can be seen others have chosen to comment on the article anyway. That is fine by me. Have at it.
AA,
If you think MMFA is one-sided, what do you think of the Weekly Standard's neutrality :)?
AA,
First thing I read in the article was that the Dems have a what me worry attitude about the PAA. If this act was so vital, why didn't the Republicans agree to the Dems' proposed 3-week extension?
He also lied about the Dem members of Congress objecting. Scroll down in this Wiki to the part about Kennedy and Leahy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
How does the Weekly Standard guy know who we were surveilling and no one else does?
He also mentioned that this program dealt with foreign to foreign calls,.
Read here about McConnell's credibility:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-question-credibility-consistency-of-dni-mcconnell-2007-09-25.html (cited in rebuttal)
Can you take anyone serious when they say McConnell, Mueller and Mukasey are apolitical?
AA, your rebuttal?
Worrier,
Not to worry. :-) I enjoy reading the comments and even though critical of MMFA, I do appreciate them letting me post mine.
Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of Continetti's piece.
It's more in line with actual facts, rather than administration spin.
Really good AA.....
For all that you posted, it was nothing more than your attempt at blaming the Dems at being obstructionists and the Bush regime as the good guys 'bending' over backwards to compromise......
Yet, you purposely exclude the many lies that the Bush regime have told to the American people about the FISA that without the Protect America Act we will be vulnerable to attack, using once again, fear instead of truth as a way to get his way!
AA........ as Trump would say..... You're Fired!
Capt.
You judge me to harshly. I simply posted what I thought was the pertinent parts of an article I found that discussed this issue. It's been a few minutes since I posted it (correct me if I am wrong,) but I don't think I added any editorial comment one way or the other. To accuse me of purposely painting the Democrats in Congress as obstructionist is, in my opinion, without merit.
I am but a simple seeker of the truth and your humble servant. :-)
Have a great day!
AA,
Perhaps you are right that I automatically blamed you for what the article said..... but you are the one that posted it..... so the logical presumption is that you agree with the assessment of it.
If you wanted to not be accused of it, perhaps you should have read the entire article and realized the potential implication and made it clear you don't believe the view I spoke of.
Capt.,
Let me say I disagree with your assessment without having to say I agree completely with the article in the Weekly Standard.
I find that Jay Rockefeller and many other Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill that Pelosi is blocking. On the whole, I'm in favor of the PAA and preventing phone companies from being sued because they in good faith, helped the government try to intercept terrorist phone calls.
I do not see any evidence that the foreign phone tapping has been abused but I have heard that it helped catch some terrorists. I am of the opinion that the Pelosi is putting politics ahead of country. You are free to disagree.
On the whole, I'm in favor of the PAA and preventing phone companies from being sued because they in good faith, helped the government try to intercept terrorist phone calls.
These companies know that domestic spying without a warrant is illegal and that they could be sued over the matter but they chose to do it anyway. They gave the Bush administration free rein to spy on anyone and I have no sympathy for them.
I do not see any evidence that the foreign phone tapping has been abused
Well, we'll find out if these lawsuits go through and that's why (in my opinion) the Bush administration is pushing for immunity.
And this whole thing has to do with domestic spying.
but I have heard that it helped catch some terrorists.
I've heard differently.
so tell me...what benefit does the Bush administration get by keeping PAA in place? Other than trying to get the bad guys, who benefits from this?
Sorry for the simplistic question, but I think this needs to be stripped down the the core issue.
Obviously, you believe the Bush administration is evil and your hatred is always clear, but, for me, because I am a dense conservative, tell me how we are harmed by PAA and how we're better off.
You're missing basics. This is NOT just an issue of the WPE Bush administration, although they have shown themselves to be extraordinarily untrustworthy. This is an issue of potential abuse of power by ANY administration. Without the oversight of FISA, electronic surveillance could very easily be used for political purposes AND WE WOULDN'T KNOW. Has WPE Bush used the power for political purposes, to attack political enemies? WE DON'T KNOW. WE CAN'T KNOW.
I'm not prepared to give that level of trust to ANY administration. Especially given that I've never seen a convincing case made that the lack of warrantless surveillance reduces our national security.
GF,
Let me pose you this question: what harm does the Bush administration face in obtaining a warrant 72 hours AFTER surveillance? Why do telecoms need immunity if they have only been taping calls from terror suspects? Why was surveillance done in this manner pre 9/11?
This government always tells us that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to worry about. Why aren't they held to that same standard? If they have done nothing wrong, why not disclose their activities?
AA,
I will second LOONZ's thought on the part about the lawsuits must be allowed to go ahead.... it is the only way we will know for absolute assurance that no laws were broken!
BushCo keeps mentioning that no laws were broken by them or the telecoms...... so why the need for immunity?
It is a joke that this government is claiming that only our Nat'l Security is at stake if the telecoms don't get immunity..... when the reality is is that our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the very essence of what makes justice possible is at stake.
You have to admit AA that it is aweful suspicious for a president to demand immunity for whatever and then claim that no laws had been broken...... If thats the case...... again.... what are they all afraid of?
"It was fear of the FISA court, after all, that prevented Minnesota FBI field agents from searching the laptop of al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui--the suspicious student at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota--even though they knew about Moussaoui's jihadist beliefs and connection to a Chechen terrorist."
Huh? From Coleen Rowley's memo at Time...http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html
"5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"
FBI agents weren't afraid of FISA, they were trying to get a FISA warrant and FBI Headquarters wasn't cooperating. The agents in Minn were making "desparate attempts" to get a FISA warrant.
I'll admit that I haven't read all of this memo, but I will go through the rest and see if there is any basis for Mr. Continetti's statements in the Weekly Standard.
I think this is a perfect example of what is wrong with today's news media.
The Republicans are only small government when it fits their agenda, there is nothing small government about spying on US citizens and the FBI has already admitted they did, would that the Bush Admin were so honest.
I will say this though, when and I say when based on recent voter trends, the Dems fold on this and allow Bush to get what he wants again I will be at a complete loss as to what true Libs will have for recourse