 |
 |
   Tom Donohue scares millions of dollars out of corporations and Republicans. But is his U.S. Chamber of Commerce good for business?
 How medical supply behemoths stick it to the little guy, making Americas health care system more dangerous and expensive.
 How Googles open-ended maps are embroiling the company in some of the worlds touchiest geopolitical disputes.
|
   |
|
|
May 21, 2006
By: LISTENING IN....Alberto Gonzales said today that the government wouldn't hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters, but won't do it willy nilly:
Glad to hear it. But remember, this is only because they're in a good mood. Gonzales has previously made it clear that if they decide to listen in on domestic calls, there's nothing to stop them. So keep those quarters handy, reporters. —Kevin Drum 1:53 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)Comments
It's interesting how this could be swept under the rug for the current immagration debate Reporters are not above the law. If reporters pass along state secrets, then they should have their phone records checked. The fact that the reporters who leaked the terrorist surveilance program aren't in prison is proof that the Bush administration is far too lenient in protecting the American people from domestic espionage. Posted by: American Hawk on May 21, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum discovers that not everything bad is unconstitutional. Congrats, Kevin, at making this earth-shattering discovery!!! Posted by: Al on May 21, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKAl and American Hawk -- if only you were around to defend Nixon, the world would be a perfect place today! Posted by: Freedom Phukher on May 21, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKI broke the law. But you broke the law to say I broke the law. You are a terrorist. Posted by: canucklehead on May 21, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKGood luck on finding a pay phone to put those quarters in, reporters. It must be a huge mistake for the Bush administration to get ALL the reporters mad at it. If reporters think that the telephone surveliance applies to them personally, they're going to be against it. It won't be just a story any more, it'll be personal. Didn't Rove think of this? Posted by: Emily on May 21, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINKHBO's "The Wire" had all sorts of useful tips on how to avoid wiretapping -- disposable cell-phones, coded text-messages via beeper, etc. -- and with a new season coming up sometime this year, there might be hope yet for a free press! Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh on May 21, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKIt must be a huge mistake for the Bush administration to get ALL the reporters mad at it. If reporters think that the telephone surveliance applies to them personally, they're going to be against it. It won't be just a story any more, it'll be personal. Didn't Rove think of this? You raise an excellent point. Bush had a choice between bribing reporters by making them above the law (thus gaining their favor, and perhaps tilting the media slightly to the right of Kucinich), or enforcing the law despite the inevitable price he would pay. The fact that he made the principled choice is a testament to his character, both as a man and as a president. Posted by: American Hawk on May 21, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINKThe fact that the reporters who leaked the terrorist surveilance program aren't in prison is proof that the Bush administration is far too lenient in protecting the American people from domestic espionage. Protecting us from domestic espionage? Dear, that is exactly what they themselves are committing without the non-executive oversight and warrants that are required by law. [You DID use the term "domestic". Next time, be more careful] Posted by: jcricket on May 21, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKdenied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic Not randomly, only of those who are against the regime. NRO journalists will not be investigated. Posted by: b on May 21, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKIt's time for the press to wake up. REPUBLICANS DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOU. STOP CARRYING WATER FOR THEM. Seriously, the sad thing is that for many, this will probably work at cowering them into submission, rather than outraging them to the point of speaking out more. And American (Chicken)Hawk, tell me this: Which is worse? To break a law in a way that underminds our constitution, privacy, and our political discourse, or to break a much more minor law in order to reveal the transgressions of the former? Posted by: Kryptik on May 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKYou raise an excellent point. Bush had a choice between bribing reporters by making them above the law (thus gaining their favor, and perhaps tilting the media slightly to the right of Kucinich), or enforcing the law despite the inevitable price he would pay. The fact that he made the principled choice is a testament to his character, both as a man and as a president. No, instead of out and out bribes, our Glorious Leader and Deputy Leader for years have rewarded reporters with access and any reporters who print anything not meeting their approval have been iced out of having any access. Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly, this is a testament to his petulant, arrogant and puny-minded character. We have a mental case as president and a craven war profiteer as VP. And a press that knows it better toe the line if it wants access to them. God, no wonder the rest of the world shakes their collective head in puzzlement. Posted by: jcricket on May 21, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKNo, instead of out and out bribes, our Glorious Leader and Deputy Leader for years have rewarded reporters with access and any reporters who print anything not meeting their approval have been iced out of having any access. Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly, this is a testament to his petulant, arrogant and puny-minded character. We have a mental case as president and a craven war profiteer as VP. And a press that knows it better toe the line if it wants access to them. God, no wonder the rest of the world shakes their collective head in puzzlement. Cricket, thanks for the props, I appreciate it, and let me just say -- right back at ya; I couldn't have said this better myself. Posted by: Windhorse on May 21, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKReporters are not above the law. If reporters pass along state secrets, then they should have their phone records checked. I'm okay with this as long as they get a search warrant first. Posted by: Stephen on May 21, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINKNone of this is lost on ABC's Brian Ross. Last week, Ross wrote that he had been altered by sources within the government that his and other journalists' call records were being monitored. Appearing on CNN's Reliable Sources program on Sunday, Ross portrayed a Bush White House that equates with "drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information." He described the chilling impact Bush's surveillance on a free press using his current reporting on the Federal Air Marshall Services, stating that his sources "were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it's of great concern." For the details, see:
EMILY: If reporters think that the telephone surveliance applies to them personally, they're going to be against it. With a few exceptions, don't look for any meaningful help from reporters; they already know they might be subject to surveillance. But since they are serving their employers, not the public, it matters little what reporters are against. What's more, because they were hired in the first place to serve their employers, most have been chosen because they already hold views similar to those of their employers. People by nature have liberal viewpoints. If people had free reign to vote their hearts, minds and pocketbooks, liberals would be winning elections with a 75-80% take. The only way that conservatives can grab the 50%+ they need for domination is with the complicity of the media, as its vested interests are in the consolidation of power.
That's not what AG Gonzales said. Gonzales did say that "surveillance" is only being done with a court order under the probable cause standard. But just before that, the AG defined "surveillance" to include only monitoring of the "content" of calls. So all Gonzales is denying is that content is monitored without a court order. He is not denying that journalists' phone records -- who is called, and how often -- are being tracked without court approval. Posted by: Pamela Harris on May 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINKSimilar to the proxy servers that allow anonymity on the Internets, there seems to be a need for anonymous telephone connections. Since phone calls are already possible on-line, it follows that the technology is in place. Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on May 21, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK"If the president does it, it's not illegal." - Richard Nixon
american hawk, please. your shtick is getting old. troll parodies don't add anything to the discussion here. if you don't have anything to say in your real voice, please go elsewhere. Posted by: mudwall jackson on May 21, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINKSo, out of the millions of calls made and recorded, just now many led to a terrorist being found, tracked or captured? Uh, yeah. I thought so. And, just humor me, out of all those calls, how many were to or from political enemies of George W. Bush? Can we all say "enemies list"? I thought so. Bush & Co. are criminals of the lowest kind and America had better get rid of them or be labeled "rogue nation". We all know what happens to those -- yeah, we invade and destroy them. You don't want that to happen to America, do you? Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you? Its a dangerous game the Bush Administration is playing monitoring reporters phone calls with no neutral 3rd party oversight or written guidelines to prevent abuse. By speaking so matter of fact about their intentions they are only going to tick off and infuriate an entrenched media establishment that has to view this kind of surveillance as a threat to its very existance. Their game works as long as the GOP has sole power but if the Democrats ever get subpeona power its going to get beyond ugly. Nixon took on the media and lost big time. In the long run the media always wins. Posted by: aline on May 21, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKThey will not check the records randomly, which means that they will and have been doing so deterministically or systematically. Posted by: lib on May 21, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK This is a sad commentary on the state of the media. No, not the domestic surveillance, this sentence: "We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said, under a "probable cause" legal standard. First, this sentence is clearly factually incorrect, since (whether legal or not), monitoring who call history is a form of surveillance. But secondly, its got to be one of the worst allegedly professionally written sentences I've seen. Posted by: cmdicely on May 21, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINKI'm a Brit, so I know more than you ignorant yanks, and while I don't like the situation in Iraq right now, you'd have to be a member of the Loony Left to believe that George Bush or his appointees would be doing anything illegal. If there's anything that's not right, it's absolutely GOT to be the result of some kind of misunderstanding, or, well, I guess bureaucratic incompetence. But there's no way that any of this could be arising out of malicious intent. No - the Iraq war has nothing to do with corrupt crony capitalism, or war profiteering. It's just those loveable bumbling fools in the white house, who, despite their ideology, really mean well, and did their best in a tough situation, and while it's tragic what is happening to the Iraqi people, it's really all for the best, because, you know, Saddam was an ass and a wanker. Posted by: Clownsbury on May 21, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee," "Glad to hear" what, Kevin, another WH lie? Are you seriously saying you believe anything Gonzales or any other administration official says?? Posted by: Jones on May 21, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKGonzales talks about court orders and probable cause. This is a spot on version of Hayden's interpretation of the Fouth Ammendment in his justification of the wiretapping program. Another excellent example of the Bushco legal framwork they used to buld their executive power- gobbling device. Posted by: canucklehead on May 21, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINKYou know, Al and the usual gang if freedom-hating idiots have permanently missed the most important aspect of this law-abiding business: those lawas aren't meant to protect criminals, they are there for the sake of the innocent -- to minimize (look it up) the risk of dragging a large number of bystanders into too big a net. Probable cause, habeas corpus, court orders, search warrents, paper trails, right to defense and appeal, trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (especially before something called 'conviction') -- these are all safeguards in a country that actually values the freedoms for which we apparently think little of sacrificing our young. Are you jackasses really willing to lose all that just so Halliburton can charge the army hwatever it wants for goddam hamburger? Posted by: Kenji on May 21, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK
HE is the problem. He is a traitor to all Americans and to his country. Posted by: d on May 21, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKTracfones--$20 at K-Mart, $20 to activate, untraceable one-use cell phone. Surely cheaper in bulkrate. Posted by: Steve Paradis on May 21, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINKThat should read "You know, Al and the usual gang OF freedom-hating idiots..." There are no IFs about it. Posted by: Kenji on May 21, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK免费手机铃声下载 Kind of excited actually. Even if Leopold did get fed a bill of goods, then he gets to tell us his sources and we all get to take them out behind the woodshed with a lot of baseball bats and matches, so to speak. Whoever his sources are, if this turns out not to be true, they are done. Posted by: MNPundit on May 22, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk - based on your posts, then you would probably agree that the government should be monitoring the phones of Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, no? Gertz has published numerous secret government documents and images regarding China that have not been offically released and/or declassified. While most conservatives see Gertz as an important journalist in the fight against the Beijing Chicoms, he's actually helping China more than hurting them. He tells Beijing what we know about their missile developments and strategic arms. Or is Gertz immune from eavesdropping because he's a nominal conservative? (FYI - he's a Chinese spy.) Posted by: NSA Mole on May 22, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKQuarters? Talk-and-toss phones more likely. Posted by: Scorpio on May 22, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
