posted on July 6, 2007 05:13:54 PM new
So who's laughing now.
Liberal Ruling Reversed, a Year Ago, Media Celebrated 'Major Defeat' for Bush
Posted by Rich Noyes on July 6, 2007 - 13:51.
A federal appeals court today overturned a Carter-appointed judge's opinion last August that the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, dubbed by opponents as "domestic spying," was unconstitutional. Eleven months ago, the media latched on to the decision as a "major legal defeat" for the Bush administration, with CNN's Jack Cafferty crowing about how the decision proved "President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States."
Both ABC and MSNBC hosted constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who suggested the President should be impeached as a result of the ruling.
[b]Friday's decision stated that those who sued the government, including the ACLU, could not show that they had been targeted by the surveillance and thus had no standing to bring a federal casep/b]
. As the Associated Press reported this afternoon:
A federal appeals court on Friday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program, saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel vacated a 2006 order by a lower court in Detroit, which had found the post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity to be unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech and the separation of powers….
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "We have always believed that the District Court's decision declaring the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional was wrongly decided."
The ACLU is reviewing its options, including taking its challenge to the Supreme Court, Shapiro said.
It remains to be seen how the networks cover today’s reversal of the lower court ruling, but here's how the big media reacted back on August 17, 2006, as chronicled in a variety of NewsBuster blog postings:
# On ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, Gibson introduced the story of the "major legal defeat" for the Bush administration, and correspondent Martha Raddatz filed a full report on the ruling in which she described the ruling as a "significant blow" to the administration, showing a soundbite of plaintiff James Bamford arguing that the ruling means the President "isn't a king." While she did at least provide some balance by relaying that "many national security experts" argue the program is essential, followed by a supporting soundbite from James Garafano of the Heritage Foundation, Raddatz did not delve into any legal weaknesses of the ruling itself.
# The CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News only ran anchor-read stories, during which CBS's Bob Schieffer, uniquely among the networks, pointed out that those subjected to surveillance were "suspected of having ties to terrorists." And while ABC's Gibson did at least mention that the surveillance involved "overseas phone calls from this country," NBC's Campbell Brown did not even mention the international nature of the calls, while the words "Domestic Surveillance" were displayed on the screen next to her. Brown relayed that Judge Taylor "harshly condemned" the program.
Click here to read more.
# During the 4pm EDT hour of the August 17, 2006 Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty endorsed a U.S. district court judge's ruling, that the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional, as a proper indictment of Bush policies: "There are laws on the books against what the administration is doing and it's about time somebody said it out loud." Cafferty attacked the "arrogant" Bush administration for its supposed "abuse of power" and accused the President of lying to the American people and violating his oath of office: "So what does this mean? It means President Bush violated his oath of office, among other things, when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It means he's been lying to us about the program since it started, when he's been telling us there's nothing illegal about what he's doing."
For more, click here.
# On the August 17, 2006 Countdown, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann bolstered the ruling by federal Judge Ann Diggs Taylor against the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying program that involves warrantless monitoring of international phone calls when one participant is a terrorist suspect. Referring to the ruling as a "judicial smackdown" and a "stunning ruling" against the program, Olbermann repeatedly referred to the NSA program as monitoring "our" phone calls or "our" emails. The MSNBC host further contended that since the program was revealed, "anybody who had actually read the Constitution" believed it would eventually be ruled as "patently illegal." Olbermann's guest discussing the topic was liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who labeled Judge Taylor's ruling as a "very thoughtful opinion," called efforts by conservatives to discredit her as a liberal Carter appointee as "distasteful" and maintained President Bush "could well have committed a federal crime not once, but 30 times."
Click here to read more.
# On ABC's Good Morning America on August 18, 2006, ABC's Jessica Yellin never acknowledged the liberal background of the Carter-appointed Judge Ann Diggs Taylor who, Yellin pointed out, "accuses the President of acting like a king" and says the NSA program "blatantly disregards" the parameters established in the Bill of Rights. Yellin labeled the court's decision a "stinging setback" for President Bush, and highlighted this warning to the President from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: "He could be impeached. And people should not be underestimating that.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 7, 2007 08:31:59 AM new
What's important to remember is that the case wasn't overturned for being without merit and nobody has decided the constitutionality of the spying program. The two judges' reason for dismissing the case boiled down to one major point: the plaintiffs hadn't shown evidence that they have been "personally" subject to the eavesdropping program. They sent the decision back to the lower court and recommended the suit's dismissal.
posted on July 7, 2007 11:02:16 AM new
This'll come up again you can bet.
Possibly, but with the same results. The only group with a list of the suspected terrorists is the NSA and they cannot be compelled to release that list.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
Again, their hatred is much stronger than their concern about protecting our nation and it's citizens. tsk tsk tsk
I was very pleased to read the ruling.
Glad to know that the USSC said the aclu had NO personal basis to file. SLAP THEM DOWN SOME MORE.
That means it will be years and years before ONE person actually has standing to show they've been harmed. lol
It's been asked over and over and no liberal could ever name anyone actually harmed. Not even their elected democratic leaders could find a case of a violation of anyone rights. Didn't stop them from whining about it anyway.
Now it won't be an issue until someone FINALLY shows up. IF they ever do.
Plus, it's a WIN for all working to protect our Nation. Liberals worry too much about the 'rights' of and about protecting our enemies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 8, 2007 09:56:15 AM new
It was not the USSC--"The 2-1 decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sent the case back to a judge in Detroit, who last year ruled the program unconstitutional"
posted on July 8, 2007 11:12:14 AM new
"""Liberals worry too much about the 'rights' of and about protecting our enemies.""'
NO WHERE has it been said that liberals wish to protect our enemies and YOU as usual, CAN'T show where anyone has indicated that.
Neoconservatives worry too much about their own sniveling yellow-bellied butts.
They are willing to sell out the ideals of America, to agree to ANYTHING as long a "Big Daddy" does ANYTHING to let them believe he's protecting them.
They are willing to give up the very freedoms and rights our troops are allegedly fighting for in Iraq.... freedoms and rights that Americans throughout history have fought and died for....all because they are SCARED....
They LOVE sending others to be maimed and die for them but haven't the courage to simply stand up to tyranny even WITHOUT risking life and limb.
They'd sellout this country (are selling out this country) in a minute if someone scares them into thinking something might happen to THEM!
But as long sh!t's only happening to another American they're happy...
posted on July 8, 2007 11:14:56 AM new
Linda_K
posted on June 15, 2007 02:40:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"First They Came for the Jews"
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
posted on July 9, 2007 01:08:14 PM new
In the sixth paragraph, the AP accurately describes the program: "President Bush authorized warrantless monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mails to or from the United States when one party is believed to be a terrorist or to have terrorist ties." But in both the headline and the first paragraph, the wire service refers to the monitoring of international communications as "domestic spying."
This misreporting--and the AP isn't the only offender--is hypercritical. It is threatening to civil liberties. Remember the boy who cried wolf? If a future administration does engage in warrantless domestic wiretapping, how will the AP let us know? Who will believe it is the real thing?
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
