"Domestic spying" episode as evidence of media bias

[Jim]

Finally the Bush administration has gone on the offensive and started arguing it received implied authority when authorized to conduct a war. It kind of makes you want to say "well, yeah, duh" when you hear Atty. Gen. Gonzales say that the power to fight a war includes the power to detain and/or seek intelligence from the enemy. "Duh" is an equally valid response to the notion that Congressional limitations on the executive gathering intelligence might not apply in war.

 

As I expected, Gonzales argued that the FISA procedure was cumbersome and did not give the NSA the necessary agility to deal with modern communications. He also said, as I also expected, that he was frustrated in not being able to explain this fully because to do so would apprise terrorists of our capabilities. The administration is being put into a Catch 22 situation of having to reveal national security information to justify this program.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601250130jan25,1,6840973.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

 

None of this is to suggest I was prescient in the arguments made in other threads. To the contrary, these are obvious arguments which any open minded journalist should have known were the basis of the administration's action. If I could think of these arguments, then why couldn't the media have located some way to report the defense? Why does it take an airwave offensive by Gonzales to get the other side into the public debate?

 

Instead, the issue was allowed to simmer and percolate as if there were not two sides to the issue. The issue has been consistently mischaracterized as being about "domestic spying" instead of about the monitoring of communications by suspected terrorists into this country.

 

Do you still wonder why conservatives think the "mainstream" media is biased?

[swansont]

Finally the Bush administration has gone on the offensive and started arguing it received implied authority when authorized to conduct a war. It kind of makes you want to say "well, yeah, duh" when you hear Atty. Gen. Gonzales say that the power to fight a war includes the power to detain and/or seek intelligence from the enemy. "Duh" is an equally valid response to the notion that Congressional limitations on the executive gathering intelligence might not apply in war.

 

And "Duh" is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration, who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion. But back when the program was secret, the attorney general did not share that opinion. John Ashcroft had doubs about it, and he was only consulted (he was in the hospital at the time) because the assistant attorney general wouldn't sign off on the program.

 

As I expected' date=' Gonzales argued that the FISA procedure was cumbersome and did not give the NSA the necessary agility to deal with modern communications. He also said, as I also expected, that he was frustrated in not being able to explain this fully because to do so would apprise terrorists of our capabilities. The administration is being put into a Catch 22 situation of having to reveal national security information to justify this program.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601250130jan25,1,6840973.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

 

None of this is to suggest I was prescient in the arguments made in other threads. To the contrary, these are [b']obvious [/b]arguments which any open minded journalist should have known were the basis of the administration's action. If I could think of these arguments, then why couldn't the media have located some way to report the defense? Why does it take an airwave offensive by Gonzales to get the other side into the public debate?

 

Instead, the issue was allowed to simmer and percolate as if there were not two sides to the issue. The issue has been consistently mischaracterized as being about "domestic spying" instead of about the monitoring of communications by suspected terrorists into this country.

 

It's all a matter of spin. One doesn't want to call attention to the fact that American citizens were spied on in possible violation of their fourth amendment rights, using a mechanism acting outside of its legal parameters (FISA law dictates wartime procedures, which do not appear to have been followed). One wants to point at the terrorist threat, though probably not to the plot they uncovered, which was to bring down the Brooklyn bridge with acetylene torches.

 

 

Do you still wonder why conservatives think the "mainstream" media is biased?

 

Not really. But not because you've uncovered any bias or shown any new facts — you've only shown yet another government official spouting the party line, and telling us why they can't give us any more facts. The problem with that is that they can tell facts to some members of congress, and some of them are also crying, "foul!"

 

Perhaps part of the reason it has taken this "airwave offensive" is that the story keeps changing. First it was that the spying was legal, then it was that getting approval wasn't fast enough, and when it was pointed out you could get it retroactively, the story was that the paperwork was too hard. (General Hayden: "FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around") And of course, there were the unprecedented number of warrants turned down by FISA before the administration stopped consulting the court.

 

And while Gonzales is still claiming legality, when he was asked about why they didn't just change the FISA law to make it explicitly legal (why they used a backdoor approach), he replied that "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

 

So it's legal, but getting congress to agree wouln't fly? This isn't media bias, by the way, these quotes are from the whitehouse.gov press briefing transcripts.

 

Perhaps the saying should be changed to: When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound on the law. When neither are on your side, call the media biased.

[bascule]

Obviously the anti-Bushites are going to latch onto anything they think makes Bush look bad. But when you try to argue that because of this, what they've latched onto is inherently wrong, you're committing the ad hominem fallacy.

 

I have not seen any specifics out of Bush/Gonzales regarding how obtaining warrants had any sort of timeliness issues. Personally, I don't think these issues exist at all. Have a look at this:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

 

Emergency orders

 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

 

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

 

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

 

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

 

In a situation where timeliness is an issue, they don't have to get a warrant. They merely have to tell the judge what they are doing, and let the judge sort through it later. This still provides judicial oversight and means that someone is watching the watchers.

 

If you're looking for some reasoning behind attempting to circumvent the FISA court system, I'd say it lies here:

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

 

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

 

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

 

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

 

Is this a necessary consequence of the "war on terror," or the Bush Administration abusing its power? Well, that's for the Supreme Court to decide...

[Jim]

And "Duh" is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration' date=' who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion.

[/Quote']

Only stupid people work for the administration?

 

It's all a matter of spin. One doesn't want to call attention to the fact that American citizens were spied on in possible violation of their fourth amendment rights' date=' using a mechanism acting outside of its legal parameters (FISA law dictates wartime procedures, which do not appear to have been followed). One wants to point at the terrorist threat, though probably not to the plot they uncovered, which was to bring down the Brooklyn bridge with acetylene torches.

[/Quote']

You are begging the question without responding to my argument (and that of Gonzales) that the authorization of war carries with it the implied incidental fundamentals to carry on the war, i.e. detaining the enemy and gathering intelligence about the enemy.

 

But not because you've uncovered any bias or shown any new facts — you've only shown yet another government official spouting the party line' date=' and telling us why they can't give us any more facts.

[/Quote'] Lol. The Attorney General of the United States explaining the administration's legal position is just “another government official spouting"? You’ve got quite the open mind about this topic, don’t you?

 

In fact, Gonzales went as far as I think he could go. Did you see his interview on PBS? If so, what specific question do you think he should have answered in more detail?

 

I've seen and heard Gonzales interviewed twice thus far and he was unflappable. Kind of surprising given how one sided this issue is supposed to be....

Perhaps part of the reason it has taken this "airwave offensive" is that the story keeps changing. First it was that the spying was legal' date=' then it was that getting approval wasn't fast enough, and when it was pointed out you could get it retroactively, the story was that the paperwork was too hard.

[/Quote']

 

These are all consistent statements - the program is legal as per the Constitution's grant of power to the executive in a time of war, getting approval was not fast enough and the paperwork in this process is incredibly burdensome.

 

Every FISA application ends up being signed by the Attorney General of this country. See, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001804----000-.html Look at those requirements and tell me you do not think that it might be difficult to meet the 72 hour deadline if suspected terrorists spam email to multiple U.S. addresses? What the heck is a "statement of the proposed minimization procedures?"

 

Also note that, FISA only authorizes applications where the administration believes "(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

 

An agent of a foreign power is defined at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html#a_1 . All of these definitions as applied to U.S. citizen will require that the agency investigate the recipient before intercepting the communication.

 

The 72 hour provision only applies to “emergencies.” Irrespective of whether an emergency exists or whether we know that the recipient of an El Qaeda communication is an “agent of a foreign power,” I want to know what is being said if El Qaeda is calling or emailing someone in this country. Why is this controversial?

 

The matter really hinges on whether you really view this to be a war. I guarantee you that FDR would have no problem intercepting each and every email sent by the Nazi's into this country.

 

(I actually think this is the real point of disagreement and that there is a good faith basis for dispute on the point. This "war" may never be over so, were I on the other side, I would argue the Court should treat it differently than WWII.)

 

 

And of course' date=' there were the unprecedented number of warrants turned down by FISA before the administration stopped consulting the court.

[/Quote']

 

Think about that for a minute. From 1978 to 2002, FISA approved 15,000 warrants. In this day of electronic communication, El Qaeda could bury its communications in 150,000 emails per day. This process is designed for the old days of snail mail and land lines.

 

And while Gonzales is still claiming legality' date=' when he was asked about why they didn't just change the FISA law to make it explicitly legal (why they used a backdoor approach), he replied that "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

 

So it's legal, but getting congress to agree wouln't fly?

[/Quote']

 

The structure of our government is the most important protection of liberty. The bills of rights is not the first defense against tyranny. The checks and balances between the three branches of government are the bulwark. These branches are supposed to contest against each other.

 

There is a fundamental difference between robbing a convenience store or breaking into a political opponent’s campaign headquarters compared to a president asserting executive power to prosecute a war. Bush is fulfilling his constitutional function by standing up to assertions of legislative power which would usurp the executive’s powers. He's doing what he is supposed to be doing in advocating the lawful power of the executive branch of government.

Perhaps the saying should be changed to: When the facts are on your side' date=' you pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound on the law. When neither are on your side, call the media biased.[/quote']

 

I believe the facts and law are on my side. Even if they weren’t, this incident will remain a compelling instance of media bias. My argument doesn’t require that you accept Gonzales’ legal argument merely that it is a good faith legal argument. In that event, I ask you again why did it take this long for the media to do its job and report the obvious basis for the program?

 

Finally, I note that you do not respond to my point of the use of the phrase "domestic spying" instead of referring to the monitoring of El Qaeda communicatinos inside of this country. The latter is far more accurate the media is putting the worst headlines on this story.

[Jim]

Obviously the anti-Bushites are going to latch onto anything they think makes Bush look bad. But when you try to argue that because of this' date=' what they've latched onto is inherently wrong, you're committing the ad hominem fallacy.

[/Quote']

 

No, I recognize there are two separate issues: (1) were the executive's actions lawful and (2) has the media been biased in reporting those actions. I believe #2 can be true even if the Courts ultimately decide against Bush on #1.

I have not seen any specifics out of Bush/Gonzales regarding how obtaining warrants had any sort of timeliness issues. Personally' date=' I don't think these issues exist at all. Have a look at this:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

[/Quote'] Dang, I would have saved myself time if I had read your post before responding to Swanson. I had to look that up myself. In any event, please note my comments above re same.

 

In a situation where timeliness is an issue' date=' [i']they don't have to get a warrant[/i]. They merely have to tell the judge what they are doing, and let the judge sort through it later. This still provides judicial oversight and means that someone is watching the watchers.

 

If you're looking for some reasoning behind attempting to circumvent the FISA court system, I'd say it lies here:

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r

[/Quote]

 

During a time of war, do you think that we should ignore any communications made by the enemy into this country? FISA requires the applicant to aver facts about the recepient even if it was just a hotmail email account set up in America.

 

As you prove, apparently the FISA court was making it more difficult, notwithstanding the suggestion that the process was easy. Moreover, the paperwork involved seems huge and each application calls for attorney general review.

 

Again, the 72 hour clause requires some genuine "emergency." We may not know what is in the communications from El Quada, merely that they have been sent into the United States. That alone, in my book, should be sufficient but is this an "emergency" contemplated by the statute?

 

Is this a necessary consequence of the "war on terror' date='" or the Bush Administration abusing its power? Well, that's for the Supreme Court to decide...[/quote']

 

I do not think the Supreme Court will make that false choice. They will see this as a contest between the legislative and executive branches of a type desired by the framers of the constitution. For this reason, they may defer to make any judgment. Even if they decide against Bush, he was fulfilling that role so long as he had a good faith legal position.

 

Whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides (and I'm prepared to eat a lot of crow or, just crow very loudly), the media bias here is clear for the reasons I state and which you do not dispute.

[bascule]

Your whole argument is a composition fallacy. The word media, by definition, represents all avenues of communication between all humans on the planet. You're pointing at certain people involved in a specific medium of communication and trying to say that because they exhibit what you consider to be a political bias it's somehow indicative of all humans and all communication media taken as a whole.

 

The media are only biased in one way, and that's "what humans believe"

 

It's no different than me saying "There's a conservative media bias. Just look at Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage!"

[pcs]

Your whole argument is a composition fallacy.

 

No its not. Your counter-argument is an equivocation over "media," and even if you resolved it you're now arguing that composition extends to inferences of behavior from what would also include statistically significant samples.

[swansont]

Only stupid people work for the administration?

...

Lol. The Attorney General of the United States explaining the administration's legal position is just “another government official spouting"? You’ve got quite the open mind about this topic' date=' don’t you? [/quote']

 

Would an administration official be allowed to be interviewed by the media if his position was that Bush was guilty? I don't think so. I think that anybody who works for this administration would be handed his/her walking papers if they said anything that contradicted the official position. So I don't think that comments by the attorney general carry any extra weight than what's already been said.

 

Your question is a non-sequitur and a strawman. I never said that only stupid people work for the administration, nor do I think I implied it, and I dislike debating tactics like this. It's infuriating. For the sake of my blood pressure, I take my leave of this.

[pcs]

And "Duh" is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration, who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion.

 

How is it any different to regurgitate the views of administration critics seeking to do the same thing?

 

But back when the program was secret, the attorney general did not share that opinion. John Ashcroft had doubs about it, and he was only consulted (he was in the hospital at the time) because the assistant attorney general wouldn't sign off on the program.

 

You didn't get a single fact right here. There is no public evidence that either John Ashcroft or Deputy AG James Comey had reservations about the programs ultimate legality; neither has stepped forward to indicate as much. All we know is that Mr. Comey did not sign off on certain recommendations and subsequently a few tracks of the operation were suspended for a time. Everything else you claim is, as you put it, "spin."

 

It's all a matter of spin.

 

It is, and as we can see the administration's critics are not above it. Yet for some reason you feel justified in reselling their point of view wholesale.

 

One doesn't want to call attention to the fact that American citizens were spied on in possible violation of their fourth amendment rights...

 

American citizens have also been exposed to the Tooth Fairy in possible violation of their 19th Amendment rights. Isn't it cute how the word possible can make even the most absurd statement reasonable?

 

...using a mechanism acting outside of its legal parameters (FISA law dictates wartime procedures, which do not appear to have been followed).

 

Perhaps you think your extensive background in law is enough to carry this assertion, but just for kicks how about you actually try arguing that Presidential wartime powers are circumscribed by FISA? You can start by addressing the position taken by this Justice Department and its predecessors since FISA was signed into law.

 

One wants to point at the terrorist threat, though probably not to the plot they uncovered, which was to bring down the Brooklyn bridge with acetylene torches.

 

Iyman Faris' conviction is, by all reports, unrelated to the domestic surveillance issue. Secondly, the Brooklyn bridge plan was scrubbed for precisely the reason you think its absurd enough to warrant mention here. Third, someone--especially a New Yorker like myself--might read your remarks here and come to the disturbing conclusion that you'd have no problem letting the Iyman Faris cell run free through New York City. Based on little more than urban legend, you've apparantly decided that the Faris cell was too stupid to be a threat.

 

Not really.

 

Westen's work complements a great body of research correlating bias with unreasoning thought processes (i.e., attribution error). Perhaps this should tell us something about speaking authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about. After all, you apparantly aren't so tolerant of crank rambling in the Physics forums.

 

But not because you've uncovered any bias or shown any new facts — you've only shown yet another government official spouting the party line, and telling us why they can't give us any more facts.

 

Jim actually has a body of polling data to point to (see lit review). That he highlights a particular case does not fall into composition, the question is what intellectual hoops will you leap through to dismiss the scientific fact that the American news media overall leans left.

 

The problem with that is that they can tell facts to some members of congress, and some of them are also crying, "foul!"

 

Conveniently, all the Democrats. So now you're in the unique position of attacking the other side's view as spin while explaining the load your shoveling--straight out of the Senate Democrat's manure patch--is the bright line of truth.

 

Perhaps part of the reason it has taken this "airwave offensive" is that the story keeps changing. First it was that the spying was legal, then it was that getting approval wasn't fast enough, and when it was pointed out you could get it retroactively, the story was that the paperwork was too hard. (General Hayden: "FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around").

 

When did the Administration say that spying was illegal or that the FISA process was fast enough? Seems to me that if you're going to impugn a uniformed officer like General Hayden, the least you could do is show where he or his agency or even the White House has retracted one of these two claims.

 

And of course, there were the unprecedented number of warrants turned down by FISA before the administration stopped consulting the court.

 

Fisa churns out less than 2000 warrants a year, many of which aim to extend or modify the parameters of an existing surveillance op. Who are you to say that this is sufficient?

 

And while Gonzales is still claiming legality, when he was asked about why they didn't just change the FISA law to make it explicitly legal (why they used a backdoor approach), he replied that "We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

 

So it's legal, but getting congress to agree wouln't fly?

 

Perhaps then, you're confusing law with politics. What is inconsistent about Presidential claims to his wartime powers and the President seeking Congressional support?

 

Perhaps the saying should be changed to: When the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound on the law. When neither are on your side, call the media biased.

 

Well Jim apparantly has the facts and the law on his side, and he's calling the media biased. What do you have?

[pcs]

Would an administration official be allowed to be interviewed by the media if his position was that Bush was guilty?

 

Would an operative for the DNC, Code Pink, NARAL, and those other left-leaning, Bush-bashing organizations feeding you talking points be allowed to be interviewed if her position was that Bush wasn't guilty?

[pcs]

I never said that only stupid people work for the administration, nor do I think I implied it, and I dislike debating tactics like this.

 

At the minimum you implied synchophants, which is a contemptful commentary not only on the character but the intellect of those working in this Administration. And who are you to make that evaluation?

 

It's infuriating.

 

It's even more frustrating debating someone who not only lacks authority on the subject, but apparantly harbors enough contempt for law as an intellectual field that they'll speak authoritatively on the subject anyway. I don't see you putting up with that sort of nonsense in the Physics forums. Why should Jim put up with it here?

[Jim]

Would an administration official be allowed to be interviewed by the media if his position was that Bush was guilty? I don't think so. I think that anybody who works for this administration would be handed his/her walking papers if they said anything that contradicted the official position. So I don't think that comments by the attorney general carry any extra weight than what's already been said.

This is a great way to never listen to anything said by the administration which is inconsistent with your world view. Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States and' date=' possibly, you might learn something about the administration’s legal position if you listen with an open mind.

Your question is a non-sequitur and a strawman. I never said that only stupid people work for the administration, nor do I think I implied it, and I dislike debating tactics like this. It's infuriating. For the sake of my blood pressure, I take my leave of this.

 

Rather than assume that I'm engaging in some dishonest debating "tactic" of which you must take your leave (just as you appear to assume that Gonzales is not sincere in his statements), why not give me the benefit of the doubt?

 

You said, “And ‘Duh’ is an equally valid response to someone who works for the "agree or else" administration, who is acting as a public spokesperson, trying to sway public opinion.” Frankly, I didn’t know what you meant by this sentence and wanted to draw you out. Notice how my sentence ends with a question mark? I used the question mark because I wanted you to explain your position, as I did not understand it. I actually thought it would be obvious I didn't think you meant that every one was stupid in the administration and thought you would explain yourself.

 

If I were determined to think the worst of my adversary in this argument (as you are with both me and Gonzales), I would think that you were engaged in a tactic to duck the substantive issues I raised about FISA (the cumbersome requirements for applications, the requirement that there be proof the recipient of the foreign communication be an agent of the foreign power, the ability of spam to overwhelm FISA procedure, the requirement of a genuine “emergency” for the 72 hour notice to apply) with feigned indignation. I’ll resist that temptation and, instead, extend my apology for not being clearer in asking you what you meant in my opening sentence

[Pangloss]

My trigger finger is approaching the "close thread" button.

 

This is a very interesting discussion, and I'd hate to cut it off. I think both sides have made some interesting. Let's stay focused on the issues and not whether one person or another has made their case, is being a shill, or looks funny in that hat.

[Pangloss]

Just to throw my two cents out there:

 

I also have (as most of you will recall) a tendency toward believing that the mainstream media suffers from consistent leftward bias. It seems like every day I'm pummeled by news stories about Jane Doe, a single mom with five kids who can't seem to make ends meet, and yet it's never explained to me why Jane charged $3,000 worth of Christmas presents on her credit cards in November, or what SHE intends to do to resolve her situation (it's always about what *I* need to do to resolve her situation).

 

But as angry and frustrating as that can be, I have to temper that with the understanding that it can be a trap, along the lines of what Bascule was posting earlier. Just because someone (in this case the MSM) uses a straw man argument doesn't meant that the problem they're pummeling me over the head with doesn't exist and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

 

With regard to the issue of domestic spying, I don't feel that I know enough yet to declare that the administration has broken the law, and frankly I don't understand how anyone else (Algore, the Father of the Internet, included) can declare that he has. The issues raised by the administration about authority are important ones, and not easily dismissed. And this is consistent with my long-held appreciation for the fact that this administration has been willing to stand up and challenge issues that previously were ignored. The Clinton administration would have stamped its feet and screamed about a "unitary executive" and "presidential powers", but in the end it would have simply done as it was told (and probably did, if I remembered any examples).

 

That having been said, however, there is also an important issue of compromise here that needs to be recognized and addressed. It ALSO cannot be easily dismissed as a partisan issue, regardless of whether its supporters are merely "all the Democrats in Congress". I don't trust any politician, and neither should you. The issue of declarations of war has never been settled in this country, and yet we proceed as if we are at war, and that assumption is used to justify many actions that even their proponents implicitly agree would be questionable in peacetime. Shouldn't we therefore establish what constitutes war and what does not, lest we all end up living in a police state at some future point in time? Is this not an important issue REGARDLESS of whether George W. Bush has crossed this line?

 

After all, ultimately, it is our decision.

 

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free.

- Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address

[Jim]

Your whole argument is a composition fallacy. The word media' date=' by definition, represents all avenues of communication between all humans on the planet. You're pointing at certain people involved in a specific medium of communication and trying to say that because they exhibit what you consider to be a political bias it's somehow indicative of all humans and all communication media taken as a whole.

 

The media are only biased in one way, and that's "what humans believe"

 

It's no different than me saying "There's a conservative media bias. Just look at Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage!"[/quote']

 

I had a longer post which I somehow lost before doing the ol' copy paste. In any event, this is not a composition fallacy.

 

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

 

I never said that every member of this class (i.e. the mainstream mass media) are left of center. That, my friend, is a strawman. I said there is a general tendency and that this incident is one piece of evidence.

 

I won't go through past incidents which make me believe this to be the case because if I did this would become the ultimate off topic thread. I won't rehash all of these incidents but will point out bias as we have these discussions and when it arises.

 

I will say that I had a case in which the ACLU was involved and which received national attention by gay rights groups. The facts were woefully distorted and in some articles invented without any real attempt to get at the truth.

 

The case fit the mass media's view of reality and that was enough. I had one film producer call me and I told him the facts and law of the case in detail but he would not print any of my statements unless I consented to an on camera interview. Because I could tell the reporter was biased and that it would not come out well, I declined to let him film me on camera but offered to answer any question he raised and point him to specific references in the record. None of the facts I referenced made it into the film.

 

That was the only contact I had from any reporter about the case. The rest only interviewed the other side of the controversy. I'll admit that this episode hardened my opinions about the tendency of the mass media in this country.

 

This NSA episode reminds me of my case where the reporting is sloppy because they already have a preconception as to who is in the wrong and do not want to be bothered with understanding the other perspective..

[Jim]

My trigger finger is approaching the "close thread" button.

 

This is a very interesting discussion' date=' and I'd hate to cut it off. I think both sides have made some interesting. Let's stay focused on the issues and not whether one person or another has made their case, is being a shill, or looks funny in that hat. [/quote']

 

Okay, okay. I'll be good. I promise.

[Jim]

Just to throw my two cents out there:

 

I also have (as most of you will recall) a tendency toward believing that the mainstream media suffers from consistent leftward bias. It seems like every day I'm pummeled by news stories about Jane Doe' date=' a single mom with five kids who can't seem to make ends meet, and yet it's never explained to me why Jane charged $3,000 worth of Christmas presents on her credit cards in November, or what SHE intends to do to resolve her situation (it's always about what *I* need to do to resolve her situation).

 

But as angry and frustrating as that can be, I have to temper that with the understanding that it can be a trap, along the lines of what Bascule was posting earlier. Just because someone (in this case the MSM) uses a straw man argument doesn't meant that the problem they're pummeling me over the head with doesn't exist and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

 

With regard to the issue of domestic spying, I don't feel that I know enough yet to declare that the administration has broken the law, and frankly I don't understand how anyone else (Algore, the Father of the Internet, included) can declare that he has. The issues raised by the administration about authority are important ones, and not easily dismissed. And this is consistent with my long-held appreciation for the fact that this administration has been willing to stand up and challenge issues that previously were ignored. The Clinton administration would have stamped its feet and screamed about a "unitary executive" and "presidential powers", but in the end it would have simply done as it was told (and probably did, if I remembered any examples).

 

That having been said, however, there is also an important issue of compromise here that needs to be recognized and addressed. It ALSO cannot be easily dismissed as a partisan issue, regardless of whether its supporters are merely "all the Democrats in Congress". I don't trust any politician, and neither should you. The issue of declarations of war has never been settled in this country, and yet we proceed as if we are at war, and that assumption is used to justify many actions that even their proponents implicitly agree would be questionable in peacetime. Shouldn't we therefore establish what constitutes war and what does not, lest we all end up living in a police state at some future point in time? Is this not an important issue REGARDLESS of whether George W. Bush has crossed this line?

 

After all, ultimately, it is [i']our[/i] decision.

 

Again, I'm not expert on this question. However, I wonder if the end result of this debate will hinge on what kind of "war" we are fighting. I'm uncomfortable with a conflict that is more like the cold-war than WWII.

 

At the same time, we have to do everything we reasonably can to prevent another major terrorist attack. If you believe (as does Bacu) that the singularity is approaching, you must also believe that we are going to have some highly dangerous technologies arise over the next twenty years. I have a hard time believing that terrorists won't some day obtain city-killing technologies.

 

I don't worry about another 9/11 so much as losing an entire American city, not to a natural disaster and not just a few thousand dead. I worry what will become of our country if we allow that to happen. If monitoring every email that comes into this country from a suspected El Queda operative (without regard to whether there is evidence that the receipient is an agent of a foreign power) helps reduce this risk, it is worth the price.

 

Finally, in a sense, I agree this is not a partisan issue. The reason Bush was so besieged by this issue is that it pits legislators of both parties against the executive.

[bascule]

I never said that every member of this class (i.e. the mainstream mass media) are left of center. That, my friend, is a strawman. I said there is a general tendency and that this incident is one piece of evidence.

 

There is a general tendency in every avenue of human communication towards a liberal bias?

 

Zuh?

 

Does talk radio have a liberal bias?

 

Do Podcasts have a liberal bias?

 

Do Zines have a liberal bias?

 

Do paintings have a liberal bias?

 

Does music have a liberal bias?

 

Do blogs have a liberal bias?

 

The term "media bias" is so generic as to be meaningless.

[pcs]

The term "media bias" is so generic as to be meaningless.

 

This less than profound observation that we can identify a diverse range of political views in specially sampled sets of media products apparantly hasn't stopped scholars from scientifically studying media bias as a genuine phenomenon. Or should we now pay attention to kooks who declare the concept of relative passage of time meaningless for similarly shallow reasons?

[Jim]

There is a general tendency in every avenue of human communication towards a liberal bias?

 

Zuh?

 

Does talk radio have a liberal bias?

 

Do Podcasts have a liberal bias?

 

Do Zines have a liberal bias?

 

Do paintings have a liberal bias?

 

Does music have a liberal bias?

 

Do blogs have a liberal bias?

 

The term "media bias" is so generic as to be meaningless.

 

Where did I say anything remotely like this? I made clear in the last post that I'm talking about mass media in America. I think you already knew as much.

[bascule]

Where did I say anything remotely like this? I made clear in the last post that I'm talking about mass media in America. I think you already knew as much.

 

Does talk radio have a liberal bias?

[Jim]

Incidentally, here is a link to the DOJ position on the issue: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

 

There's a lot of good stuff:

 

Indeed, while FISA was being debated during the Carter Administration, Attorney General Griffin Bell testified that “the current bill recognizes no inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance, and I want to interpolate here to say that this does not take away the power [of] the President under the Constitution.” Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance Act of 1978: Hearings on H.R. 5764, H.R. 9745, H.R. 7308, and H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the House Comm. on Intelligence, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1978) (emphasis added).

 

Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a judicial warrant. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) (“[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”) (emphasis added); accord, e.g., United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973). But cf. Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (en banc) (dictum in plurality opinion suggesting that a warrant would be required even in a foreign intelligence investigation).

 

Again, I do not prejudge this issue. It's possible that were I in a position to decide this question (and if I studied for about two years to get the necessary background in Constitutional law), I would rule against the Administration. However, it's not possible to read this white paper and come away without believing that there is a genuine good faith basis for this legal position. The pretense that there is not a basis for the position is simply not intellectually honest.

[Jim]

Does talk radio have a liberal bias?

 

Heh, answer one of my questions and I'll answer yours.

 

Naw, I'll bite. I admit that I do not listen to radio news so I cannot comment. Please exclude from my comments podcasts, Zines, paintings, radio, music, personal correspondence, billboards, political lawn signs, bathroom graffiti, and blogs.

[Pangloss]

This less than profound observation that we can identify a diverse range of political views in specially sampled sets of media products apparantly hasn't stopped scholars from scientifically studying media bias as a genuine phenomenon.

 

I agree with this position, and I think it has not only merit, but objective value.

[Pangloss]

Basc, there's no question that there are various biases amongst the many diverse sources of news, information and entertainment out there. That doesn't mean that there's no liberal bias in the mainstream media. One cannot dismiss the bias issue as a mere partisan talking point for one side or the other.