A New York Times article adopted House Republicans' characterization of their proposed measure to revise the RESTORE Act, a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The article claimed that "on its face," the measure "asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again." In fact, the measure would have exempted the president from requirements of the bill as long as he claimed to be acting to protect the country from attack.
A New York Post article reported that Congress plans to vote on "a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] -- problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers." Hurt suggested that the "legal hurdle" was that "[t]he FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied." In fact, the bill specifically provides that "a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not United States persons and are not located within the United States," even if those communications are routed through U.S. hubs.
On Special Report, Jim Angle falsely claimed that proposed revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would, for the first time, require the federal government to obtain a court order to intercept the communications of terrorism suspects abroad when they call the United States. Angle asserted that "even requiring warrants for terrorists calling the U.S. from abroad is a major departure, something the law has never required since it was passed some 30 years ago." In fact, with few exceptions, FISA, as originally enacted in 1978, required the government to obtain a court order to conduct "electronic surveillance," which FISA defines in part as "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States." It was only in August that Congress categorically excluded from the warrant requirement any "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." That exclusion is due to expire in February 2008.
Responding to a reader's question about an article she co-wrote, The Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut stated, "We asked Sen. [Hillary Rodham] Clinton what she would do, upon taking office, about special interrogation methods ... such as waterboarding or sexual humiliation. ... And her response was simply that she opposes torture, which of course is also the current policy." But according to a transcript of the interview, Clinton was not specifically asked about "waterboarding or sexual humiliation," and she did not refuse to say whether she would prohibit such measures. Indeed, she said that she would "draw a bright line and say 'No torture,' " and that she would "abide by the Geneva conventions, [and] abide by the laws we have passed."
On CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, author Phil Kent asserted that "back in 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union, of all people, rejected some Ford and Rockefeller grants because of fear of terror links." Guest host Kitty Pilgrim did not challenge the claim. In fact, the ACLU has stated that it rejected funding from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations because their "restrictive funding agreements ... might adversely affect the civil liberties of the ACLU and other grantees."
In segments on University of Florida student Andrew Meyer, who was shocked with a Taser by campus police, Glenn Beck asserted: "To me, Taser videos are a little like potato chips. I just can't watch just one," and Bill O'Reilly announced that "[a]nyone buying anything on BillOReilly.com will receive a 'Don't Taze me, bro!' bumper sticker."
The New York Times stated that attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey "has repeatedly spoken out to support the administration's claim to broad powers in pursuing terrorist threats, especially in conducting electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects and in imprisoning them before trial." But Mukasey's ruling as a district court judge on the detention of terrorism suspects went beyond what the Times reported. In the case of Jose Padilla, Mukasey ruled that the government had the legal authority to imprison Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested within the United States, without trial.
After reporting on National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell's claim that the recently approved law expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens contributed to arrests in Germany, The Washington Post and CNN have not subsequently reported that McConnell has since acknowledged that the newly passed law did not factor into the German arrests.
Among the reasons cited by Charles Krauthammer that Al Qaeda has not and cannot "hit us" is because the Bush administration has waged an "incredibly effective war in Afghanistan" that he said has "expelled Al Qaeda and scattered it, and has kept it off-balance for six years now." In fact, the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" including a "safehaven" in Pakistan. Krauthammer also credited "secret prisons and the interrogation which yielded and interrogated people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed"; but even supporters of the CIA's interrogation and detention program reportedly acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces, including information gathered from Mohammed, is unreliable.
A Washington Post editorial arguing for legally mandated full disclosure of campaign donation "bundlers" left out key facts about the two cases that it cited, Geoffrey Fieger and Norman Hsu. The editorial did not note that prosecutors have reportedly confirmed that John Edwards' campaign was unaware of alleged illegal contributions made by Fieger and absolved the campaign of any wrongdoing; similarly, the editorial failed to note that the Wall Street Journal article it cited offered no evidence implicating Hillary Clinton with regard to Hsu.
In a column, Los Angeles Times senior editorial writer Michael McGough asserted that "it is far from a slam dunk ... that a Gore administration wouldn't have done at least some of the things for which Bush has been pilloried" and that Gore "might well have followed suit after 9/11 with his own versions of the Patriot Act and the Terrorist Surveillance Program." However, McGough did not mention Gore's strong criticism of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program or that Gore has called for the repeal of the Patriot Act.
On Special Report, Brit Hume reported that "[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee's latest deadline for the White House to comply with its subpoena for documents relating to warrantless -- allegedly warrantless wiretaps has come and gone." Contrary to Hume's assertion, administration officials have admitted that the National Security Agency has engaged in warrantless wiretapping.
In reporting that Jose Padilla "was convicted ... of supporting terrorism," ABC's Charles Gibson stated that Padilla "was originally accused of plotting with Al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb, but that charge was dropped." In fact, Padilla was never "charge[d]" in relation to the alleged "dirty bomb" plot. Indeed, Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was held without charges for more than three years, a fact that Gibson did not mention.
In writing about Karl Rove's August 15 appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, New York Times reporter Patrick Healy reported that Rove claimed Sen. Hillary Clinton "opposed the USA Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs and other antiterrorism measures." The Times did not note that Clinton, in fact, voted for both the original USA Patriot Act in 2001 and its reauthorization in 2006. Healy also misrepresented what Rove actually said when he falsely accused Clinton of opposing certain changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.