MSNBC is
reporting that the Shrub has begun to try and reframe his illegal domestic spying affair.
President Bush heads to the National Security Agency on Wednesday for another speech defending his controversial spying program, one that he insists should be called a "terrorist surveillance program" -- not domestic spying without a warrant.
It goes without saying around these parts that resisting this attempt to reframe is a moral imperative. Write letters to your representatives and to the media and all of that jazz - you know what to do.
But there's more in this article...
MSNBC has actually surprised me by picking up very quickly on the debate that General Hayden bumbled the Administration into - the difference between the Reasonable Basis standard and the Probable Cause standard.
Gonzalez, according to the article, was pushing this nonsense:
The reasonable basis standard, said Gonzales, "is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard."
Typical MSM reiteration of the White House's talking points? Sure seems that way, except they follow this one-liner with:
Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, said that Gonzales' comments do not explain why the administration doesn't go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain warrants.
"If they are using a probable cause standard, they would have no problem going to the FISA court," said Saltzburg. "The executive might think there's a reasonable basis. Courts might not agree."
Georgetown University law professor David Cole said the reasonable basis standard is not equivalent to probable cause.
SHOCKING! The MSM is actually allowing covering a rebuttal of the Administration's ridiculous assertions with clear, concise statements that cut to the heart of the issue?!?!
And they do it TWICE?!
Gonzales told his audience: "You may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the president to conduct warrantless surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrantless surveillance would be essential in wartime."
Sharply disagreeing, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said FISA's purpose "was never to grant warrantless surveillance for the war."
"While Congress saw some need to loosen the standard in the initial days of a war, it wanted the president to comply with FISA in carrying out surveillance in the United States," Turley said.
I'm in utter disbelief! Is MSNBC finally growing a pair and doing its job?
Not bloody likely. Don't try to interpret their motivation as altruistic, patriotic, or otherwise positive. It's nothing more than a retaliatory jab:
The attorney general said the program is limited in scope, and he blamed the news media for suggesting otherwise.
Hardly the high-minded journalism we'd like to see for a scandal as important as this. But I guess we've got to take what we can get.
At least they're not rolling over and apologizing.
Take a few seconds out of your day to respond to this MSNBC poll which asks you whether it should be referred to as "terrorist surveillance" or "domestic spying."
Good looks to Kharma for pointing this out in the comments thread below.