Warrantless Eavesdropping Liars

It is always worth noting how willing some Bush defenders are to go on television and say things which are completely and indisputably false.  

This is from PBS' Online News Hour last night with Judy Woodruff,
from former National Security Lawyer Bryan Cunningham:

It's important to understand what this is directed against. It is directed against purely foreign-to-foreign communication, where you have a terrorist or another threat to U.S. national security overseas communicating with someone else overseas, where the communication may happen to pass through the United States.

Later on, he accused Kate Martin, one of nation's most knowledgeable FISA and privacy experts, of lying because
she said (accurately) that the new FISA law permits warrantless eavesdropping of international calls to and from the U.S.:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let's take your point. Bryan Cunningham, let's take Ms. Martin's point that what is now going to be possible is that communications where Americans are involved -- not as a target -- but even if they are participating in a phone call or an e-mail communication with someone overseas, who is being targeted. 

BRYAN CUNNINGHAM: Well, I hate to inject some facts into this discussion, but let me read to you, Judy, from the statute. It is only directed at a person, quote, "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." Only George Orwell or someone with a partisan motive could read that in the reverse to mean communications inside the United States. I'd like Ms. Martin to point me to a word in this legislation that talks about communications where a person is located inside the United States.

The whole point of the current FISA controversy is that Democqasrats wanted to enact a bill to allow warrant less eavesdropping of foreign-to-foreign calls, but the Bush administration's bill permits warrant less eavesdropping of foreign - to - U.S. calls. Nobody disputes that. Moreover, unlike for the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," there is no requirement in this law -- literally none -- that the person being surveilled be connected to terrorism in any way or even by an agent of a foreign state or terrorist group. Any person -- even the most innocent -- can be subjected to warrant less surveillance under this new law.

To say -- as Cunningham did -- that this bill is "directed against purely foreign-to-foreign communication," to say that it only applies to "terrorist[s] or another threat to U.S.," and to accuse Martin of lying for stating that the bill allows surveillance of calls to and from the U.S., is exactly the sort of outright falsehoods that are spewed routinely (and rarely corrected) as part of our political debates.

Top of Page

LATimes.com Launches Interactive Homicide Report

The Los Angeles Times recently launched an interactive homicide map that is a visual interface to the Homicide Report The Homicide Report is Jill Leovy's is making an effort to chronicle every homicide in Los Angeles County.

As of July 30, The Times counted 496 homicides in L.A. County. While the Homicide Report focuses on the individual victims, this tool helps users analyze the broader trends within that figure.

For instance, by simply looking at the first page, it seems that most homicide victims in L.A. are Hispanic males who are killed by gunfire and, strangely, mostly on Sundays.

The new feature allows readers to filter homicides by the victim's race, gender, cause of death, and other parameters. They can find homicides near an address or a ZIP code

Another added feature is that readers can view photos of victims, where they are available, and link to Leovy's reports. Some reports are accompanied by user comments.

How has your paper used databases and interactivity to explain trends? I'd love to see it.

New York Papers Cover Fierce Storm and Tornado

Newspaper's Database Examines
Safety of Hudson Valley Bridges

Alex Beam Acts Out Hate Mail on Boston.com Podcast

Washingtonpost.com
Catches a Candid Campaign Moment

Have We Got Liberals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have lived in Oregon since 1980. I grew up in the Air Force, married and lived in Japan before we came to Oregon. Oregon is beautiful, but it is becoming, has become a very liberal state. Just look at some of the laws passed here. Ashland is a mecca for those accepting liberals.

I graduated from Southern Oregon State University. If you want to see for yourself how accepting liberals truly are, attend a university for four years. I am beyond the tender age of most college students so I wasn't fazed by the discrimination I experienced there. If you are republican, you are considered to be suspect. As a Christian, it was a real gas! Outright nastiness by some--usually the professors! I was pretty outspoken; I thought it only fair that two sides should be aired.

A degree in Communication is a harrowing experience. I was approached numerous times by students who told me they agreed with my more conservative views. The worst were professors who were foreign, and seemed to be sent here for the express goal of denouncing the USA and making its students ashamed of being American. If you voiced the opinion that millions of people should not be allowed to come in the country illegally, you were labeled "anti-immigration." If you were a Christian, you were considered "intolerant." If a republican, well use your imagination. However, one of my best friends is a "flaming liberal". We have discussions on numerous topics over lunch and remain friends anyway.

Jackson County is not as much a mix as it used to be. Ashland, of course, was the yuppies, Medford was conservative, but a mix anyway, White City was the dregs, Eagle Point was the cowboys etc. Now all the Californians have blurred the lines. The property prices have gone through the roof right along with the population. I live in Roseburg now, and it is a nice little community. Eugene is worse than Ashland when it comes to those tolerant liberals, and Portland--well just don't spout your views in certain parts of town and you won't get clubbed.

We are a beautiful state though, aren't we?

Top of Page