Domestic Spying

Impact of Elections

2006-04-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

Being an election year it will be interesting to see how the democrats treat the issue of domestic spying as we move closer to november. As many people know, President Bush's approval rating is at an alltime low in the 30% range. This is also one of the worst presidential approval ratings in history, and even his own party is quickly turning on him. Though the issue of domestic spying has taken a back burner to immigration policy right now, I think that the democrats will make a major push to get it back in the news this coming fall. To continue to try and push it to the front page now will only further wear out the issue in the eyes of the Americans public, but if the issue can be kept in the back of people's minds until this fall it could be an effective campaigning tool. The democrats are looking to take over the majority in congress and depending on the how the republicans work their campaigns I think they have an excellent chance. However, depending on how the issue of immigration plays out the democrats may use that as their chisel to pull the republican party apart instead, the issue of domestic spying may not have to be brought back up. This in and of itself is a great example of everything that is wrong with american politics haha. What should be a major issue of concern for people, whether or not their government is illegally spying on them, will not be properly addressed unless it can make the media money and thus whether or not it can win politicians elections... Though I am normally not one to say so, perhaps the founders original idea of only allowing people thoroughly educated on political issues to vote wasn't as bad as I once thought... If nothing else maybe the comment I just made will encourage some feedback on everything else i have said

Lack of coverage...

2006-04-11T14:03:00.000-07:00

For the last couple of weeks I have kind of sat back to observe the news to see how the coverage of the issue of domestic spying has changed over the last few weeks. Coverage on the topic has decreased significantly, as seems to be the pattern with media coverage of prominant topics. Issues have a shelf life and not a very long one, no matter how controversial. Issues such as imigration and the impending fall elections have taken over center stage. I have become increasingly convinced that American's have the shortest attention span of any people in the world! Today's hot button issue is tomorrows 3 line article in the back of the local paper and all the while people have no real idea what is going on with their government. Such a realization brings up the on going proverbial question of what came first, "the chicken or the egg?" Have american's brought about infotainment or is this something they have adapted to because it is the only way news is presented to them? Immigration is the topic of the day. With hundreds of thousands of people protesting each day, this topic is bound to make front page news pushing aside all of yesterdays old headlines. But why is it that tens of thousands are taking to the streets to protest a restriction on immigration but no such similar protest was organized to ban domestic spying? So perhaps it is that people really do care more about immigration law...either way the issue of domestic spying has taken a definate back burner position to more timely headlining stories

Bush defends his surveillance program

2006-04-09T19:08:00.000-07:00

Of course President Bush is going to defend his own program, which he authorized to protect the American people not impede on people's liberties. With the investigation underway and the possibility that the media coverage could increase, President Bush will probably start publicly talking about the program and trying to spark support. This article on CNN covers how Bush supports his program and has nothing to apologize for. If you read the article it does not give much information nor does it give anything other than opinion. You may see the companies agenda, when, the opening of the article is a person opposing not only the presidents spy program but everything he is doing. Later there is a short clip of an individual supporting the president. I find it more than a coincidence that while the media should be talking about the conference and what was being said they are talking about protesters. When you analyze what is being said the agenda and framing can be revealed.

Elections are coming, politicians are moving

2006-04-05T21:57:00.000-07:00

Do we want another attack. We need are politicians to be leaders that protect and look out for US citizens, not their personal careers. Remember that all people in congress are politicians first and leaders second. With elections in the near these members on congress are going to try to draw attention to themselves and distance themselves from other political candidates. This means that they are going to attack Bush and the administration due to their low approval rating. In a brief article on Fox News we can see the politicians using the media to spread their message to the public. Orrin Hatch R-Utah made a statement to Democrats "Quit trying to score political points." I take this as a statement that implies the message of, stop trying to use the media the further your political agenda. This is a serious issue and creating controversy in the media does not give the viewer an accurate implication of the issue, just your personal agenda. I believe that the Democrats feel that they need to make a move to try to even out the partisanship in Congress. I feel that the Republicans are playing defense and are trying not to loose the positions. This is going to be interesting to see how the politicians use the domestic spying issue in the media in the near future.

dirty bomber does he have rights...

2006-04-05T21:54:00.000-07:00

In the LA times yesterday (4/4/06), I found an article regarding civil rights and the rights to a fair trial. This case was considered a "landmark in the area of presidential powers and civil liberties during war time". I’ve chosen this topic because I believe that it relates to the constitutionality of domestic spying and areas of presidential powers during wartime. The article has been written explaining the unchecked powers of the executive branch. Jose Padilla is the man in question, as well; he is on trial for his attempts to make a nuclear weapon. Padilla is also a known al Qaeda operative living in the United States. My first question is, if your working with a known terror organization, should you loose your constitutional rights for committing treason. Furthermore, I would like to know more about this topic. Why dose the media (LA Times) not reveal more about this topic. For instance, was Padilla caught with this so-called dirty bomb, or was he just thought to have plans to assemble it?

Spying issue may be resurficing?

2006-04-04T16:12:00.000-07:00

An article CNN mentions how a special group, appointed by the House Intelligence Committee, will be conducting oversight into the eavesdropping program. In my opinion, this back burner issue will start coming back to the surface as new information is gathered. There may be a hidden agenda here by the Bush administration. I believe that the Bush administration is giving the media the status quos, and leaking the information to them as they feel necessary. The Bush administration is basically dictating to the media what to provide as news to the American public. The Bush administration has been hesitant to give briefings to congress, using his War Time Power, on the spying issue and hesitant to give detailed briefings to the full committee. This is a smart move by not allowing the media the grab and run with information that could hurt the president's approval rating. As previously mentioned, without a government source backing the allegations it is hard to give the public the information as legitimate news. Now that the Bush administration is being closely watched with an eagle's eye view, they are gladly providing briefings and giving the information to the media. This may be a ploy to increase approval ratings and prove to the United States people that he has done nothing wrong. Again, he has not been brought to trial nor has he been impeached. I believe that there has been no investigative journalism because the issue is of extreme importnace and being looked into by Congress and major law enforcement agencies. I feel like I am on repeat but we will have to see what comes about the investigations.

media info back burner

2006-03-28T16:44:00.000-08:00

I have touched the last few times on issues of domestic spying in my attempts to blog my heart out. I am currently attending a class that tries to analyize media and politics. (amazing class... this class has really broaden my horizon, and further my crossfire abilities). To tell you the truth, I have been astonished to see so many issues in the news, some really important, some not so important, but it seems that if news does not sell, no matter the content, just seem to not make head lines or even mainstreem media. I see domestic spying as a huge issue, I can not understand why issues like this will not be taken seriously. In class, there is a lot of talk regarding why these topics just seem to fall out of the lime light. One idea that seems to be the dedicated "reason/fualt", is that president bush does not want these issue to be bought up because they will hurt his approval rating. (I don't buy that). If this was the case, then why would left slanted news shows not exploit these topics. If you see this with your bloggs, tell me what you think, and tell me why you think the media does this.

Government vs. Media

2006-03-28T15:51:00.000-08:00

Domestic issues such as immigration reform and budget deficits have put the domestic spying controversy surrounding Bush into the background, on the news. The government and media are constantly competing with what information to give to the public. It seems as though the Bush Administration is winning the battle over what is deemed as important in the news. The media is covering more immediate news like the protesters against the immigration bill and the War in Iraq. The president's approval rating obviously is low and the domestic spying controversy was not helping his behalf. In complete speculation, I believe that the administration pushed extremely hard to put this situation on the back burner and possibly increase the president's approval rating. I believe that the president is extremely concerned with his approval rating and with only a few years left in his term the administration will try to increase his ratings. The president is pushing for his approval rating to increase to protect his legacy, what ever that may be. No president wants to leave office with the lowest approval rating ever. Just remember that the issue will get the attention it deserves when the controversy returns, but for now, it seems as the law is not being breached, till next time late...

Political cartoon's

2006-03-27T12:57:00.000-08:00

http://www.eskimo.com/~roger/humor/cartoon-nsa-0002.jpg
I have been looking around today, and for many weeks, on issues of cartoons that are political. I have seen a funny issue with cartoons, I have linked this cartoon because of its content in regards to our topic. First off, political issues are easy ways of exploiting some one for little issues or soft topic issues. I feel that there is a link between soft politics and political cartoon's, which is made me feel that cartoon are a vital way to circulate these issues under the cloke. In the last two weeks or so, I can in no way shape or form find an article in the news on this so call domestic spying. It almost seems that this issue is either dead or better yet has gone under ground to help soften the issues regarding the presidential approval rating.

entertaimement in the media

2006-03-27T12:52:00.000-08:00

Here is a comic I found on the internet I find pretty funny. This comic shows a clip of how the NSA performs there policy issues. I find this funny because the Bush administration has been secretive with their performance; however, this clip is obviously not accurate and does not give any factual information. This comic is used to entertain and not inform, but while entertaining has the ability to influence public opinion. Over time these subtle cartoon's can slowly help impact the viewer’s opinion. While I think it has the ability to influence opinion over time I also believe that it has no major impact on public opinion. The average laymen may take this cartoon out of context and more seriously than intended. These comics are used to attract the viewer and give entertainment not inform on the public. This is a comedic cartoon that stereotypes the Bush administrations as lying to the public and being too secretive. This is all part of the process that can subtly influence public opinion, if constantly showing one side. There also is the problem with pictures being interpreted in more than one way, which can be different from the intended meaning.

Media coverage on Domestic Spying

2006-03-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

When looking at an article on Fox News regarding the domestic spying topic, we can see some subtleties in the media coverage that I find interesting. I believe that the topic has been placed on the back burner behind the War in Iraq and other issues. In my opinion, I believe that the media will not cover or slander the topic because government officials are hesitant to speak out on the wiretapping until the investigation is finalized and all facts are known. With many government officials waiting for the investigation to be over the media has no government source behind the allegations, which the media depends on so heavily. This articles main point is how most members of Congress want to wait until the investigation is over. Yes, Bush should be held responsible if he broke the law, but there is no concrete evidence to show that he did. Let’s remember that even Bush is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone needs to slow down on the allegations until the investigation is over. The Fox News article shows how D-Senator Feingold has no support, even from democratic members of Congress, about taking immediate action but instead waiting until the Senate Intelligence Committee finish's the investigation on the President's wiretapping programs. The article gives implications that it is more or less a waiting game, which gets me thinking whether or not this is what the government/White house Officials want. Again, without strong support from the government the media will hold back coverage, which is exactly what the Bush's administration wants. A top Democrat, Senator Durbin, has even announced that the investigation is not over and to wait for all necessary information. I believe that we will see a major increase in coverage as soon as more information comes out and there is something for the Democrats to spin as illegal. Till next time...

People playing telephone and love to twist what they hear!!

2006-02-28T22:56:00.000-08:00

I found an article about the domestic spying program that seems to be different from what the news is portraying...and what other people like my counter part to our team blog, are making things sound totally different. Prior comments have been maid stating that the GOP is turning on the Bush administration I seem to have perceived it a little different. I read that many Rep. seem to be almost annoyed with this topic, but they feel that an amendment of the FISA act should be implemented to allow this administration to further protecting the American people.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KAY20060227&articleId=2044
- Just read this article and I would like to hear from an objective point of view please. Tell me if what you read is the GOP turning on the Bush administration or are they trying to make the area less vague and allow the Bush administration to finish the war on terror.

2006-02-28T01:32:00.000-08:00

I just thought this was kind of funny...where people have the time to make these things i'm not sure...

Media and Spying...

2006-02-28T01:19:00.000-08:00

The coverage of topics by the media is a fascinating area of study. Why do some issues make the front page and others don't? And how do some stay in the news? Well that is exactly that a course I am in is trying to figure out. When it comes to the issue of domestic spying the news media has done an interesting job covering the issue. Some of the best and most compelling information I have found has actually come from another blog, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/20/130740.php. The creator of this blog has found some pretty unique information on the topic that has neglected to make the front page and if it did, it didn't last long. I think one of the problems why the issue of domestic spying is no longer making the front page is because of a situation comparable to a man biting a dog. It isn't considered news if a dog bites a man, that's nothing terribly uncommon, but a man biting a dog is. I think that the actions of the Bush administration up until this point make the fact that he has been doing extensive spying on innocent people kind of predictable and at the very least not shocking. Furthermore, in an age where investigative journalism is all but dead, the news media no longer search out stories, but rather they generally wait for the stories to be given to them by "sources" namely people of key political importance and the Bush administration has no interest in keeping the story on the front page. Additionally, the democrats don't exactly have it in them to fight back and speak out again Republicans. They traditionally are far more passive. Ironically, most of the information I have found on the topic deals with Republicans speaking out on the topic. Then again, that could just be a result of the whole man biting a dog theory. Its expected for Republicans to fall in line behind a Republican administration, not the reverse. I will have to think more about this issue and get back to you, so until then...

Is sacraficing liberty for security right?

2006-02-28T01:11:00.000-08:00

This image, found in USA Today I believe speaks volumes about the issue of domestic spying and ties in with my last post. In case you can't read the whole poster it says "Those who would sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither." Abandoning our freedom does not ensure security. The entire consept is oxymoronic in nature.

Difference of Opinion...

2006-02-21T11:08:00.000-08:00

As any of you who have been reading our blog can probably tell, the creators of this blog tend to differ in opinion on the matter of Domestic Spying and politics on the whole for that matter. My colleague, Jeff, believes that people are blowing this out of proportion and are just using the issue as another excuse to hate on president Bush. He cites JFK and LBJ as famous democratic presidents from days long passed who were never persecuted for doing the "same thing" (for more of his comments, see previous posts). I could not disagree with him more. I think that to compare the likes of JFK from W is a slap in the face to JFK. Times were different, technology was different and the state of the world was different. While I was not alive during the "red scare" and cannot comment on it as effectively as I can the current state of affairs, I do not think that the two issues are the same. In the 60s, the United States was in a cold war with an actual country, a true "enemy" state that was seen as a national threat. In the case of the war on terrorism, I will admit there is no clear enemy, but that does not mean you can assume everyone guilty until proven innocent. Our nation was founded on just the opposite principle! What bothers me most about all of this is the train of thought that has occurred within the oval office and thus the American people. Flash back about 4 and a half years to Sept 2001. Planes are hijacked, the World Trade Center towers fall, thousands tragically lose their lives. After a bit of investigation the White House determines that they believe that Al Qaida, a terrorist organization based in the middle east and headed by Osama Bin Laden is to blame...After a small amount of reflection time, the hunt for Bin Laden begins, and justifiably. I have no problem with this portion of the "war." Fast forward a couple of years. Now, out of almost no where, the war on terror and Al Qaida and resultantly portion of Afghanistan has now turned into a war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein...I am sorry but I fail to see how those are the same thing. When did the war on terror turn into a "humanitarian" mission, and in my opinion, basically turn into an attempt to kick out of office a leader that W's daddy couldn't take care of 13 years before? However, I digress... Back to the issue of domestic spying.
Basically my point is George W Bush cannot be trusted. Why is everyone guilty until proven innocent? And to add onto Jeff's example about JFK, times have changed. In the internet addicted, IMing, emailing, blogging, cell phone ago, it is much easier to spy on people than before. How is it helping the war on terror to know what books I check out of the library? Or who I called yesterday or which internet stores I like to shop at? It isn't! The Bush administration claims to have foiled many terrorist attempts on the US but can't disclose details because of issues of national security. My response to that...Well isn't that convenient? You can keep the public scared and convince them their privacy needs to be violated for their sense of safety and you never have to give a real explanation, also in the name of security. The argument is a completely circular one and the American public is just going along with it... I do not care if the person in office is a man, a woman, a democrat or a republic, this is an abuse of power! Many people say why be against it if you have nothing to hide? That is not the point. I have nothing to hide, however it doesn't mean that the government needs to know every aspect of my business. I find it interesting that Jeff uses JFK as his counter example. JFK was supposedly fighting communism, a form of government that allows for no individuality, no free speech and every aspect of your life is controlled and monitored... And W is supposedly promoting democracy, where free speech is permitted, rights are not violated, privacy is protected by law and everyone is innocent until proven guilty... Interesting. It seems as though our nation is turning into exactly what JFK was fighting against and exactly the opposite of what Bush is supposed to be fighting for. Funny how things happen like that...

GOP starts to turn on Bush...

2006-02-20T22:51:00.000-08:00

Representative Heather Wilson from New Mexico (Rep.) is the chairman of the house Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence believes that there needs to be a complete review of Bush's eavesdropping program. In 1978, foreign intelligence law was established and she believes it needs to be updated in light of new technoligcal advancements. She is concerned that the details of the program that has been going on isn't being disclosed. Everything is done behind closed doors. No lawmakers that have been briefed on the program have called for its halt, but Bush is controlling who hears the details, causing an apparent contradiction. Members of the Republican Party on the Senate Judiciary Committee have recently joined democrats in an attempt to raise doubts about the lawfulness of the program. Whether anything will come of this remains to be seen...

It seems to me that people hate bush, and they don't seem to have any reason to hate him.

2006-02-14T22:08:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone!
Ok I have been doing a tremendous amount of thinking and have come to many different conclusions. My thoughts have allowed me to create a thesis. I think that the domestic spying issue is just an attack on president Bush because he has taken a no tolerance policy towards terrorism. I really believe that if Kerry (which supported the war on Iraq before he was the front runner for the presidential election) was trying to do his best to provide a safe nation, all you liberals would be totally ok with it. But just because the Republican Party has cornered the political scene, your mad and you all are trying every thing possible to create issues to make his job that much harder. I am starting to believe that many Americans are being told by their democratic leaders of choice not to like president bush. Or in some cases the media has portrayed to look bad, and you buy into it. In my classes the topic of the bush administration comes up very often (being that I am an political science major) and all I ever seem to hear is the same old crap (he is a bad speaker, or he is a war mongrel, or better yet he is mad at Iraq because of the assassination attempt on his dad) come on people there has to be some real reasons that you don't like him. That said, I would like to inform you of prior leaders that have spied on known American citizens, not just Republicans but good hearted Democrats. I found a link that might interest some of you out there seeing eye to eye with me, or just looking for an interesting blog.... Prepare to be shocked... JFK and LBJ both issued surveillance and phone tapping on MARTIN LUTHER KING not a terrorist, not a bad man or a convicted felon, but a great man trying to create equality in a very corrupt society. (By the way the reasons they did this was under the assumptions that MLK was a communist). I was not born during this time to know but I have done some research, and guess what, these men both JFK and LBJ where never convicted of any charges. Some would argue that FISA had not been established yet, but it seems to me that this issue is way more of an attempt at violating human rights...? Next part of this Blog will inform all those dems out there that its ok to maybe back our commander and chief…. I am sure that is doubtful…
According to my schools newspaper (the Daily Trojans), which published an article about the people's opinions in statistical format showed that, in the light of these surveillance topics it stated:
" A jan11 opinion Dynamics poll asked voters whether the president,' should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorist with out getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?' While 26 percent responded No. 58 responded yes and of those registered as a democrat 42 percent responded yes."
(Interesting?)

The article goes on further stating:
" When asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since Sept 11, 2001 was because of 'security measures working' or to ' no attack having been planned' by terrorist, 46 percent of Americans gave acknowledgment to the government. 22 percent credited 'no attack having been planned' by terrorists, and 20 percent said both."

It seems to me that Americans back bushes attempts to make a better and more secure America.
Finally the article talks about the favoritism in the renewal of the patriot act 51 to 31 percent favored the renewal... (Interesting) oh and of those "democrats polled, 40 percent favored the renewal on the intelligence legislation" Why do people have so much animosity towards President bush? (Give me some decent reasons) Why did so many people support president bush in the beginning of the war when he told the rest of the world that Iraq had WMD's (which Iraq did have). If you don't believe that Iraq had them, then ask the Kurdish people that had VX gas and mustard gas used against them with his attempt to genocide the Kurdish race.

here we go again

2006-02-14T20:02:00.000-08:00

If you look at what a "Agent of Foreign Power means under "1A" under the definition of Foreign Power, it is very vague and can be interpreted in more than one way, and thus the reason for the supreme court. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to interperate the law and no one else. The media does not get into detail about the FISA Act of 1978 nor does it get into detail about Foreign Power. It is vague and complicated and therefore difficult to explain. The media gives you information that is dramatic and that is entertaining, not detailed. The media will give you what they think is important and put their little twist on things. Everyone must remember that we are in a time of war and the president has the advantage of executive privilege. If President Bush had or is breaking the law, with no question asked, congress would have taken him to the Supreme Court. President Bush is not here to violate U.S. citizen’s rights or take them away; he is protecting us all from terrorist. There have been prior presidents that have conducted wiretaps and domestic spying that did not receive the same intense public criticism. Is this a case of the public bashing a president that they dislike or is it because they don’t approve of what he is doing? If you recall, domestic spying is under the Patriot Act, which was approved by Congress. If Bush is indeed breaking the law, then by all means he should be stopped. If he needs to provide a warrant before he conducts wiretaps than so be it. The law stating Bush needs a court order, also says that he can obtain a court order after the fact of the wiretap. The fact is that this betters our intelligence agencies. President Bush stated that two of the men responsible for the 9/11 attacks were inside the U.S planning the attacks. If this so called domestic spying was implemented before 9/11, there may have been no attack. With that said, I am willing to give up a minimal amount of my civil rights to be protected. Giving up minimal civil liberties, that don’t affect me on a day to day basis, for law enforcement to have a better advantage at preventing an attack on U.S soil is perfectly fine with me. This seems as though this is not about domestic spying, but more about disliking Bush. This seems more like a Democrat V. Republican debate than a national security V. civil rights debate. If you are not breaking the law then you have nothing to hide. The government is not going to tap your phone and conduct an investigation just because you’re sleeping with the girl next door. Let's get real people, they look for certain words and phrases then look further into the situation. If you are a law abiding citizen your privacy will not be infringed upon. If the Supreme Court rules that Bush is being to secretive then make him reveal his warants before he continues. Everyone acts like our government is not telling the public all the information, and no they probably are not giving us all possible information, but they shouldn't have to. Our government knows information that would probably start chaos and that should not be revealed to the publc for SECURITY PURPOSES!!!

Attorney General Gonzales supports spying

2006-02-07T19:39:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone! I want to talk to you about the domestic spying and whether it is constitutional and if it is legal under current law. I also want to discuss whether this domestic surveillance is necessary for national security. In an article in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday February 7th the Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales defended President Bush and his wiretapping. In my opinion, President Bush is doing everything under his power to protect the people of the United States, which a President is supposed to do. We are in a time of war and the security of the nation is top priority. In a very anarchic world, the President is trying to prevent attacks on U.S soil. President Bush is using pre-emptive measures to avoid terrorist attacks and to fight the war on terror. After research and digging into the law and the constitution ,I want to know more about what is right under the law and what is right under the constituion. I want to know if President Bush is violating any current laws. Is this a question of national security, a question breaking the law, and/or both?

What is the difference?

2006-02-07T19:35:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone,
I am concerned about issues regarding the heat brought on president bush in his efforts to simply protect Americans from outside attacks. Furthermore, I did some research and found that there have been many issues regarding a suspension of constitutional rights when the president felt we as a nation have been threatened. For example, why was Lincoln never chastised or brought to a trial to find out if he had acted unconstitutionally for his actions when he suspended Habeas Corpus.
- Is it because he is doing something controversial that he is being attacked?
- Or is he acting in good faith in protecting the United States citizens?
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Constitutional?

2006-01-31T17:08:00.000-08:00

fgyhjdtu