Free Flow of Information Act or Bloggers Beware
Society of Professional Journalists; Defending the People and the Press
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Bloggers beware; the Bush administration thinks you are a threat. According to federal officials if the most recent version of the Free Flow of Information Act is approved there is ample cause for concern. The country will be in danger. Bloggers might be rebels in disguise. Indeed, some do not hide behind a cloak of darkness. They proudly proclaim, they are insurgents. Nonetheless, the definition of a rebel is in question, as is the characterization of a reporter. The burning question is, 'Can a radical also be a reporter?'
We may never know. The terms of Free Flow of Information Act has been bantered about for years. This measure is now pending in the House and the Senate. If passed, as is, bloggers would be granted perilous privileges said Rachel Brand, Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy.
"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web."Brand spoke at a recent House Judiciary Committee meeting. The Assistant Attorney General empathetically stated this proposed plan would shelter "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."
In its latest form, the document specifies a "covered person" includes a blogger. Citizen journalists would be protected from prosecution under the "reporters shield." The Internet publishers would be awarded the right to withhold the names of confidential sources.
While this is the latest deterrent to the passage of a federal shield law, it is not the first. Federal officials, political pundits, and prominent scholars, have argued against this legislation for a years. Thus, ratification has long been delayed. In October 2005, the discussions were rampant and ripe.
Senators: Bloggers may not be true journalistsIn this article, published almost two years ago it was apparent, the discussion in 2005 was not novel then.
By Anne Broache,
CNET News.com.
October 19, 2005, 12:00 PM PTWASHINGTON--Politicians indicated on Wednesday that a proposed law offering journalists special privileges might not be extended to Web loggers.
"The relative anonymity afforded to bloggers, coupled with a lack of accountability, as they are not your typical brick-and-mortar reporters who answer to an editor or publisher, also has the risk of creating a certain irresponsibility when it comes to accurately reporting information," Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said in a statement prepared for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on reporters' privilege legislation.
Cornyn on Wednesday [October 19, 2005] called for "serious discussion of what constitutes the term 'reporter.'" Lack of agreement on that definition has stalled federal efforts at shield law legislation for years, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, in a statement.Today is now yesterday. In June 2007, the dialogue continues. Currently, each Congressional chamber is considering a Bill that would cover . . ."With bloggers now participating fully in the 24-hour news cycle," he said, "we might face similar challenges in defining terms today."
anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."This worries Democratic Representative Brad Sherman. This week he stated his apprehension for what he thinks a broad characterization. "I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection." He then went on to state he is willing to work with colleagues to refine the definition.
Yet, the possibility of resolution is long in coming. The debate goes on. We, the American people, might wonder how much longer can we postpone ensuring freedom of the press and freedom of speech. If we are to preserve a democratic system, these rights must be declared and documented. A fearful press will do more harm than good. A representative government, by definition, requires an informed public. That seems self-evident. Nonetheless, there is much opposition.
George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason, argues against the Bill. Still, he states, "anything narrower is going to run into severe First Amendment problems." At least, those that oppose the measure acknowledge that "free speech" is our right, awarded to all citizens equally under the Constitution. Our forefathers thought the right to speak without fear of incrimination or imprisonment was [and is] vital.
Thankfully, there is support for the current plan. New York Times columnist and former Nixon Administration speechwriter William Safire, extolled the bill's current definition. This esteemed writer explained that actions are more important than labels. A journalist is not defined by his or her attachment to an organization. Their work distinguishes them as a professional.
"Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not," he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)Might the judicial branch have an opportunity to decide what is Constitutional if the legislation never leaves the House or the Senate. The obstacles appear to be never-ending. The Administration is firm.At Thursday's hearing, the bill's chief sponsors, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), never directly addressed the issue of the journalist definition they crafted. Boucher told CNET News.com in an interview earlier this year that they intended to include bloggers "who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting." Any refinement of that definition would be left up to the courts.
[The] bill's sponsors continued to tout the necessity of passing their measure as soon as possible. The measure, Pence said, "[it] is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know."While the public, according to the First Amendment has certain freedoms, inclusive of the right to know, there is reason to believe, the Justice Department and many members of Congress think these civil liberties threaten the nation. Perhaps, in fact the people's right to a free press and free speech endanger those in power. If the people truly knew what went on in the White House, the Department of Justice, in the House, or in the Senate, they might be appalled. Citizens might actually be concerned enough to give up their apathetic inclinations.
That cannot happen if the lawmakers [and breakers] are to be safe. Thus, politicians procrastinate, deliberate, and debate. Many obviously wish to prevent reporters from having a protective "shield right." Bloggers, this may mean you, or it may not, depending on what Congress or the courts decide. Perchance, the point is moot.
If Congress continues to delay, bloggers will have no power, no rights, or means for reporting. The certainty of Net Neutrality and access to information is waning. In little more than a year the writing tool, the means for distribution may be lost. Ma Bell may have more power than all these politicians combined.
Hold on to your mouse; grab your keyboards. Protect yourself from the terrorism. It is closer to home than you might imagine.
A Discussion of the Free Flow of Information . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 18, 2007 at 07:30 PM in AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth , Bush 43 Administration, Civil Rights, Communities and Communication , Current Affairs, Lawbreakers, Manipulated Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Media is Threatened, Mainstream and Individuals on Internet ©
I have not come to terms with what seems contradictory. This year, Time Magazine chose you, us, Internet users as the persons of the year. Time editors recognized citizens are creating and documenting the news. We, the people have ample access. Currently, we have freedom of speech; yet, simultaneously, this right is threatened.
Only days ago, we escaped Internet embargoes by the skin of our teeth, or more accurately, corporate moguls that provide access to the Internet extended our service, as is, for two more years. Communication companies such as AT&T and SBC are merging. Powerful conglomerates are being formed and these enterprises are deciding what privileges we, the users will have.
Businesses will choose when we will login, and how much they will charge us for the service. Large firms are assessing who will be the preferred customer, who will receive a financial break on their bill, and how to implement their policies.
Yet, at the same time, citizen journalism is a constant. Print newspaper organizations are realizing a need to change. Profits are down; readership is no longer loyal. Companies are cutting their staff, while bloggers are increasing theirs. No one writer can make it alone. Resources as refined as those of traditional publishers are necessary.
For years, the public has believed Mainstream Media was out of touch. Many Americans fear the White House or those within it make the news and pass the message on to journalist. This quandary was realized in the Watergate years; it continued to grow. Sam Donaldson wrote of it in "Hold On Mr. President." Ronald Reagan kept his distance. Reports were designed for the Press Room.
Since George W. Bush hit the Washington scene, the delivery of authentic news worsened. The Government Accounting Office has reprimanded the Bush Administration repeatedly. Its use of propaganda is abhorrent and abundant. President Bush and those working for him or with him were rebuked for paying correspondents to distribute their message.
During the current Bush II reign Internet usage has increased. The public turns to bloggers for their news. Citizen Journalism is a powerful force. Is it equal to that of communication conglomerates? I wonder. Will the industry be able to put the freedom now available on the Internet back in the bottle. I trust they will try; they already have and are doing so successfully.
I can only ask; will an all too apathetic public be willing to succumb to the strategies that AT&T and government agencies may wish to impose?
I offer the following dialogue for your review. Tonight on Public Broadcasting Services News Hour citizen journalism and the mainstream media was the topic of discussion. The dialogue coupled with a report I offered days ago, Ma Bell; She's Back. Net Neutrality in Jeopardy ©, evokes my inquiry.
Future of news mediaAh, the gatekeeper. This may be the question and the answer. Do we truly need a caretaker, a concierge, or a janitor? The round table continued and talk of a business model was suggested. In seems in this Capitalistic country, money is the maxim.
Nick Lemann, starting with you, there you are at a leading journalism school, no doubt thinking and talking about the future of the news media. To what extent does that conversation focus on the Internet and a shift in the business?NICHOLAS LEMANN, Columbia University: To a huge extent. I mean, it's this year -- particularly it's been just about all we talk about. Just this morning, we sent out invitations to our annual faculty retreat after the holiday break, and that will be 100 percent devoted to the question of how we do more Internet in our curriculum. So it's very much top of mind for us.
JEFFREY BROWN: Adam Powell, is it happening? To what extent do you see it happening, the shift?
ADAM CLAYTON POWELL III, University of Southern California: The shift is huge, and it's going in a direction which I don't think we can see yet. By the end of next year, we're going to be seeing some innovations which are going to be striking, almost science fiction.
JEFFREY BROWN: Science fiction?
ADAM CLAYTON POWELL III: Yes, 3-D visualizations, the ability to do micro-local news down to your block in your neighborhood. But old media aren't going away.
We still have radio; we still have AM radio; we still have short-wave radio; we still have newspapers; we still have magazines. Life, Look and Collier's went away, but they were replaced by even more magazines, so it simply becomes more crowded, more fragmented, but still with innovation.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mark Jurkowitz, what do you see? Is it possible to think of a balance of power shift?
MARK JURKOWITZ, Project for Excellence in Journalism: Well, the power is shifting, but it hasn't shifted yet completely to new media. I mean, in a year when YouTube sells for $1.6 billion, we know where a lot of the energy in the media are going.
But as Adam points out, the old media are not going anywhere. The fight for the future of some of America's biggest newspapers, between public companies and potentially private owners, still shows they are valuable properties.
The fact that the major networks and CBS gambled on a new evening news anchor for a format that is believed to be sort of heading toward extinction means we are in an evolutionary phase, not a revolutionary phase, right now.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mary Hodder, what do you think, evolutionary or revolutionary? How do you describe it?
MARY HODDER, Dabble.com: Well, I guess coming from the new media side, you know, what we're seeing is enormous. I know that old media, or what I would call legacy media, is not going away. Bloggers always rely on legacy media sources, and I think this is true as well for video.
You know, much of what's uploaded to hosting sites like YouTube is traditional media. But the really, really big shift, the hugeness that I see, is the shift in control, its users programming for others what's interesting.
And, you know, you're taking it away from the Brandon Tarkentoffs (ph). You know, the legacy media companies in the past would tell us what was going to be on the, I don't know, Sunday night line-up, but these days it's users saying, you know, these five minutes out of Comedy Central's, you know, show is the best thing, and everybody watches that.
Sources of news
JEFFREY BROWN: Mary, what are the main changes that you see in how people, especially young people, want to get their news, or where they look to get their news?MARY HODDER: Well, I think part of it is, is that they're going to shows, like the Comedy Central line-up. You know, it's "The Daily Show" and all of that, and we've all heard this before, so that's nothing new.
But what people are doing, especially younger folks, is they're grabbing bits of that news from television, and they're throwing it up online, and they're sharing it with each other. So that's a huge shift. They're essentially doing the programming that traditional media used to do.
The other thing is, is that they're making their own bits of news. I mean, you look at what happened at UCLA recently, the Tasering incident, which everybody saw. Well, what they were watching was other students' cell phones having shot what, you know, the incident was and throwing that up online. That's enormous.
So there's content coming from both places, but I think the real shift is control. Who gets to decide what we watch has gone away. I'm deciding. My friends are deciding. Other folks on the Internet are deciding. And that sort of yanks the rug out from underneath legacy media in a way that we've never seen before.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, so, Nick Lemann, how do you see legacy media, old media, whatever you want to call it, responding to these changes?
NICHOLAS LEMANN: Well, everybody is trying to figure it out. It doesn't have to be an either/or, and this is one of the miraculous things about the Web.
Most traditional media are experimenting on the Web with some format where part of the site, part of the home page is devoted to traditionally produced content, and another part of the home page takes you into a world of reader-generated content, so you really don't have to say, "We're going all one way or all the other way." It's a wonderful medium to do both at once.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mark, how do you see this question of shifting and control and how old media is reacting?
MARK JURKOWITZ: Well, there's no doubt about it: User-generated content, the idea that everyone in this era can become a journalist, is a very important fact and has knocked away some of the gatekeeper function.
While many are making money through the Internet, the question was posed, what is "enough money." According to Jeffrey Brown of Public Brocadcasting Services
The nation's second-largest newspaper chain, Knight-Ridder, ceased to exist, after selling its 32 papers to a smaller competitor, the McClatchy Company, in a $4.5 billion deal.Perhaps we might ask ourselves, is a focus on money making as profitable as many executives think. If corporations do not serve their customers well, patrons will go elsewhere. When providers are "free" to satisfy the needs of the consumers, they likely will. The Internet shows us they have.And shrinking circulation led to staff cuts at many prominent papers. At the Los Angeles Times, the publisher and editor were forced out when they refused to impose hundreds of corporate-mandated layoffs.
The L.A. Times and its parent, the Tribune Company, are also thought to be on the auction block.
Conventional and costly print enterprises are struggling to compete with the information highway and citizen journalism. Customers are canceling services. We are at a crossroads.
In practice when suppliers dictate demands, there is much dissatisfaction.
We have witnessed conglomerates are often not creative, people are! However, sadly, individuals rarely have the means to strut their stuff. Opportunities are few. We have one now. A window is open, though the space is shrinking.
Currently, we have "net neutrality" and the Internet is infinity popular, even profitable for those that accept the assets freedom affords. Notwithstanding, we cannot forget the power mongers; those that have the means, the money, and the where-with-all. We must consider, at times, a large competitor can obliterate Ma and Pop. Remember Wal-Mart!
You may be the "Person of this year" and possibly even the next. The recent AT&T contract agreement provides only two more years of certain freedom. This is why I inquire, ultimately, who will survive? If users are as the majority of American voters, apathetic, we have much to fear.
I invite each of you to consider the power you have. Let no one or no organization take your freedoms away.
Net Neutrality lives or Dies . . .
Technorati Tags
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 1, 2007 at 11:44 PM in AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth , Communities, Communities and Communication , Rights and Rules, Technology Ties US Together, Telephone “Trolling” , Voters Speak | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ma Bell; She's Back. Net Neutrality in Jeopardy ©
In March 2006, American Telephone and Telegraph offered to buy BellSouth for $67 billion. At the time, there was much concern. Should the two tie the knot, it would appear to reverse a decision made twenty-two years earlier, the breakup of the Ma Bell monopoly.
However, in this era of Bush Cheney corporate favors, conglomerate are considered wise and wonderful.
The new AT&T will be the local phone company in a 22-state territory, and will be a behemoth in wireless, long-haul voice and Internet traffic, and phone directories.The merged companies will use the name AT&T; it is familiar and a friendly reminder of the past for many Baby Boomers. The moniker is expected to increase market share and oh, what a share of the market this "new" firm will have. Certainly, the association with Ma Bell will not be merely a memory.All those services will operate under the AT&T brand, which SBC took over with its acquisition of AT&T Corp. in November. The company hopes to save billions in advertising costs simply by consolidating AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular marketing under one brand.
Oh, I am among those with fond memories; however, what I loved about Ma Bell will not return. I recall indestructible telephones. When I think of the old Ma Bell, recollections of equipment that does not fail comes to mind. In the 1970s, my family went house hunting. In one glorious, home we discovered a telephone cubbyhole built into the stairwell wall. Within the hole was a study black rotary telephone, circa 1930. It still worked. For me, that was among the deciding factors. I wanted to live in that dwelling and chatter away on that phone.
I also embrace the days when the telephone company was efficient. Repairmen and wiremen came to the home if there were problems with the equipment or the line. The only need for repairs that I recall was weather related. Ma did not insist on an additional charge for house calls. All was included in a nominal bill.
Operators, oh, I loved the operators. I still do on the rare occasions I speak with one. Not only am I too frugal to call for assistance, if or when I do, I am reminded a human voice is only available during very limited hours . I crave that former human connection.
As a child, when I was learning to speak, my Mom would call the ever-running weather recording and I would chat with the mechanical woman. To assist me in acquiring manners, my parents would have me make information calls. Do you remember when telephoning information was not a toll call and you could chat with a delightful human being? Those were the days. Though the monopoly Ma Bell is returning, none of these lovely features will be forthcoming!
If there is any similarity between the past and the present it is that, this business will be bulging; it will be all-powerful, formidable, so much so it may be out of control. The current Federal Communications Commission was barely able to manage it in these recent negotiations.
The newer AT&T will be much like its mother
With roots stretching to 1885, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company was split by the government in 1984 into eight regional Bell companies and a long-distance and equipment company that retained the AT&T name.Although there was some concern and two Democratic Commissioners opposed the amalgamation, ultimately a compromise was reached.The Telecommunications Act of 1996 partly deregulated the industry, enabling a rapid re-consolidation.
Southwestern Bell, later SBC, proved to be the most aggressive of the Baby Bells. Under Chief Executive Ed Whitacre Jr., it quickly snapped up its siblings Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, in addition to Southern New England Telecommunications.
There was even talk in 1997 of SBC buying AT&T, but that idea was shot down by the Federal Communications Commission as soon as it was mentioned in the media.
AT&T was at the time flailing somewhat for direction. In its main business, long distance, it was facing nascent competition from the Baby Bells, which were allowed entry into that domain by the Telecommunications Act — as long as they opened their local business to competition.
But it was much harder for AT&T to break into the local business than it was for the Baby Bells to sign customers up for long-distance. To get its own lines to homes, AT&T began buying up cable systems, but the massive debt it took later forced it to sell them off at a loss.
Since SBC was already too large to pass antitrust muster as a buyer of AT&T under the regulatory principles of the time, it fell to BellSouth to come to rescue the old head of the family. The companies were in advanced merger talks in 2001, but media leaks apparently gave BellSouth cold feet, and the deal was called off.
With progressively looser regulation, more options opened up for the Bells, and last year, SBC finally did acquire AT&T.
On Thursday, December 28, 2006, details were released and the Federal Communications Commission approved the buyout.
Among the conditions offered by AT&T is a promise to observe ''network neutrality'' principles, an offer of $19.95 per month stand-alone digital subscriber line service and a vow to divest some wireless spectrum.Perhaps, I am less so. There are aspects of the compromise that I favor, somewhat. If I had a choice, greater provisions would have to be met before the buyout was approved. However, the Justice Department and the FCC never asked me what I thought.The FCC's approval was the last major regulatory hurdle for the proposed deal, which is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.
AT&T offered the concessions after a little more than a week of marathon negotiations with lawyers who work for the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.
Adelstein said Friday he was pleased with the agreement.
''We got substantial concessions that are going to mitigate a lot of the harms that would otherwise have resulted from this merger,'' he said.
The reaction from Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, however, was decidedly negative. The chairman found some conditions to be ''unnecessary'' and said that some ''impose burdens that have nothing to do with the transaction, are discriminatory, and run contrary to commission policy and precedent.''
Copps was cautiously optimistic, saying that the approval was ''not a triumph for huge corporate mergers but a modest victory for American consumers.'' He added that he was not entirely satisfied with the compromise but believed it is ''a genuine step forward'' in several areas.
The Justice Department approved the merger on Oct. 11, but it attached no conditions, a move that prompted outrage among many Democrats.I am thankful for extended restraints. I am grateful for the two Democrats at the door. I think they did a fine job considering. Nevertheless, there is still much to fear. Among the items most worrisome, is the temporary status of net neutrality! Please allow me to define net neutrality for those unfamiliar with the concept.In an effort to gain the support of Copps and Adelstein, AT&T submitted a set of concessions on Oct. 13, but they were rejected.
In AT&T's letter committing to the new conditions, the company's senior vice president in charge of regulatory affairs, Robert W. Quinn Jr., noted that the new concessions were ''significantly more extensive than those submitted on Oct. 13.''
The new offer extends the lifespan of many conditions from 30 months under the old deal to 42 months or longer in some cases.
Among the promises made by the company:
--An offer of stand-alone, DSL Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month for 30 months. The ''naked DSL (digital subscriber line)'' offer would allow those who live in AT&T and BellSouth's service areas to sign up for fast Internet access without being required to buy a package of other services.--To cap rates for ''special access'' customers, usually competitors and large businesses that pay to connect directly to a regional phone company's central office via a dedicated fiber optic line, for 48 months.
--To divest all of the 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.
--To ''repatriate'' 3,000 jobs that were outsourced by BellSouth outside the U.S. by Dec. 31, 2008, with at least 200 of those jobs to be located in New Orleans.
Network neutrality is a principle analogous to the Bill of Rights. If the Internet is open, as it currently is, we are all, equally free to speak. Our access is not based on income, status, or the company we keep. If the Internet remains neutral, it favors no one, while favoring everyone. A neutral net is an unbiased avenue for information. A impartial Internet does not provide privileges for businesses or governments, while restricting rights for the average Jane or John. We, the people on the worldwide web are all created equal in a neutral cyberspace community. "Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."
Scary; given the opportunity companies and, or Congress can take away our rights to communicate, to access information; they can decrease the speed at which we travel and restrict the hours. Currently, the people govern the Internet; many want this to change.
AT&T had clearly drawn a line in the sand on the issue, and was not prepared to offer any promises that would not affect the telecommunications industry as a whole.Two short years; how quickly these will pass. In some respects, the security of the services has already been compromised.The company's position has been receiving generally positive reaction from proponents of the concept, but some skepticism from others, who are concerned with the wording of AT&T's commitment.
AT&T says it will ''maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service'' for two years and that it would not sell services to Internet content providers that ''privileges, degrades or prioritizes'' traffic over its wireline broadband service.
But it [AT&T]makes an exception to the company's Internet Protocol television service.So much could be better. Imagine a world where large corporations do not gobble smaller businesses up. Ponder a planet where we work together, where the Internet was a tool to connect us in cyberspace, and not a mechanism to bleed us dry. Ma Bell, please have mercy. This "new deal" will bring in $117 billion annually. Is that not enough to satisfy your insatiable appetite?Martin is unconvinced the network neutrality provisions are necessary.
''The conditions regarding net neutrality have very little to do with the merger at hand and very well may cause greater problems than the speculative problems they seek to address,'' he wrote. ''These conditions are simply not warranted by current market conditions and may deter facilities investment.''
Meanwhile, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated his displeasure in a statement that said the process followed by the FCC may be '''suitable for committee review.''
Earl Comstock, president and CEO of Comptel, a group that represents competitors of AT&T, said he would have preferred to see more conditions from AT&T, and questioned why the compromise came so quickly.
''Compared to where it was in the fall, there was definite progress,'' he said of the deal. ''But given the negotiating position (of the Democrats) it could be better.''
Please sign Net Neutrality petition. . .
The Bell is Tolling . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 29, 2006 at 10:35 PM in Abundance and Scarcity, AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth , Business, Communities and Communication , Consumers Rights, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NSA, Not Spying on Americans ©
Originally, we were told only foreign interests, those with ties to al Queda needed to worry. Their long distance correspondences were being monitored. Then we discovered this was not true, some domestic telephone calls were being scrutinized. Now, we learn what many of us assumed along, no one is above suspicion. Records are being kept and we are all suspects. According to the three largest phone companies, “tens of millions” of us are being watched. Could millions be billions? Might the number be in the trillions?
“USA Today” reported, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth knowingly compiled information regularly for the National Security Agency. These corporations tracked telephone calls for the past four years. Fortunately, Qwest refused to comply with government demands.
Apparently, the telephone companies obediently, like lap dogs, are mining data in hopes of detecting patterns. The administration thinks these measures are necessary. Intelligence thinks these vital; they must identify the habits of ordinary people. No crime needs to be committed or in the planning stages. If you are breathing, this White House thinks there is reason to doubt your credibility. The telephone companies, by their actions, must agree.
The President and his players want us to believe that this trolling for information is not that. The records and recordings are harmless. Actually, officials say they are a safety net. We are told to trust the judgment and ethics of “leaders,” or to have faith in those that think themselves above the Constitutional directives. [Excuse me while I laugh, sadly, and then cry.]
Citizens, Congressmen, and Congresswoman were not accepting this. Even Republicans are speaking out. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania, and the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said he plans to contact all the telephone groups involved. He is going to ask phone company representatives to speak at a hearing. Mr. Specter wants an explanation. He wants to know exactly what the NSA was requesting and what they were doing with all this information. Senator Specter has no illusions that the administration will be forthcoming; they have not been thus far.
Mr. Specter says this revelation will influence his decision to approve nominee General Michael V. Hayden. He thinks there is a direct correlation between that appointment and this issue. General Hayden, while working in the National Security Agency crafted this enormous spy plan. He directed the implementation. Later, while publicly speaking, he justified the program and stated it was legal. Now, to make him Director of the Central Intelligence Agency seems silly, even dangerous to Specter. The Pennsylvania Senator has his doubts. He has openly voiced that this appointment might not be wise.
A reaction such as this, particularly from a prominent Republican is distressing to the “powers-that be.” The White House realized damage must be controlled immediately. The Emperor, Wearing-No-Clothes, or his advisors decided to offer a press appearance. This differs from a press conference for in this there is no opportunity for discussion. This is an emergence, followed by a monologue, and then a quick exit.
It may be that a changing of the guards prompted this move. Mr. Bush has a new Press Secretary, Tony Snow and he may have stated a need for a swift explanation. The conference may have been a reaction to the Presidents polling numbers; they have fallen to an all time low. Nevertheless, tradition was broken. The Bush White House responded, the Baby spoke.
He babbled . . .
President Bush: After September 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they're saying.Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.
First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy and we want to know their plans.
Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.
Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.
Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.
So far, we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil. As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.
Abruptly, Mr. Bush turned and left. No time was given for questions or answers. As the President prefers, discussions are unnecessary. All this had been stated before and I feel certain the Emperor had no desire to repeat him self. For King George II “It is just that simple.” There is a right way, a wrong way, and as he was often heard to state, “You are either with us or against us.” The famous Bush decision to unilaterally attack tell us all what happens if you are in opposition to this President.
Still there are questions. In Washington, pundits, people, and all but the President’s men and women are wondering, is this spying program truly legal. If it is not, why has nothing been done to stop it or censure the administration for engaging in it?
There is also the appointment of General Hayden to consider. Hayden was expected to sail right through the hearings. After all, he had done so before when approved for his position as Deputy Director of the National Security Agency. However, now with this revelation, much is in doubt.
Senator Diane Feinstein, who days ago was firmly in support of the nomination and actively praised the General now states, the disclosure, "is going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of General Hayden."
Former Presidential candidate, John Kerry, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, chimes in, “"Enough is enough.” While speaking at American University in Washington, Kerry declared, "It is long