BCT Editorial – 2/16/06

This page was last updated on February 19, 2006.

Why?; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 16, 2006. Though in the print edition of February 16^th, this editorial was not on the Times website as of this writing. That’s why there’s no hyperlink to the editorial.

This must be “Dumb Editorial Day.” As you will read, the author inaccurately paraphrases and portrays part of a sentence from at least a 15-minute interview of four people and turns it into an editorial.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“On Sunday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that because of the publicity surrounding it, the NSA’s domestic surveillance program is not of much use.”

[RWC] Never trust an op-ed piece to paraphrase someone’s comments. Rep. Hoekstra said, “As Jane [Rep. Harman (D-CA)] says, I walked out of those meetings believing that on a bipartisan basis, we thought that this was an essential program, we recognized that it was very, very focused in its scope, we walked out of there believing it was legal, and we walked out of there believing it was making an impact, it was keeping America’s families, it was keeping America’s communities safer, and we needed to continue this program. As some have mentioned, the problem now is the program is really of questionable value.” Here is the entire “Meet the Press” transcript.

Here’s a quote from “Meet the Press” the editorial didn’t provide. Democrat leader of the Committee, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), said, “This is not a covert action program, this is a very valuable foreign collection program, and I’m—I think it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers.”

Here’s another quote you didn’t read. Tim Russert asked, “Senator Daschle, knowing what we know now, should the president stop this program?” Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) who had been briefed when he was Senate majority (and later minority) leader replied, “No, absolutely not. I think it’s a very valuable program.”

Unless the author considers plane flights between foreign countries and the U.S. to be “domestic,” the author is lying when he refers to the NSA program as “domestic” surveillance.

“‘Does anyone really believe that, after 50 days of having this program on the front page of our newspapers, across talk shows across America, that al-Qaida has not changed the way that it communicates?’ he asked on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

“Hoekstra isn’t just shooting off his mouth. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he is among the few leading lawmakers who were briefed on the program before it became public. So when he says the program is now of questionable value, his statement should carry some weight.”

[RWC] The “few leading lawmakers” were four Democrats and four Republicans. They were the majority and minority leaders in each house and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Does anyone question the Times would have ignored or trashed Mr. Hoekstra had he stated unequivocally the program should continue? Why is no weight given to the comments of Mr. Daschle and Ms. Harman?

Finally, the editorial wants us to believe Rep. Hoekstra advocates shutting down the NSA program. When you read the entire transcript you find that implication is not even close to being true.

“Which raises two questions: Why does the administration insist it needs to continue the program, and against whom?”

[RWC] The author would have us believe the Bush administration is bucking everyone’s will and going it alone. In truth, I haven’t heard anyone claim the program shouldn’t exist. Indeed, everyone in Congress that I’ve heard express an opinion – including Democrats – has said the program is necessary. The detractors’ objections seem to be around the program’s legality, and there are plenty of people on both sides of this aspect of the program.

Now let’s get to the two idiotic questions in the final paragraph. Ever since the wiretapping of telegraph lines during the Civil War, every criminal and spy has known his communications could be intercepted. Does that mean law enforcement and intelligence gathering organizations should have stopped wiretapping over 100 years ago? Criminals know there’s a pretty good chance they will be caught on a business’ security cameras. Does that mean people should stop using the cameras?

I’ve asked this question before and I expect I’ll ask it many times in the future. Does anyone at the Times really read editorials before publishing them?