Fear and False Claims

from FactCheck.org

Playing the terrorism card, a GOP-linked group twists facts about a controversial electronic surveillance bill.

Summary
A widely-seen ad pushes a White House-backed bill that would make it easier for the government to wiretap Americans. It also would give retroactive legal immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with Bush's secret, post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping program.

Sponsored by Defense of Democracies, a group with GOP connections, the ad takes the House to task for not passing the bill, as the Senate has. The ad appeals to fear, with its image of Osama bin Laden and similar ploys. But we find that it also makes several misleading claims.

Specifically, the ad says that:

• "The law" allowing government eavesdroppers to intercept al Qaeda communications has expired. But the main, 30-year-old law that lets them listen in, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is still on the books. It's a law amending FISA, making it easier for intelligence-gatherers to eavesdrop on communications that might include Americans, that has expired.

• "[T]he House refuses to vote" to replace the lapsed law. Actually, the House passed its own version of the legislation months ago. The House and Senate are now in conference to resolve the differences in their bills, which is the normal legislative process.

• "[N]ew surveillance against terrorists is crippled." The administration has admitted that surveillance authorized under the expired bill will extend at least into August. It has also admitted that when a new member of a known terrorist organization is discovered, that person can be surveilled via authorizations granted under the expired law. And at any rate, FISA itself hasn't expired, and any time the government has strong evidence that someone is a member of a terrorist organization, it can still get a court order to eavesdrop on that person.

Get the facts on FactChcek.org ...

My comment:

Who's trying to terrorize whom? And while we're at it, what's the difference between a "misleading claim" and and outright lie?

As a right wing-nut, you may be comfortable with G.W. listening in on your phone conversations and monitoring e-mail and your on-line Internet activity ... but how are you going to feel about it when someone like Billery is eavesdropping on you and monitoring you ... without a warrant ... without any oversight? Can't you see any further than the end of your nose?