Editorial boards criticize secret
wiretapping authorized by Bush
Media Matters
December 19, 2005
Summary: A review of the Nexis database of major U.S. newspapers --
consisting of 87 publications -- turned up 12 editorials that criticized
President Bush's decision to allow secret wiretapping of U.S. citizens without
a warrant, and none in support. Only the New York Post, which is not in the
"major newspapers" database, wrote in favor of Bush's actions.
Following a report in the December 16 New York Times revealing that
President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct
wiretaps of U.S. citizens without obtaining a court warrant, a Media Matters
for America review of the Nexis major U.S. newspapers database* found 12
editorials critical of Bush's actions. Of those 12 papers, two endorsed Bush
for president during the 2004 election, while nine endorsed Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-MA); one paper, the Los Angeles Times, made no endorsement. Media Matters
found one editorial in favor of the secret wiretapping -- News Corp. owner
Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which endorsed Bush and is not included in the
Nexis database of major newspapers.
Following are excerpts from major newspaper editorials about the secret
wiretaps:
Houston Chronicle (endorsed Bush) December 17:
;You can't take your eyes off this crowd for a second. No sooner had
President Bush, out of no motivation beyond political necessity, capitulated on
the McCain anti-torture proviso than the New York Times reported that for more
than three years Bush has authorized warrantless domestic eavesdropping. What
will crawl out from under the Oval Office rug next? What constitutional
mutation will come to light? What new way will be found to diminish
distinctions between a free society and the benighted civilization terrorists
want to impose?
Chicago Tribune (endorsed Bush) December 19:
;This may also be a violation of American law, which requires that a special
court issue warrants for wiretaps on communications originating in the United
States. Some officials familiar with the program said it is illegal. But a
Justice Department memo took the radical position that the congressional
resolution authorizing the president to act against Al Qaeda enabled him to use
methods that were previously forbidden.
;Had the administration really believed it had congressional consent for
spying on Americans at home, it could have asked for legislation to affirm
that. It didn't, for the obvious reason that Congress would not have
agreed.
The Oregonian (endorsed Kerry), December 17:
;No court-ordered warrants for NSA eavesdropping on American soil? If that
isn't unconstitutional, it's still an appalling idea.
Newsday (endorsed Kerry), December 17:
;The court is readily accessible, able to respond quickly and has granted
thousands of warrants over the years. It has, in fact, almost never refused a
request. There was no need for an end run around the court and no justification
for skirting the law.
The Washington Post (endorsed Kerry), December 18:
;Congress must make the administration explain itself. In the aftermath of
the revelations, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said
hearings on the matter would be a high priority in the coming year. That's
good. It should be unthinkable for Congress to acquiesce to such a fundamental
change in the law of domestic surveillance, particularly without a substantive
account of what the administration is doing and why.
St. Petersburg Times (endorsed Kerry), December 18:
;President Bush apparently believes that fighting terrorism justifies any
action he chooses, no matter how extralegal. But the United States is a nation
of laws, and the president is constrained by them, too. That is why Bush's
unilateral authorization granting the National Security Agency the power to
wiretap American citizens and others in the United States without a warrant is
so dangerously ill-conceived and contrary to this nation's guiding
principles.
New York Times (endorsed Kerry), December 18:
;Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a
violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not.
Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution would have
difficulty seeing that.
Los Angeles Times (no endorsement), December 18:
;To the rest of us, the revelation in the New York Times that the National
Security Agency has been eavesdropping on people within the United States
without judicial warrants was stunning. In one of the more egregious cases of
governmental overreach in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush secretly authorized the
monitoring, without any judicial oversight, of international phone calls and
e-mail messages from the United States.
San Francisco Chronicle (endorsed Kerry) December 19:
;The disclosure of unwarranted domestic spying is just as troubling. The law
requiring a judge's approval for such inquiries must be followed, not ignored
at the president's whim.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (endorsed Kerry), December 18:
;The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national
security doesn't wash; that is the language of a police state. Those are the
unacceptable actions of a police state.
Philadelphia Daily News (endorsed Kerry), December 19:
;With the revelation last week that President Bush authorized the National
Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on hundreds, perhaps thousands of
Americans -- without bothering to obtain the proper court orders -- it's clear
now that this administration cannot be trusted to protect our civil
liberties.
The Miami Herald (endorsed Kerry), December 19:
;In the 1970s, when word got out that the federal government was spying on
its own citizens, there was such an outcry that Congress severely restricted
the practice, and the agency involved virtually stopped doing it altogether.
Congress made the right call then by passing the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Now, Congress should move quickly to curtail a renewal of the
practice, which is being done this time in the name of fighting terrorists.
New York Post (endorsed Bush) December 19:
;President Bush, to his credit, neither apologized for the program nor said
he would abandon it. Indeed, he said he has reauthorized the program some 30
times since 9/11, and intends to do so "as long as our nation faces a
continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."
* Based on a Nexis search of major newspapers for editorial and (wiretap! or
spy! or surveillance! or NSA or FISA or eavesdrop! or monitor!).
|