I told you so, I did

Back in 2004, I wrote an 8-part series in the Watauga Democrat on the USA PATRIOT Act. I explained the good, the bad, and the ugly. Here it is.

Then I spoke everywhere I could get myself invited to speak about it, trying to build support for a resolution I was bringing to the Town of Boone. The resolution was supported by five other entities who passed support pieces. And we gathered about 500 signatures in support.

The resolution passed narrowly (3-2). Here it is.

This was a movement to call on Congress to modify the USA PATRIOT Act. Specific sections of the law were identified as serious threats to the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. More than 400 towns and counties and eight states passed these resolutions.

Yet, here we are, nine years later (and almost 12 years since the law was passed in the first place), and we're learning about how the law is being abused, as well as other federal data mining and spy programs being employed across the nation. And, thankfully, it's all over the news.

Here are some examples:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174696/its-worse-you-thought-nsa-spying-and-patriot-act

AP

Obama Administration Under Fire
Over 2nd Mass Surveillance Project

Director of National Intelligence Clapper defends administration's surveillance efforts after report says a secret program is allowing the government to mine nine American tech giants, including Facebook and Google, for user data, a day after report of a secret court order that allows NSA to seize millions of phone records for American Verizon customers.

Author of Patriot Act Says NSA Records Collection 'Never the Intent' | VIDEO: Misuse of Patriot Act?

Lawmakers Misled on Collection of Phone Records? | Verizon EVP Statement | VIDEO: Government Run Amok?

NY Times Editorial Board Says Administration Has 'Lost All Credibility' | VIDEO: McCain Says Explanation Needed

OPINION: Even New York Times Sounds Like Tea Party | OPINION: Records Grab May Be Legal, But Is It Wise?

I could say, "I told you so." But I won't

But I will say this: Thank God for the news media. I mean, this is why they exist, to operate as a check on power, to keep us informed, to make sure we are free. So this is a good reminder of why we need to make sure the corporations that own them don't dupe us or keep us in the dark.

My personal solution would be to wrestle control of the media from the corporations and give it back to the people.

And of course there are independent media organizations that cover these stories everyday, even when the mainstream media are not. Try Truthout and Common Dreams, just to name a couple!

The very definition of partisan ideology

... only this comes in the form of a "news organization."

As I write about in the book, we expect the news to be "neutral" and "objective" and to "tell both sides of the story" (even though I clearly show this is not possible and that there are almost always more than two sides to the story).

Many have written about bias in the news media. Some claim the media have a "liberal bias." Still others (like me) show the "corporate bias" in the news.

But almost no one thinks the media have a "conservative bias."

But check out the top stories on Fox News, a news organization owned and operated by prominent Republicans that still claims to be "fair and balanced" and following the motto of "We report, you decide." As of today, these are their top stories:

1) 'VERY TROUBLED': Lawmakers Rip Justice Dept. Over AP Records Grab

• AP/Reuters
• Lawmakers from both parties are sharply questioning the DOJ over its effort to secretly obtain phone records from Associated Press journalists, which one executive called an 'unprecedented intrusion' into how groups collect news.
• Justice Department Secretly Obtains Associated Press Phone Records
• VIDEO: Justice Department Makes 'Massive, Unprecedented' Intrusion on AP
• VIDEO: Feds Seize AP Phone Records

2) SUBPOENA ON HORIZON?
GOP Wants New Benghazi Testimony from Clinton

• Fact Check: Timeline Raises Questions On Obama's Libya Claims

Benghazi Emails Underscore State Department's Failure to Act

OPINION: Media Can't Ignore the IRS and Benghazi Scandals

VIDEO: More Benghazi Fallout

3)  IRS targeting went beyond Tea Party, conservatives
- Attorney for Tea Party group: IRS told me a year ago about 'secret working group'

Such stories are important to be sure. So I have no problem with them being covered in the news.

My problem is the partisan ideology behind covering them during one presidential administration while ignoring similar (and worse) stories during the previous presidential administration.

So, let's assume the worst about President Obama: A terrorist attack occurred on foreign soil (Benghazi, Libya)--a place known to be dangerous--killing four US diplomats. Let's assume he lied about it and covered it up.

Let's also assume he personally directed the Justice Department to spy on AP reporters and that he personally approved the IRS targeting of the Tea Party.

This would all be newsworthy.

But, if such stories are covered because they violate some principle deeply held by Americans, then they should be covered regardless of who engages in the behaviors. That is, shouldn't Fox News have covered such events (and worse) by the Bush Admininstration?

Like when President Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, which had to be later approved by Congress (ex post facto) to avoid criminal prosecution.

Like when the IRS, under President Bush, targeted churches that promoted liberal messages about the coming Iraq war.

Like when President Bush approved torture, a practice that was far more widespread than he and his employees downplayed significantly.

Like when President Bush intentionally hyped and manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq war, a war that was unnecessary and illegal and that killed more Americans than the 9/11 attacks.

Oh, and like when President Bush ignored clear warnings of a forthcoming attack against the US homeland, which resulted in almost 3,000 Ameircan deaths (many more than the 4 killed in Benghazi), and then allegedly tried to cover up what he knew.

What I am saying is that I have no issue with Fox News covering the abuses of the Obama Administration. But they should not claim their stories to be based on some kind of high level principle that transcends party lines unless they covered such stories when "their guy" was in office.

Likewise, I don't blame normal citizens for being upset about abuses by President Obama. But they should not claim their concern is based on some kind of high level principle that has nothing to do with party unless they were also upset about abuses by "their guy."

In other words, if Fox and normal citizens only get upset about abuses of power when it occurs by Democrats, then what they are expressing is nothing but partisan ideology. A principled objection is stated at all times, whenever principles are violated and regardless of who violates them.

Here is an example: I wrote many letters to the editor during President Bush's time in office. I stated my objections to what I perceived to be illegal and/or wrong actions--things like targeting Americans for arrest or worse and then treating them as enemy combatants so that they have no right to trial. When Obama became President, I did not stop. In fact, I've written several letters expressing my disapproval of and serious reservations about Obama approving killing US citizens without trial. This is a principled objection based on the principle that Americans have the Constitutional right to due process, regardless of what actions of which they are accused.

Imagine if all the news organizations were like this ...

As is pointed out in the text, news organizations such as NPR and PBS (and other nonprofits) are found to do the best job at critical coverage of the powerful, what is referred to in the text as the Fourth Estate.

Recently, PBS featured a story on its Frontline program titled, "Top CIA Official: Obama Changed Virtually None of Bush’s Controversial Programs."

Here is the story with a promotion of the show:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them.” He promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror, which he criticized for compromising American values.
But FRONTLINE has learned from a former high-ranking CIA official that even before he took office, Obama’s team “signaled” they had no intention of rolling back secret programs begun under the Bush administration. In his first televised interview, for next Tuesday’s Top Secret America John Rizzo, a 34-year agency veteran described as “the most influential lawyer in CIA history,” tells FRONTLINE:

I was part of the transition briefings of the incoming Obama team, and they signaled fairly early on that the incoming president believed in a vigorous, aggressive, continuing counterterrorism effort. Although they never said it exactly, it was clear that the interrogation program was going away. We all knew that.
But his people were signaling to us, I think partly to try to assure us that they weren’t going to come in and dismantle the place, that they were going to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the Bush people.

Rizzo, who was forced to withdraw his nomination to become CIA general counsel because of controversy over his role in developing the CIA’s secret detention and interrogation policies, also told us:

With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations. Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration.

Look for more of our exclusive interview with Rizzo, where he talks about his role in approving enhanced interrogation techniques, and creating the CIA’s secret detention system, next week. Top Secret America airs Tuesday, Sept. 6 at 9 pm (check local listings).

So, imagine how much better of a country we' be if this type of reporting was common across all the news organizations. People would be more informed and politicians would be less likely to lie and do other devious things, even if supposedly in our collective interest.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/top-cia-official-obama-changed-virtually-none-of-bushs-controversial-programs/