Headline Catapults Impeachable Warrantless Wiretapapalooza!1

“JUDGE BLASTS WIRETAP POLICY
But legal experts say White House likely to prevail on appeal”

:wtf: How DARE the Sacramento Bee editorialize IN THE HEADLINE while reporting that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said in a 43-page opinion, “There are no hereditary kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution” -- coercing the public to be convinced that there’s no need to even read the story: the headline tells you what to think about the implications: “But legal experts say White House likely to prevail on appeal.”

“What, me worry?” :shrug:

This is the same Capital of California daily paper that editorialized on Nov. 6, 2004-- demonizing, ridiculing and blacklisting anyone who raised the legitimate concerns about the electoral debacle of Nov. 2, 2004.

And they make it damn hard to find the bloody story from today:

http://www.sacbee.com
http://www.mcclatchy.com
Ron Hutcheson and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Washington Bureau

“In a scathing rebuke, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and should be shut down, but legal scholars said the administration has a good chance of reversing the decision on appeal.”

WOW :wow: Sounds like a done deal. Why bother reading the ARTICLE when the HEADLINE tells you everything you NEED to KNOW?!!!! That’s more than Dubya Bush reads!!!! !!!!11111!!!!

90 miles and several IQ points away, the San Francisco Chronicle had a different take on it.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/18/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL

Way below the fold, below a ginormous photo of John Mark Karr, celebrity distraction du jour, ran THIS headline:

Judge's rejection of Bush wiretaps just first round
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/18/MNGT9KL3F81.DTL

A federal judge's emphatic rejection Thursday of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of calls between Americans and alleged foreign terrorists is far from the last word on the legality of the program, which most likely will be determined by the Supreme Court or Congress.

But the ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit is one of a mounting series of judicial rebuffs of President Bush's claim of virtually absolute authority, as the leader of the nation's battle against terrorism, to redraw the boundaries between government power and individual rights.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,'' Taylor said in finding that the administration's wiretapping violates an array of constitutional rights and a 1978 law requiring court warrants for electronic surveillance related to terrorism or espionage. It was the first ruling in the nation on the legality of the program.

She granted the American Civil Liberties Union's request for a nationwide injunction halting the surveillance, which Bush secretly authorized shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The president acknowledged the program's existence after it was disclosed by the New York Times in December.

<snip>

Taylor's ruling was "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror,'' said Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "It is a flat rejection of secret government ... a flat rejection of an all-powerful presidency.''

Sacto B and the SF Chron ought to take up some harmless trade like picking grapes. Usually it's the war profiteering corporate news monopoly editors kissing corporate ass, who skewer all hope for democracy, progress, change, justice, peace, and decency and lawfulness among our leaders, by sticking titles like this on news articles--and also by placement of the articles. Probably not the reporters' fault. But I avoid both of these papers as a general rule. They both abetted the Schwarz/Bushite* "swiftboating" of our good Sec of State Kevin Shelley, who had sued Diebold and decertified the worst of their election theft machines prior to the 2004 election. Also demanded to see their source code. They drove this ELECTED Dem out of office on entirely bogus corruption charges, and he was replaced by a Schwarz appointee and Diebold shill Bruce McPherson, who has ILLEGALLY re-certified the Diebold machines. They want to turn Calif into a "red" state. This is how. Sacto B and SF Chron malfeasance in black-holing the story of the corruption of our election system by Bushite corporations (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in these expensive and extremely insider hackable electronic voting systems is unforgivable. It's like the NYT and Judith Miller. You just can't ever trust them again. TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation may well be the death of our democracy, and they really couldn't give a crap.

--------------------

*(I should say that, while it had all the odor of a Bushite special op, Diebold shill Connie McCormack (head of elections in Los Angeles) led the pack of Diebold dogs (corrupt Calif election officials) who drove Shelley from office. And the new Dem legislative leadership did not present a pretty picture either. With a 2 to 1 Dem majority in both houses, they could have saved Shelley, or at the least could have insisted on a decent, good government DEMOCRAT as Sec of State to replace him. Shelley was ELECTED by the people of this state! All in all, it was a fascist Diebold coup, with Dems cooperating. Like I said, not pretty.)

"This is the same Capital of California daily paper that editorialized on Nov. 6, 2004-- demonizing, ridiculing and blacklisting anyone who raised the legitimate concerns about the electoral debacle of Nov. 2, 2004."

Maybe in their twisted minds, this big pop under the masthead is "balanced":

JUDGE
BLASTS
WIRETAP
POLICY
But legal experts say
White House likely
to prevail on appeal





The dismissiveness of that second bit is infuriating, not only because of the editorializing, bias and TOTALLY PHONY AND IMPOSSIBLE PREDICTION contained within it........... but the fact that it takes potential readers on a 15 word journey that leads to "Fuhgeddaboudit." Why worry, be happy!! :puke:

As many times as Dems agonize over When The Hell Will People Wake Up, here is a front-page double dose of Soma. And 2 people I talked to yesterday-- one who leans Repub Lite and another hardline Repub that I respect enough to have some integrity that I wanna know what he's thinking about this-- BOTH of them already had picked up the Dittohead meme that the law is malleable (and they're not gonna attach particular significance to this judge's decision) depending on what the Supreme Court will uphold (or not)!!!!!!!

When did the U.S. laws and the Constitution go from "living" to "relativistic"?

And we didn't even GET to the part of the conversation where the SC in question is now rigged with Bushco and Unitary Executive enablers!


:smoke:



Compared to the Bee's disgusting display, the Chronicle approach seems more even-toned:

Judge's rejection
of Bush wiretaps
is just 1st round

"...But the ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit is one of a mounting series of judicial rebuffs of President Bush's claim of virtually absolute authority, as the leader of the nation's battle against terrorism, to redraw the boundaries between government power and individual rights."

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,'' Taylor said in finding that the administration's wiretapping violates an array of constitutional rights and a 1978 law requiring court warrants for electronic surveillance related to terrorism or espionage."

Is anyone in Euphemedia reminding the public that the 1978 law was in response to the illegal and kingly activities of Richard Nixon, or that Cheney and Rummy both worked for him?


My expectations of M$M are realistically low, but the Bee astounds with its irresponsible manipulation of public perception.

Thanks PP for your great reply.