So if presidentjunior tells the American people

[salin]

that in order to catch terrorists he has to spy on all people, but that those people have no right to know about it, if they figure it out have no right to tell about it, and no judge ever has to approve it, and congress can't do anything about it as long as we are in a war of terror... do the Americans buy it?

Early reporting on the FISA story indicated that the survelling was NOT limited to 'suspected terrorists' - it was limited to 'correspondence out side of the country'... it is only the political rhetoric that suggests "suspected terrorism is the target" = "no one is spied on unless there is a reason to suspect the foreign correspondent is a terrorist". Watch the language - lots of wiggle room. Why? It was widely discussed initially that this was a broad net program - using technology ... tons of information sifted - only thing needed to flag it to be collected was a point of contact outside of the US... which with technology could feasibly include that communication hits a relay via Canada (not as in a person - but as in a technological "router" so to speak.)

After the WH threatened to push investigators onto the newspapers (as in HOW DID YOU LEARN THIS) did the speculation as to whether or not the program went outside the FISA program due to technology (which made it impossible to file a FISA warrent - as too many points of information where flowing through the sifting net), nor to who was being spied on and why (not individuals but examples) to learn whether or not the supposition that the spying was limited to cases where one correspondent is suspected of terrorism or not.

These media angles dried up. They were not refuted. They were not disproven. They were shut down per public discussion. And given that the discussion in the media was short - and in the 'tween holiday (between Christmas and New Years) - many citizens seem not to have read them or be aware of them. Leaving the RW frame of a very "limited" program to linger in the public's mind.

However if I am correct in memory of the initial story, the number of incidents over the four years were in the tens of thousands - suggesting that either al qeada and terrorist groups are having a huge amount of conversations with a substantial number of americans - or the program does not really operate within the limits suggested by the juniorpresident.

Am I wrong? But in my read - many folks in general (general public) just do not get the magnitude of the potential spying without judicial review going on - and thus do not grasp the serious illegality of the program.

[neoblues]

1. I'd say you're spot on...

Seems to me that with the possible exception of a trustworthy electoral system, we should consider obtaining a free and objective media to be the most important goal; without it everything is either almost hopless or seriously uphill.

"MEDIA is JOB ONE" (of course, I've just been reading Orwell's 1984)

[salin]

2. What is interesting... is that even with a cowed media...

much of the public is starting to see through the admin. Perhaps not on this issue, but on many. I attribute that to just how far overbounds this administration has pushed, rather than any assist by the media. Imagine the public opinion were the media doing its job.

[neoblues]

3. This is truly worth imagining.

If the media was doing a proper job of things, this nation would be on course in more ways that can be imagined. Alas. Still as you note, more and more people are beginning to--if nothing else, tire of the Bush Administration's antics. As for seeing through the media, well, I suppose if someone tells you blatant, obvious absurdities often enough (such as "It's been discovered that pigs can fly"), most people of more or less sane minds would, at some point, begin to doubt the veracity of what they're being told. Then again, about 1/3 of the electorate seems immune to all sanity and dares not behold even a single rational thought (a pretty shocking percentage; a pretty shocking fact).