Our own Akron Beacon Journal's July 10th, 2007 editorial entitled Standing for Scrutiny needs....well.....scrutinized.
Commenting on a recent federal appeals court ruling that dealt with the legalities, or lack thereof, of President Bush's "eavesdropping on Americans without warrants" program, the Beacon echoes the other erroneous MainStreamMedia commenters when it writes, "(Judge Taylor's) decision attracted criticism from many legal experts for loose construction and failing to engage important government arguments."
That sentence sounds an awful lot like this one....
Judge Taylor's ruling, which was stayed during the appeal, had attracted criticism from across the political spectrum. Legal experts said it overlooked important precedents, failed to engage some of the government's arguments and relied on novel constitutional arguments where more straightforward ones were available.
...from the New York Times' Adam Liptak July 7, 2007. Link
However as Glenn Greewald points out here the government DID NOT make any arguments over the substance of the case. None.
As Judge Gilman says in his appellate court dissent,
"In this motion, the government asserted that the plaintiffs could not establish standing and that the state-secrets privilege barred their claims. But the government did not contest the plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts or provide its own statement of undisputed facts."
Elsewhere, the Beacon editorial says, " The NSA program aims at al-Qaida and other terrorist networks." But what proof does the Beacon writer have to demonstrate Bush's program indeed only "aims at al-Qaida and other terrorist networks"? Only the words of Alberto Gonzales and Bush himself. There has been NO oversight at all of this program so how would the Beacon know, other than from White House words, that "terrorists" are the only ones being targeted? Of course, the answer is, they wouldn't.
That is the way the MSM operates. They simply regurgitate what the White House tells them unquestioningly, or at least, without further investigation.
The appeals court ruled the plaintiff's didn't have "standing". Nothing has changed. The merits of Judge Taylor's original ruling of illegality have still yet to be disproven.
About This Blog