Can you say "dishonest"?

By

Yesterday's Washington Post carries an article co—authored by Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus which is a masterful bit of distorted reporting. The article contends that a former Department of Justice attorney,  David S.  Kris, now with Time Warner, considered the government's contention that the NSA surveilance program was not lawful.

You have to read carefully to see that Kris concedes that he was not informed of the details of the program. And it isn't until you get to the tenth paragraph that you learn

Kris refrains from passing final judgment on the government's constitutional argument, however, saying that more facts need to be known to reach a conclusion. The Justice Department says in its own "white paper" that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs clandestine surveillance within the United States, must be unconstitutional if it conflicts with the president's inherent authority during war.

Tom Maguire observes:

Oh, now they tell us.  Anyone re—reading the WaPo lead will note the qualifiers and caveats, but will a casual reader pick up on the fact that this critic (who apparently was not briefed on the program) is unsettled on a key Administration rationale? 
But it's worse than that. The authors advise us that "The e—mails were released yesterday by the Electronic Privacy Information Center(EPIC), which obtained them as part of ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation."

What they don't tell us is that EPIC which opposes much of the HSA, Patriot Act, and TSA screening program is funded in part by George Soros' Open Society Institute. .
 
Clarice Feldman   3 11 06

Yesterday's Washington Post carries an article co—authored by Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus which is a masterful bit of distorted reporting. The article contends that a former Department of Justice attorney,  David S.  Kris, now with Time Warner, considered the government's contention that the NSA surveilance program was not lawful.

You have to read carefully to see that Kris concedes that he was not informed of the details of the program. And it isn't until you get to the tenth paragraph that you learn

Kris refrains from passing final judgment on the government's constitutional argument, however, saying that more facts need to be known to reach a conclusion. The Justice Department says in its own "white paper" that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs clandestine surveillance within the United States, must be unconstitutional if it conflicts with the president's inherent authority during war.

Tom Maguire observes:

Oh, now they tell us.  Anyone re—reading the WaPo lead will note the qualifiers and caveats, but will a casual reader pick up on the fact that this critic (who apparently was not briefed on the program) is unsettled on a key Administration rationale? 
But it's worse than that. The authors advise us that "The e—mails were released yesterday by the Electronic Privacy Information Center(EPIC), which obtained them as part of ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation."

What they don't tell us is that EPIC which opposes much of the HSA, Patriot Act, and TSA screening program is funded in part by George Soros' Open Society Institute. .
 
Clarice Feldman   3 11 06