SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Announcing National Use Zazi to Gain New Surveillance Powers Day!
Oct 06, 2009
The last line of this article
on how the Najibullah Zazi arrest was a victory for the Obama
Administration's approach to terrorism boasts that the Administration
didn't have a John Ashcroft-style press conference on the day of the
arrest.
With Zazi's arrest, administration
officials said they had a renewed sense of confidence that they could
approach security threats in a new way. "The system probably worked the
way it did before, but we made a conscious decision not to have a big
press conference" about Zazi's arrest, a senior official said.
Which is pretty hysterical, coming as it does in one article of
several that are obviously similarly seeded, boasting of Obama's new
approach to terrorism. There are several aspects to this apparent PR
blitz. Articles providing details (though none as detailed as the NPR story over the weekend) explaining how the CIA learned of Zazi and shared info with the FBI. Articles discussing
the address by Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Robert Mueller
yesterday, lauding information sharing. All of which will lead into
coverage of Obama's address to the National Counter-Terrorism Center,
scheduled for today at 11:40.
We didn't have a press conference when we arrested Zazi, the WaPo's
source (who could be Rahm or John Brennan) seems to be saying, but
we're sure as hell going to have a media blitz about it when it serves
our purposes.
What's especially nice about this WaPo piece, though, is it makes
the goal of the media blitz explicit, tying it to the discussion of the
PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, the Obama
administration is pressing Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize
three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire in late December.
They include the use of "roving wiretaps" to track movement, e-mail and
phone communications, a tool that federal officials used in the weeks
leading up to Zazi's arrest.With the apprehension of Zazi, as well as several other covert
operations at home and abroad, the Obama administration is increasingly
confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil
liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country.
Note, however, that the WaPo focuses on one of the least controversial of the practices, roving wiretaps.
It does not discuss how the Administration wants to lower the legal
standard for allowing FBI agents to get business records and things
like medical records on people who may have no tie to terrorism. It
does not talk about National Security Letters, which let the FBI get
certain records with no court review. And it does not discuss how the
Administration is using more and more data mining of US persons.
In other words, it boasts of Obama's approach to terrorism without
actually revealing what it is, without even providing the level of
detail Dina Temple-Raston provided over the weekend.
So the PR blitz serves the same purpose as John Ashcroft's
circus-like pressers did: to wow citizens that our national security
team has prevented an act of terrorism. But to offer that--rather than
an honest discussion of what that means for civil liberties--as the
sole discourse on terrorism.
Don't get me wrong: the men and women who tracked down Zazi deserve
some public kudos. But that shouldn't be tied to a political campaign
designed to further curtail civil liberties.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 FireDogLake
The last line of this article
on how the Najibullah Zazi arrest was a victory for the Obama
Administration's approach to terrorism boasts that the Administration
didn't have a John Ashcroft-style press conference on the day of the
arrest.
With Zazi's arrest, administration
officials said they had a renewed sense of confidence that they could
approach security threats in a new way. "The system probably worked the
way it did before, but we made a conscious decision not to have a big
press conference" about Zazi's arrest, a senior official said.
Which is pretty hysterical, coming as it does in one article of
several that are obviously similarly seeded, boasting of Obama's new
approach to terrorism. There are several aspects to this apparent PR
blitz. Articles providing details (though none as detailed as the NPR story over the weekend) explaining how the CIA learned of Zazi and shared info with the FBI. Articles discussing
the address by Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Robert Mueller
yesterday, lauding information sharing. All of which will lead into
coverage of Obama's address to the National Counter-Terrorism Center,
scheduled for today at 11:40.
We didn't have a press conference when we arrested Zazi, the WaPo's
source (who could be Rahm or John Brennan) seems to be saying, but
we're sure as hell going to have a media blitz about it when it serves
our purposes.
What's especially nice about this WaPo piece, though, is it makes
the goal of the media blitz explicit, tying it to the discussion of the
PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, the Obama
administration is pressing Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize
three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire in late December.
They include the use of "roving wiretaps" to track movement, e-mail and
phone communications, a tool that federal officials used in the weeks
leading up to Zazi's arrest.With the apprehension of Zazi, as well as several other covert
operations at home and abroad, the Obama administration is increasingly
confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil
liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country.
Note, however, that the WaPo focuses on one of the least controversial of the practices, roving wiretaps.
It does not discuss how the Administration wants to lower the legal
standard for allowing FBI agents to get business records and things
like medical records on people who may have no tie to terrorism. It
does not talk about National Security Letters, which let the FBI get
certain records with no court review. And it does not discuss how the
Administration is using more and more data mining of US persons.
In other words, it boasts of Obama's approach to terrorism without
actually revealing what it is, without even providing the level of
detail Dina Temple-Raston provided over the weekend.
So the PR blitz serves the same purpose as John Ashcroft's
circus-like pressers did: to wow citizens that our national security
team has prevented an act of terrorism. But to offer that--rather than
an honest discussion of what that means for civil liberties--as the
sole discourse on terrorism.
Don't get me wrong: the men and women who tracked down Zazi deserve
some public kudos. But that shouldn't be tied to a political campaign
designed to further curtail civil liberties.
The last line of this article
on how the Najibullah Zazi arrest was a victory for the Obama
Administration's approach to terrorism boasts that the Administration
didn't have a John Ashcroft-style press conference on the day of the
arrest.
With Zazi's arrest, administration
officials said they had a renewed sense of confidence that they could
approach security threats in a new way. "The system probably worked the
way it did before, but we made a conscious decision not to have a big
press conference" about Zazi's arrest, a senior official said.
Which is pretty hysterical, coming as it does in one article of
several that are obviously similarly seeded, boasting of Obama's new
approach to terrorism. There are several aspects to this apparent PR
blitz. Articles providing details (though none as detailed as the NPR story over the weekend) explaining how the CIA learned of Zazi and shared info with the FBI. Articles discussing
the address by Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Robert Mueller
yesterday, lauding information sharing. All of which will lead into
coverage of Obama's address to the National Counter-Terrorism Center,
scheduled for today at 11:40.
We didn't have a press conference when we arrested Zazi, the WaPo's
source (who could be Rahm or John Brennan) seems to be saying, but
we're sure as hell going to have a media blitz about it when it serves
our purposes.
What's especially nice about this WaPo piece, though, is it makes
the goal of the media blitz explicit, tying it to the discussion of the
PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, the Obama
administration is pressing Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize
three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire in late December.
They include the use of "roving wiretaps" to track movement, e-mail and
phone communications, a tool that federal officials used in the weeks
leading up to Zazi's arrest.With the apprehension of Zazi, as well as several other covert
operations at home and abroad, the Obama administration is increasingly
confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil
liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country.
Note, however, that the WaPo focuses on one of the least controversial of the practices, roving wiretaps.
It does not discuss how the Administration wants to lower the legal
standard for allowing FBI agents to get business records and things
like medical records on people who may have no tie to terrorism. It
does not talk about National Security Letters, which let the FBI get
certain records with no court review. And it does not discuss how the
Administration is using more and more data mining of US persons.
In other words, it boasts of Obama's approach to terrorism without
actually revealing what it is, without even providing the level of
detail Dina Temple-Raston provided over the weekend.
So the PR blitz serves the same purpose as John Ashcroft's
circus-like pressers did: to wow citizens that our national security
team has prevented an act of terrorism. But to offer that--rather than
an honest discussion of what that means for civil liberties--as the
sole discourse on terrorism.
Don't get me wrong: the men and women who tracked down Zazi deserve
some public kudos. But that shouldn't be tied to a political campaign
designed to further curtail civil liberties.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.