I was watching the CBS morning show today when they ran a piece about the pregnant teenage girls who supposedly made a pact to all get pregnant. The piece showed the mayor of the city where this happened giving a press conference about the charges. According to the mayor, when they questioned the high school principal, who was the source for the original story, about what evidence he had to substantiate his charges he suddenly lost his memory. The CBS piece then went on to tell the viewers that TIME magazine was the one who originally broke this story using the principal as their source.

Heckuva Job there TIME for giving the public the fact free Pelosi/FISA story AND the fact free pregnancy pact story. Boy you guys are really on a roll.

Here's a NYT piece that gives the same info and advises that TIME has updated their story but it's pretty clear that the update is nothing but a CYA effort by TIME.:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/principals-claims-on-pregnancy-pact-disputed/?hp

Can we go back to John Murtha, please?

If I remember correctly John Murtha voted for the FISA "compromise".

Prog Todd

We need to urge every Democratic Senator to STRIP TELECOM IMMUNITY for actions taken before 9/11/01 in the Senate version of the FISA bill

The House bill provides immunity for actions taken after 9/11, not before...Glenn Greenwald

I think what Prog Todd is saying is that because some have suggested that the telecoms were asked to spy on Americans prior to 9/11 (Qwest) then a bill that only gave immunity for spying since 9/11 would not offer immunity to the telecoms for any spying they did prior to 9/11 and might allow the suits to continue, if they could prove that the spying occured prior to 9/11.

Prog Todd brought up an interesting point about whether the FISA immunity covers spying prior to 911. Glenn responded by saying that the FISA bill only applies to spying after 911. So if it can be proved that the FISA spying occured prior to 911 would the law suits be able to continue? I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer that question but it's an interesting theory, no?

This story in the WaPo supports the idea that illegal spying may have occured prior to 911 and is the basis for my previous question raised in my post called Loophole. Is there a possible loophole in the FISA bill if spying were in fact done prior to 911 or is this theory not possible?

Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm

Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says

By Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A01

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html

A just a few minutes ago a Washington Times reporter on MSNBC (sorry didn't catch his name) said the Charlie Black comment was really bad because it invites terrorists to attack us. I wish more people in the media would spell it out this clearly.

About 10 - 15 minutes ago a reporter for the Washington Times appeared on MSNBC (sorry didn't get his name). In a discussion about the Charlie Black statement this reporter said what was really bad about the statement Black made was that it invited terrorists to attack us. I wish more people in the media would make that connection and tell their viewers/readers.

Sorry to post another MSNBC story but I just watched them try to help the hapless Time magazine continue to try to insinuate that their story about the pregnancy pact was accurate even though all evidence shows that it wasn't. This is another example of why we don't need any more media consolidation.

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE BILL, H.R. 6304

Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 09:08 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2008

Contact: Contact: Marjorie Cohn, NLG President, marjorie@tjsl.edu; 619-374-6923

Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director, director@nlg.org; 212-679-5100,

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE BILL, H.R. 6304

New York. The National Lawyers Guild condemns the passage by the House of Representatives of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) bill, H.R. 6304, and calls upon the Senate to stand up for the Fourth Amendment and vote “No” when the measure comes before that body for approval this week.

“Senator Feingold has said it well,” said Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. “This is not a compromise measure; this is a total capitulation to the White House.”

http://nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry080624-090840