Angle uncritically reported Hatch's remarks downplaying reach of government's warrantless eavesdropping program
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that during debate on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, "Senator Orrin Hatch dismissed the idea that the intelligence agencies were trying to listen to anyone other than those with terrorist connections" and aired a clip of Hatch stating, "I don't want to bruise anyone's ego, but if Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial, the government is probably not interested in you." Angle did not note that several news articles have reported that surveillance under the government's warrantless eavesdropping program was not limited to those with "Al Qaeda on [their] speed dial," but also included thousands of Americans with no ties to any terrorist group.
In a report on the Senate's passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that aired during the July 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle aired clips of senators debating whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the administration's warrantless surveillance program. He then stated that during the debate on the bill, "Senator Orrin Hatch [R-UT] dismissed the idea that the intelligence agencies were trying to listen to anyone other than those with terrorist connections" and uncritically aired a clip of Hatch stating, "I don't want to bruise anyone's ego, but if Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial, the government is probably not interested in you." However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, here, and here), following the December 2005 New York Times article revealing the existence of the government's warrantless surveillance program, several news articles reported that surveillance that occurred under the program was not limited to those with "Al Qaeda on [their] speed dial," as Hatch put it, but also included thousands of Americans with no ties to any terrorist group.
For instance, a February 5, 2006, Washington Post article reported that according to "officials conversant with the program," "a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no." The article further reported that according to "current and former government officials," "[i]ntelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." Discussing "how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority," the Post article reported that "[t]wo knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000," and added that "[t]he program has touched many more Americans than that." The article continued:
Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, "wash out" most of the leads within days or weeks.
Similarly, a November 25, 2006, New York Times article reported that "government officials involved" in the wiretapping program "have said that it has often led to dead ends and to people with no clear links to terrorism."
In addition, the warrantless surveillance program reportedly led the FBI to look at people not in contact with alleged overseas terror suspects themselves. According to a January 17, 2006 New York Times article, "officials who were briefed on the N.S.A. program said the agency collected much of the data passed on to the F.B.I. as tips by tracing phone numbers in the United States called by suspects overseas, and then by following the domestic numbers to other numbers called. In other cases, lists of phone numbers appeared to result from the agency's computerized scanning of communications coming in and out of the country for names and keywords that might be of interest." Discussing FBI frustrations with the tips generated by the program, the article reported that, even after the NSA instituted a rating system for the tips, "in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more 'calls to Pizza Hut,' one official, who supervised field agents, said."
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
SEN. KIT BOND (R-MO): There is no reason to deny retroactive liability protection to these carriers.
ANGLE: But some were not persuaded.
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): The so-called compromise strikes no balance at all, in my view. Let us be very clear. The courts have continuously shown an ability to handle cases with sensitive security issues.
ANGLE: Senator Orrin Hatch dismissed the idea that the intelligence agencies were trying to listen to anyone other than those with terrorist connections.
HATCH [video clip]: I don't want to bruise anyone's ego, but if Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial, the government is probably not interested in you.
ANGLE: Some congressional skeptics may have been swayed by another part of the law which orders the inspector general to conduct a year-long investigation into past eavesdropping. So at some point lawmakers will know exactly what happened, creating at least a slim chance that the long and mostly uninformed public debate might actually come to an end.















He thinks he's Braddock, but he's really McHale.
Gramps McCain is more like Sgt. Shultz on Hogan's Heroes - he knows nothing - NOTHING!!!! :-)
I agree with Keith O. Criminally prosecute the telecoms if possible.
Orrin Hatch was on c-span talking about FISA, and he asked rhetorically why we should punish the poor telecoms because they simply followed a presidential request in order to fight the terrorists.
Well, for one thing, their lawyers knew they were breaking the law, ergo, the bigwigs knew they were breaking the law. Quest didn't go along, and guess what, all their government business dried up. Investigate and indict.
I agree with Keith O. Criminally prosecute the telecoms if possible.
I think Bush can pardon them so that's unlikely to happen. And the Congress just took away any civil recourse.
I think Bush can pardon them so that's unlikely to happen.
I don't think a corporation can be pardoned....
I have seen the guidelines for surveillance, and they're pretty tight.You can only be spied on if;
Your middle name is Hussein
or rhymes with Hussein, like Jane,Shane or Puddin Tain, or you went to Tulane,or ever watched Jack LaLanne
You have ever administered a terrorist fist jab, or watched a sporting event where one was given, or posted on a website poking fun at the ridiculous idea of a terrorist fist jab.
You own a computer and have ever spoken on the phone for an extended period with anybody in the vicinity of Pakistan
Or have ever removed your American flag lapel pin to get through airport security.Or were not wearing one when going through airport security.
Everybody else has nothing to worry about.
if Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial, the government is probably not interested in you
What these nimrods will never be able to answer is this simple question: Without judicial oversight, HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?! The most currupt administration since Harding is basically saying "Trust us." And they have never demonstrated that there was ever anything wrong with FISA in the first place. It was a rubber-stamp court. Amazing that they try to eliminate even that minimal level of oversight and then say "But don't worry, we'll just listen to the TERRORISTS." Well HOW DO WE KNOW? W(ho)TF DO YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TO WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT! IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE, WHY ARE YOU BEING SO SECRETIVE?!
Here's hoping President Obama makes good on his promise to ace any of W's anti-terror laws that he and his attourney generla feel don't pass constitutional muster.
quote
Angle uncritically reported Hatch's remarks downplaying reach of government's warrantless eavesdropping program
until they themselves become a target for such activity. ( remember the 1950's witch hunts in congress / )
Have you even considered your premise is wrong? Is it even possible in your mind that Obama is not a communist/maoist/trotskyite?
Closed,
I would be more than happy to demonstrate the leftedness of the candidate Obama. However, that is usually when my comments get flagged as being off topic.
As to the other matter of the vote, how is it that this is not a reversal, calculated or otherwise and a betrayal of what he claimed he would do?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/index.html