About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Angle uncritically reported Hatch's remarks downplaying reach of government's warrantless eavesdropping program

July 10, 2008 6:57 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

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.

19 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 10, 2008 7:28 pm ET)
         
      The FISA argument isn't over. About 20 Dems senators joined in shreding the fouth amendment. Did any Gopper fail to carry water to a shrub on this?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 10, 2008 10:56 pm ET)
           
        Two. Both no shows. One of the non voters was the coward McCain who doesn't have the balls to take a stand. I'm not pleased with Obama, but at least he had the balls to vote. McCain is just a coward who hides behind his POW status. He thinks he's Braddock, but he's really McHale.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (July 11, 2008 9:33 am ET)
             

          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!!!!  :-)

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 10, 2008 7:51 pm ET)
         
      These wizzards don't want to know that giving the government an inch, they will grab a mile. There are people attached to these telecom industries who program the computers, and these individuals are just as fallible as anyone ( or should   say greedy ). I live in the state of washington and the state has decided to use the homeland security $$$$ and buy a fancy airplane, replete with special sensors, to catch speeders and drunk drivers.  it can be argued it is a noble cause, but it does give this state the power to become a police state very quickly, under rogue leaders, possibly suspending constitutional powers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (July 10, 2008 7:52 pm ET)
         

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (July 10, 2008 8:10 pm ET)
           

        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.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 10, 2008 11:58 pm ET)
             
          Bush only has a few more months in office. By the time a sentence is handed down, Bush will be an old guy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (July 11, 2008 9:34 am ET)
             

          I think Bush can pardon them so that's unlikely to happen. 

          I don't think a corporation can be pardoned....

          Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (July 10, 2008 9:25 pm ET)
         
      Ever since iran contra I have realized Hatch is a total disgrace.  His comments always reflect an attitude which supports the ultra right wing reactionary agenda.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 10, 2008 9:59 pm ET)
           
        Agreed... But Orrin Hatch has always concerned me as he is capable of coming across as an intelligent, persuasive voice for the right wing agenda. I hadn't heard anything from him for a while and wondered why the Repubs had stopped using him to sell their products.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (July 11, 2008 1:56 am ET)
             

          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.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 11, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
               
            I have a comment on the flag lapel. Those soldiers, in the vietnam war, were conducting intelligence missions in the jungle and none of them wore any bling anywhere. As a matter of fact they hid so well, they were able tp penetrate deep within enemy territory. the irony here is wearing a lapel pin would actually prevent then from duty. Just stupid these people who insist you have to wear a pin to be viewed as patriotic, is actually idiotic.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (July 11, 2008 1:52 am ET)
         
      Hatch with his dripping condescension, no longer has any pretense of influencing anyone but his base. I think most people see right through him.  John Boehner is the one used to sell the program, but lack's Hatch's tone which used to be convincing as a principled conservative who nonetheless tried and sometimes convinced others he took a higher moral ground. This so -called principled senator has lost all credibility among those who know his moral compass is permanently right of right.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 11, 2008 8:49 am ET)
         

      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.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hujambobwana (July 11, 2008 3:58 pm ET)
         
      Hatch was correct when he said, "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." Probably not means less than a 50% chance. That means that they could very well be monitoring millions of people who don't have Al Quida on their speed dial.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 11, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
         

      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 / )

      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (July 11, 2008 9:21 pm ET)
         
      Didn't Obama suddenly see the light and voted to approve of the new FISA?  Gosh, looks like any other lefty-dem, he's got to run to the right to have a chance in a national election.  What gives him the audacity of chang-ing his mind?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (July 11, 2008 11:47 pm ET)
           

        Have you even considered your premise is wrong?  Is it even possible in your mind that Obama is not a communist/maoist/trotskyite?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (July 12, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
         

      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

       

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.