Hatch: FISA Modernization Critics Feed Delusions of 9/11 Truthers

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
June 27, 2008 - 09:50 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

NewsBusters readers are likely aware that Congress has for months been debating an amendment to 1978's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to bring it up to date with technological and geopolitical changes in the past three decades.

Folks on the left view this modernization as an onerous intrusion on privacy rights, and have been preventing this bill -- which was originally signed into law on August 5, 2007, but expired in February -- from being renewed and made permanent.

On Wednesday, with Congress scheduled to adjourn for the Fourth of July recess, Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) told his fellow Senators that the scare tactics being used by the left concerning this matter "feed the delusions of those who wear tinfoil hats around their house and think that 9/11 was an inside job" (video embedded right):

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the inclusion of these onerous oversight provisions which no previous which no previous Congress felt the need to add. How many times have we heard the claims the Protect America Act would permit the government to spy on innocent American families overseas, or on their vacations? Or innocent American soldiers overseas serving their country? Or innocent students, American students who are simply studying abroad? Painting this type of picture only feeds the delusions of those who wear tinfoil hats around their house and think that 9/11 was an inside job.

Was Hatch speaking about folks like this and/or this?

And, as for the abetters and enablers, maybe Hatch was referring to the fifteen Senators that voted against cloture concerning this bill on Wednesday.

Hmmm.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

While we're at it

June 27, 2008 - 14:58 ET by blogonator

We ought to just do away with the Fourth Ammendment. After all, if the government wants to spy on us, then by golly we ought to just trust it not to do anything bad with whatever it discovers about us and the people we choose to communicate with. Or as Republican Sen. Kit Bond put it:

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right. But when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree … that is something you need to do." Link

That's good enough for me.

I did not realize that you

June 27, 2008 - 17:15 ET by BD

I did not realize that you were a member of AQ or a Tali.  You should have told me.

Just out of curiousity, do you consider it illegal to monitor conversations off-shore, in alien lands, and in combat zones?

 

"feed the delusions of

June 27, 2008 - 12:23 ET by sguild2

"feed the delusions of those who wear tinfoil hats around their house and think that 9/11 was an inside job"

That would be Keith Olberdork.

Hey Noel... Thanks for

June 27, 2008 - 14:42 ET by bigtimer

Hey Noel...

Thanks for the update on where the FISA bill is at now...I turned it to the Senate today adn they were already gone.

I did catch Sen. Hatch saying all of this though...he was great...plus I started laughing saying Hear...Hear...to him via the television screen...

Hehehee

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Soooo... They can go on a

June 27, 2008 - 16:04 ET by Rukus

Soooo... They can go on a break for INDPENDANCE DAY, why?? Because we are safe because of what our Forefathers knew and our government knows. We can defeat our enemies by knowing what THEY know beforehand! Spying on the enemy is nothing new, it's been going on since the beginning or our GREAT nation! Duh!! When have we used surveilance against our own people? Except those who deserved it! We are protecting our own citizens! Jeez, why can't these leftist whacko's get it? OK, stupid question. Sorry. There are those who want nothing less than to wipe the US off the map! Period! We need to intercept their correspondance and use it against them! The government doesn't care about your correspondanse unless you plan to hurt us. End of story. Great job Noel! You are a true American!

"Nuke 'em 'til they... oh hell, just shoot 'em!"

Except those who deserved it

June 27, 2008 - 16:39 ET by blogonator

If they had a warrant, if the people doing the searching had established probable cause, great. What's at issue here is the government's ability to just watch, peering into our private lives, without warrants, just the kind of operation at&t was engaged in.

And the hard-liners on the right say, go for it, I’ve got nothing to hide! I’m a Patriot! I love my country!... Till someday maybe you don’t like something your government does. And you want to speak out about it, but you know they’re watching.

“I've lived in a society where people operate under the assumption that somebody else is listening or watching,” said Smith, who wrote a best-selling book, The Russians, shortly after returning from the Soviet Union in 1975. “Over time people start to behave differently. They start to pull in their horns, even if they are technically free to speak and do what they want.” Link

Tyranny doesn't happen overnight. And the frog always thinks the water is merely tepid as you slowing bring it to a boil.

If they had a warrant, if

June 27, 2008 - 17:22 ET by BD

If they had a warrant, if the people doing the searching had established probable cause, great. What's at issue here is the government's ability to just watch, peering into our private lives, without warrants, just the kind of operation

Did we need a warrent to monitor the Japanese Naval transmissions during WWII.  Did we have to go to a judge to get permission to break the "Purple Code?"

How about listening in to the Soviets during the Cold war.  I am certain JFK, RFK, LBJ, JEC and the rest got warrent before listening to the Sovs in foreign lands, right?

And the hard-liners on the right say, go for it, I’ve got nothing to hide! I’m a Patriot! I love my country!... Till someday maybe you don’t like something your government does.

Thank you.

Tyranny doesn't happen overnight. And the frog always thinks the water is merely tepid as you slowing bring it to a boil.

Like the tyranny of the minority instituted by the leftist interest groups such as the ACLU, right?  I am certain that is what you are talking about.

Your entire posting is predicatedont he fact that what is going on is harming US persons, without proof naturally.

Please list all of the US Persons brought to trial and had traffic from their conversations used against them as part of the Patriot Act etc.

ZIIIIIPPPPPPPPOOOOO!

Zippo indeed

June 27, 2008 - 17:29 ET by bigtimer

Zippo indeed BD...

....and on top of that what you have to got through and the time it would take to get one of those warrants could cost thousands of deaths....plus if the military tried waiting for those to go through before going in and taking out the enemy in places like Iraq ect...more of our men would of already been dead.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

mb,Great points all. Yet

June 27, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Chris Norman

mb,

Great points all. Yet many of the people who fret about government eavesdropping, etc. don't object to the deep encroachment of government into our economic and social lives - as long as it's for a "good and worthy" cause - like Global Warming. I wonder also, if while we might object to a future intrusion by a different administration, by the same token, would these same people have objected to all of this if it had occurred under, say, Clinton?

Chris... Of course

June 27, 2008 - 17:35 ET by bigtimer

Chris...

Of course not.

Btw..are you talking to me, BD or mb?

Just curious...lol...

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Yeah, I always hear

June 27, 2008 - 20:11 ET by BD

Yeah, I always hear liberals rail against the US government setting up databases on their activities whcih they see as a violation of their rights. 

But when reminded that the IRS and SOC Security Admin hasve immense databases that dwarf anything held by the DOD, and knows virtually everything there is to know about their financial lives - They just shrug their shoulders and give em a pass.

After all, the IRS makes things "Fair" in their eyes.

BD... These very same

June 27, 2008 - 20:23 ET by Clear thinker

BD...

These very same complainers probably gave an online store more private info when buying a product than the government has.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

ZIIIIIPPPPPPPPOOOOO, BD??

June 28, 2008 - 00:55 ET by sarcasmo

I'd say it's lookin' more like STRIIIPPOOOO. The idea that the "Patriot" Act hasn't been or will not in the future be abused is laughable. This is the same kind of overreaching executive power Republicans used to complain about when Clinton did the same thing, and we all know it because we all saw it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Clinton had the government

June 28, 2008 - 01:02 ET by Free Stinker

Clinton had the government spying on Al Quaida?

No. And are strippers & strip clubs Al Qaida terrorists now??

June 28, 2008 - 01:19 ET by sarcasmo

Clinton had the government spying on US. He wanted to continue a stupid Bush 1 idea (yep, bipartisan antiConstitutional stupidity, who'da thunk it!) with an Orwellian name: "Key Escrow." (Originally, the old English legal term "escrow" implied a trusted third party used to prevent/settle disputes, but "Key Escrow" assumes trusting our obese government as if it were a neutral, trusted third party). Libertarians & civil liberties minded Republicans (a few DID exist) cooperated & stopped him. Barely. But this is the same kind of executive branch overreaching.

Bottom line: When partisan Republicans try to laughably claim there's "never" been an abuse of the "Patriot" Act around here, they can expect to hear about Las Vegas strippers from me. Every time...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

So Bush Sr. & Clinton

June 28, 2008 - 01:23 ET by Free Stinker

So Bush Sr. & Clinton spying on Americans,

Bush jr. spying on Al Quaida.

If strip clubs in Vegas = terrorists?

June 28, 2008 - 01:27 ET by sarcasmo

Sure. But that one has yet to be proven to my satisfaction. And you can call me picky, but at the moment I'm not particularly impressed with Dubya's "nonpolitical" DOJ...
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Now Sarc, please prove to

June 28, 2008 - 08:22 ET by BD

Now Sarc, please prove to me a harm that the Patriot Act has inflicted upon you personnally.

Have you been taken to court and had tapes of your conversations used against you? Yes or No.  (By the way, you are a US Person, right?  I mean, you are not currently residing in Quetta and are a Pakistani are you?)

Can you find ANYONE that is a US person that has had that occur? Yes or no.

 

 

Sorry, but I never said that particular strawman, it's yours.

June 29, 2008 - 00:49 ET by sarcasmo

And once again, it's up to you to prove the Vegas strippers are foreign terrorists or else NOT make the false claim you tried to make about the "Patriot" Act before I stripper-truthsquadded you. Your choice. The harm it inflicted was on a certain Constitution I happen to like.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

1.)  Please tell me the

June 29, 2008 - 08:00 ET by BD

1.)  Please tell me the facts of the supposed case in your own words, then please prove the following issues.

Significance

Harm

Inherency to the program

 

No.

June 29, 2008 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmo

Please go read the linked article that totally refutes your claim, and stop trying to make it a strawman about a guy in Florida instead of Las Vegas strippers.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

1.)  Refresh my memory? 

June 29, 2008 - 08:33 ET by BD

1.)  Refresh my memory?  What guy in FLorida?

Since you cannot put the harm in your own words, I will assume it is not a true harm.

Thank you.

Duh.

June 30, 2008 - 02:44 ET by sarcasmo

Me. The people who you need to prove were terrorists happen to still be Vegas Strippers, as the story which TOTALLY refutes you said, if you could only click a link & read it for yourself. I feel no need to put anything more than mockery of that fact into my own words, as usual. Give it up. This line of argument regarding the "Patriot" Act will continue to be stripper-truthsquadded every time you try it.
JMR

PS I'm still not particularly impressed with Dubya's "nonpolitical" DOJ...

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Okay, a feeble attempt but

June 30, 2008 - 08:59 ET by BD

Okay, a feeble attempt but lets give it a go.

1.)  I will buy for the moment the assertion that an innocent had the program used against them to procede for arguments sake. 

a.SIGNIFICANCE 

1.  Have conventional monitoring programs been similarly abused before without warrent (Answer:  Yes.)

2.  What is the SCALE of the abuse.  Of the 30,000 or so monitoring events (hypothetical number), how many have been used against US persons in an attempt to gain criminal information unrelated to terrorism?   

3.  Has the government admitted that it was the PATRIOT Act that was used to approve the monitoring vice other monitoring programs. 

4.  Who in the NSA approved the monitoring?

b. HARMS:

1.  Has the information gathered on the supposed Strippers been used in a court of law in their prosecution for an offense not related to terrorism? 

2.  Have they gone through an appeals process regarding the information gathered bythe Patriot Act?

3.  Have the people who supposedly abused the law and ordered the monitoring been punished in any form?

4.  Is there potential that the monitoring was ordered as part of a viable anti-terror suveillane program?

c Inherency 

1.  Is there anything in the law that makes it LIKELY that this program will be abused more so than conventional montioring programs?

And refresh my memory, was the guy in Florida abused by WHAT? 

Now we're FINALLY getting somewhere.

July 1, 2008 - 07:01 ET by sarcasmo

a1. Yes. Results? Wrist-slaps, universally, instead of Constitutional enforcement. This must change, and "others did it too" doesn't fly too well with me as an excuse, as others before you have discovered to their chagrin.

a2. Doesn't matter. Constitutions are what they are. Your question is like asking about the scale/size of a turd in the punchbowl. I'm anti-turd.

a3. Looks like it from the story.

a4. God didn't approve it, so I officially suspect a human being. No responsibility assigned to an individual so far, though.

b1. Looks like it from the story.

b2. I have no idea. Nor does it matter for the purposes of my argument.

b3. I don't know for sure, but my money's on: "Nope, as usual."

b4. Dubious at best, but if the government can present an actual warrant they are likely to do so. So far, none.

c1. I think so. Executive branches always hate it when I say "go get a warrant." Clinton partsisans hated it in the last decade, and Bush partisans hate it in this one. The question to ask yourself is what surveilance program HASN'T been abused, because it's such a dangerous & political power, which needs adult, Constitutional supervision at all times.

And the guy in Florida, who is definitely NOT a stripper, is me.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Good lord Sarc, you

July 1, 2008 - 08:24 ET by BD

Good lord Sarc, you RESPONDED IN YOUR OWN WORDS!!!!!!  I feel progress is being made. 

a1. Yes. Results? Wrist-slaps, universally, instead of Constitutional enforcement. This must change, and "others did it too" doesn't fly too well with me as an excuse, as others before you have discovered to their chagrin.

So you lose inherency.  THere is nothing inherent to the Patriot Act that ensures it will be abused any more than other programs.

b4. Dubious at best, but if the government can present an actual warrant they are likely to do so. So far, none.

SInce no mnetion was made that a warrent was not made, we cannot ssume that it was not.

c1. I think so. Executive branches always hate it when I say "go get a warrant." Clinton partsisans hated it in the last decade, and Bush partisans hate it in this one. The question to ask yourself is what surveilance program HASN'T been abused, because it's such a dangerous & political power, which needs adult, Constitutional supervision at all times.

Then I have a simple solution for you.  As president I would appoint all 35D O4 to the bench in accordance tot eh constitution.  There is nothing saying that he could not do so, then they can cross your T's of signing warrents before all raids as they enter the door.

Ooooooh, I like that.

Oh, and once again you lose inherency.

And the guy in Florida, who is definitely NOT a stripper, is me.

Still no proof of a concrete harm to the guy in FLorida.  Has he been arrested and prosecuted in court based on PATRIOT Act data?

Good Lord, BD

July 1, 2008 - 08:29 ET by sarcasmo

You may have actually read a link, so I felt it was worth-it. I feel progress is being made.

a1. I fail to see how I "lose inherency." I explained why Constitutionality is important.

b4. Why? There's no need under the "Patriot" Act. I see no need to assume a warrant unless it's presented, and the linked story mentions no warrant whatsoever.

c1. Then go get elected President and see how that flies, and no, I still don't lose anything. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Repeal is an option.

Still no such allegation unless you count your strawman, which didn't work, again. The Vegas strippers were the truthsquad, not me, remember??
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

a1. I fail to see how I

July 1, 2008 - 08:44 ET by BD

a1. I fail to see how I "lose inherency." I explained why Constitutionality is important.

Inherency means that the problem is inherent to the system.  SImply beeing used by the occasional violator DOES NOT gain you inherency since it must be considered an abheration, and is not part of policy.

It is the equivalent of saying that "Police are bad because A Policeman was a violator".  THis argument loses inherency since it has not been proven that such violations are inherent to the system .

b4. Why? There's no need under the "Patriot" Act. I see no need to assume a warrant unless it's presented, and the linked story mentions no warrant whatsoever.

Pleas reread the portion of your own story discussed by John Ashcroft.

c1. Then go get elected President and see how that flies, and no, I still don't lose anything. Don't like the 4th Amendment? Repeal is an option.

How would this proposal violate the fourth amendment? As a matter of fact, it would strictly FOLLOW the fourth amendment.

Still no such allegation unless you count your strawman, which didn't work, again. The Vegas strippers were the truthsquad, not me, remember??
JMR

Still no proof that the story is accurate, and I asked how the guy in FLorida was effected.  Since you can prove no harm to the guy in Florida, I must assume that none exists.

I am taking a weeks leave and it is time to go hiking.  See ya.

The 4 amendment solves "inherency"

July 1, 2008 - 08:54 ET by sarcasmo

It's turds in the punchbowl, not just one bad cop. In the story, Ashcroft insists it's only for national security, so the question remains: How do Vegas strippers impact national security? Why bypass an existing Grand Jury? Ashcroft fails to explain in the story, and his insistence that he's a good guy isn't Constitutionally sufficient. And if they can obtain secret warrants, as admitted by the "Patriot" act, against the guy in Florida, you have no way of proving they haven't violated his 4th Amendment rights, so I must assume they have. Have a nice hike, I'll be here when you get back.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.