| |
 |
| December 17th, 2007 |
|
Media Contact(s): Jared Whitley (801) 524-4380 |
|
Printable Version |
|
|
HATCH DECRIES "FEAR MONGERING" BY OPPONENTS OF FISA
|
| |
Washington – Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) delivered the following speech to rebuff the criticisms of those seeking to incite fear of alleged government activities in the debate over modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) yesterday. The only Republican member of both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, Hatch is a firm proponent of the bipartisan legislation to modernize FISA that cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13-2 earlier this year. Hatch's prepared remarks follow.
On numerous occasions in the FISA debate, we have seen dramatic fear mongering. Many individuals, particularly on partisan blogs, are spreading misleading and malicious information in order to incite fear of alleged government activities.
This bill should not include text which panders to people who believe in imaginary government conspiracies.
There IS such a thing as irrational fear of government. Let’s not forget:
• Our government did not kill thousands of innocent Americans on September 11th.
• Our government did not kill hundreds of people in car bombings at US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
• Our government did not kill 191 people in the Madrid Train Bombings.
• Our government did not kill 52 people in the London Train Bombings.
• Our government did not kill 202 people in suicide bombings in Bali, Indonesia.
The undisputable fact is that terrorists have committed heinous attacks on Americans and have pledged to conduct more. It is not politics of fear to acknowledge this. If we bury our heads in the sand and pass legislation that ignores these risks, we make ourselves more vulnerable. I will not stand by and see Congress pass laws which could create vulnerabilities; Vulnerabilities which expose our families and friends to danger.
Now let me tell you what our government does to protect us. It hires the finest men and women of this great country to utilize their skills to help prevent these types of attacks.
Our job in Congress is to make sure that the people who have sworn to defend us have the necessary tools to try and prevent attacks. What they don’t need is laws with ambiguous language making their jobs more difficult.
One of my colleagues previously stated that “The authority in this bill greatly expands the government’s ability to conduct surveillance of foreign targets”.
The only great expansion I see in this bill is Judicial Jurisdiction. In fact, I’m amazed that we don’t rename the bill “The Unlimited Expansion of Judicial Authority Act”. We’ve advocated so much new responsibility to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that I wonder whether people realize that it has only 11 Judges?
Where is this great expansion in surveillance authority? Since FISA was passed in 1978, the government has been able to target terrorists overseas. This bill amends FISA so that we can continue to target foreign terrorists when they utilize communications over a wire, not just communications over radio or satellite.
This doesn’t sound like a great expansion. Maybe that’s why the government has continued to say that FISA needed to be “modernized”, not that it needed to be greatly expanded.
There is, however, a key expansion in the bill, and it’s a statutory warrant requirement when targeting US Persons, regardless of who they are, what they have done, or where they are located. Notice I said US Persons, not just US Citizens.
Now this idea may sound great to everyone, but we should realize with eyes wide open what this means.
We have heard some individuals claim that the government could use the power of the Protect America Act to spy on innocent Americans. We’ve heard the fear mongering: the government can spy on innocent Americans when they travel overseas. We’ve heard all about American Families on vacation overseas in the Caribbean or in Europe. We’ve even heard that our government could spy on American Military Members who are overseas defending our country!
I find these scare tactics not only ridiculous but extremely offensive. They walk a fine line in seemingly questioning the integrity and judgment of the fine men and women who have dedicated their professional lives to prevent catastrophic attacks on Americans.
Do we really think that intelligence analysts are sitting around waiting for the Smith Family to go on their Family Vacation to Italy so that they can tap their cell phone?
To imply that our country’s intelligence analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign terrorists overseas is a slap in the face to the people who protect our nation. Our government is focusing their attention on terrorists who wish us death, not innocent Americans.
With some decrying the lack of statutory protections for Americans overseas in the Protect America Act, I wonder if they realize that the 1978 FISA law itself provides no statutory protections for Americans overseas?
I would, however, tell my colleagues that Americans overseas are protected by the most important document in the history of our great nation, the United States Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides protection from unreasonable search and seizure. That’s really the question here: Is it always unreasonable for the government to target an American overseas without a court order? Of course not!
I would suggest that the process that has worked for 26 years is the best approach. It’s Executive Order 12333. Since 1981, the government could only target Americans overseas if the Attorney General determined via Probable Cause that the American was an agent of a foreign power. Do we really think an intelligence analyst is going to disregard an executive order and wiretap innocent Americans overseas? Of Course not!
Now with the policy change included in both the intelligence and Judiciary bills, I want to give you an example of how this provision will apply in real life.
Adam Gadahn is an American citizen from Orange County, California. He is also one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists, now believed to be living overseas. He has been indicted for treason and providing material support to Al Qaeda. He has appeared on multiple Al Qaeda propaganda tapes. Here’s some of his quotes:
“The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11th......The streets of America shall run red with blood…casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of attacks may come at any moment”
Now here’s something that should make Americans scratch their heads:
Before September 11th, the government would not need a warrant to target Gadahn. After September 11th, the government would not need a warrant to target Gadahn. But, after this bill is signed, the government will be required to get a warrant to target Gadahn.
Let’s explain that one to the American public.
Would a warrantless interception of Gadahn’s communications be “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. Of course not! But we are requiring something the founding fathers did not, a warrant for all electronic searches of US Persons.
Now I understand the administration is willing to accept a modified version of this amendment that doesn’t include unintended consequences. It is yet another example of how far this proposal goes to satisfy determined detractors who never seem to be satisfied that we are doing enough to “protect” innocent Americans.
I am also amazed at the false descriptions floating around the internet of the program which the President described on December 17, 2005, during a radio address. We’ve all heard the terms: “warrantless wiretapping” or “domestic spying”. But let’s look at what the President actually said during his radio address on December 17, 2005:
“In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.”
I don’t see anything in this statement about domestic spying? I thought the definition of the word “domestic” was pretty clear. If the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was overseas, not to mention a member of Al Qaeda, then it seems fairly obvious that the calls were NOT domestic.
Is this such a hard concept to grasp? Last time I flew overseas, I didn’t fly on a domestic flight. I flew on an international flight. “Domestic Spying” may sound catchy and mysterious, but it’s a completely inaccurate way to describe the TSP. Why don’t the partisan blogs describe it as “international spying”? Isn’t that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our government.
Since so many our so interested in the opinion of the FISC on these matters, I’d like to draw attention to a recent decision. On Tuesday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied a motion by the ACLU for release of court records related to alleged NSA surveillance programs.
This FISC opinion was publicly released, which is only the third time in the entire history of the FISC in which this has occurred.
Given the rarity of this event, I want to highlight a few sentences from the ruling:
“..The identification of targets and methods of surveillance would permit adversaries to evade surveillance, conceal their activities, and possibly mislead investigators through false information. Public identification of targets, and those in communication with them, would also likely result in harassment of, or more grievous injury to, persons who might be exonerated after full investigation. Disclosures about confidential sources of information would chill current and potential sources from providing information, and might put some in personal jeopardy. Disclosure of some forms of intelligence gathering could harm national security in other ways, such as damaging relations with foreign governments. All these possible harms are real and significant, and, quite frankly, beyond debate.”
I think we can agree this is a vitally important public opinion from the FISA, and I ask that it be included in the record.
Regardless of how we came to this moment, it’s time to do what’s right for our country. The time has come for us to work together. We all know that it’s going to take bipartisan support to get this legislation passed. Let’s represent our constituents with our heads held high, knowing that we are doing our very best to balance the necessity for protections of civil liberties with the need to keep American families safe from deadly attacks. We owe them this much.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
