« Sue Kunitomi Embrey, 1923-2006 | Main | Judge Edward Becker Passes Away. »
May 17, 2006
Howard Coble's Antiterrorism Dreamscape
I mention this so that you'll appreciate the significance of what follows.
And what follows is a frightening glimpse into how deeply into the minds of the Congress's Republican leadership the lies and obfuscations of the Bush Administration have penetrated.
Yesterday morning, Coble appeared on the Brad & Britt Show on Greensboro's WZTK-FM talk radio station. He was asked about the recently disclosed allegations of NSA data mining from the telephone records of ordinary Americans and their entirely domestic telephone calls.
Consider his response, and the exhange that followed. (You can listen to the mp3 here.)
Britt (one of the show's hosts): Before we let you run, I wanted to get your opinion on this NSA story about the data mining. The story that came out last week in USA Today where Bellsouth and Verizon and AT&T have handed over records to the National Security Agency…As confusion and nonsense go, this is a thing of beauty.Brad (the show's other host): Bellsouth denies that they've been cooperating, by the way.
Britt: It took them a few days to do that, but they finally got out there. What do you think about this story, sir?
Coble: Well, gentlemen, I'm not upset about the wiretapping issue. I mean, we are, after all, at war, and we're dealing with people who, Brad and Britt, would like to kill each of you and me, and they're willing to kill themselves. So I'm not troubled by any of that.
Brad: But, the argument would be, none of us want to get killed, and none of us want to restrict the President or the National Security Agency from doing the job to protect us, but weren't there laws that were skirted, laws that were ignored here? And that's what the argument is over. Or maybe we don't have to abide by the law when we're in a time of war, and everybody should just shut up.
Coble: (laughing) Well, I don't know that I would finalize it that brutally, Brad, but I do think we're going to have to be willing to compromise some of our – I hate to even say this – some of our liberties in view of the enemy that we confront, because we've never known an enemy like this. People who want to kill us, and are eager to kill themselves to make the point. And I think we may have to back off a little bit, become a little more flexible.
Brad: I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, Congressman Coble, only because of the next President being, maybe, a Democrat. Would you be saying the exact same thing if the President were of another party?
Coble: Well, I think I would. I'm a partisan, but I've never been fiercely partisan, and I think I would.
Britt: But this is the difficult part, Congressman, is that we don't know when this war is going to be over.
Coble: I know.
Britt: There was a VJ Day, there was a VE Day. There probably will not be a VT Day.
Coble: I hope there will be.
Brad: "Victory over Terrorism."
Coble: Yeah.
Britt: So indeed, if we give up some of these liberties, are flexible about some of these liberties until the War on Terror is over, when are we going to know when the war's over?
Coble: Well, I'm the eternal optimist, Britt, who always sees the glass half-filled, and I think this war will ultimately be over, and I don't think it's going to be an eternity, uh, it may not be tomorrow, but I hope it will certainly be within the next few months, to certainly no more than … well, I won't put a timetable because I really don't know. But once they can get a government together over there, given that you have four or five sects that don't like each other, and who don't like us, it's going to be a difficult case to make, but I believe it can be done.
Notice first the categorical statement that on the issue of "wiretapping," Coble -- the man in the House responsible for oversight of this very area -- is just "not troubled by any of that."
Period. End of story.
You'd think maybe he'd say something about needing to learn something about the program before making a judgment.
Nope. He's just "not troubled" by reports of government data mining from millions of records of domestic phone calls by American citizens. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Notice next Coble's absurd, reality-suspending "optimism" about the "war on terror." This "flexibility" about civil liberties is just a temporary "wartime" measure, so don't you worry: it'll all be over soon, you see. A few months. Victory is right around the corner.
But then notice what to my eye is the most troubling thing of all. Coble is asked about the likely duration of the war on terror -- the war against al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11 -- and without missing a beat, Coble responds with pie-in-the-sky predictions about the likely duration of the war in Iraq.
No worries about domestic intelligence-gathering by the executive branch. We have to surrender our freedoms to win the war on terror. Victory in the war on terror is just around the corner. And the war on terror is the war in Iraq.
All this from the man who sets the agenda for the Judiciary Committee's oversight of surveillance and homeland security.
Posted by Eric at May 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Comments
i keep wondering when the American People will wake up?
this is insanity.i do not feel safer because of this spying,in fact i am in mortal terror of my government now.
i am more afraid of my government than i am of any terrorists.
br3n
Posted by: brenda banks at May 18, 2006 10:01 AM
When I read the details of the data mining story, truthfully, I wasn't that worried about it. From the details I saw, they were recording which number talks to which number in an effort to corollate or extrapolate trends with known terrorist connections. Seems like a logical step to me.
I like to keep government out of my home as much as possible, but I do recognize that there has to be a balance of privacy and security. From br3n's comment and the tone of Eric's post, it sounds like both of you would not approve of any surveillance whatsoever. Please clarify your positions here if I have misstated it.
Posted by: DC at May 18, 2006 12:04 PM
What is, perhaps, most troubling about this interview is that an elected official sounds exactly like a Fox News anchor, spewing talking points and platitudes, but not ever really saying anything. He clearly does not understand the issues at all, but is instead saying what he thinks sounds "patriotic" or some other such nonsense.
The ignorance and stupidity of those who are tasked with leading the country is astounding.
Posted by: Kristin at May 18, 2006 12:36 PM
4-5 years ago, a few of my more radical friends would say all these things the Bush administration was thinking or going to do or going to lie about, and I'd be agasp. I didn't like the Bush folks, but I thought they were somewhat rational, and somewhat responible, in some sense.
Now, everything they ever said was right. It's been a couple years since I've been shocked over what I hear on a daily basis. Well - shocked isn't the right work - surprised is. I'm beyond being shocked or afraid of what has happened to our country. I hope it is reparable.
Posted by: K at May 18, 2006 1:00 PM
"I like to keep government out of my home as much as possible, but I do recognize that there has to be a balance of privacy and security. From br3n's comment and the tone of Eric's post, it sounds like both of you would not approve of any surveillance whatsoever. Please clarify your positions here if I have misstated it."
We'd like some oversight, like a warrant. That's what continues to be missed in the debate. Liberals are accused of not wanting to do any intelligence seeking, when, in reality, they just want oversight in the form of the constitutionally mandated warrant. Right now, there is none. It's a broader picture - a President and Administration who feel they're above the law, above the Constitution. It's a slippery slope. What will they give themselves the power to do next?
ELM: In addition to warrants, compliance with federal statutes would be nice too. Or is that asking for too much?
Posted by: Kristin at May 18, 2006 1:58 PM
"ELM: In addition to warrants, compliance with federal statutes would be nice too. Or is that asking for too much?"
A President who follows the law is becoming a novel concept in these times, even when his authority for ignoring the law is nothing more than a Resolution to use force as a last restort. Meanwhile, Spector seems to be trying to retroactively deem Bush's actions in compliance with federal statutes.
Sometimes I just think to myself, "what is going on here?" Where is the outrage?
Posted by: Kristin at May 18, 2006 2:31 PM
DC; Here's a little more specificity on at least my concerns. The program is in clear violation of current US law and DoD regulations because it collects and maintains information about US persons beyond the exceptions recognized by the law as necessary (e.g. international terrorists, persons in imminent danger, information given with consent). There is inadequate oversight to ensure that the information is not used for purposes beyond the current program's intent. The history of such programs has been that they start with a narrow focus and then expand to clear abuses. That's why we created these laws in the first place. And, finally, during today's testimony Gen Hayden revealed that the basis for the DoJ's determination that the program is legal was "Article 2". That's a reference to the Unitary Executive theory which I find incredibly dangerous because it, by definition, is completely unbounded. According to that theory, literally anything the President does "in wartime" is legal so long as he claims that it is necessary to fight the war.
Posted by: Mojo at May 18, 2006 8:02 PM
Is it another bad sign that the House Committee on the Judiciary web site front page you liked to mentions the "Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA)"? Just a typo but you'd think they could at least get the name of the law they're responsible for right, if not the content.
Posted by: Mojo at May 18, 2006 8:28 PM
Mojo and others, thanks for responding with details of your objections to this data mining issue. A few more thoughts:
In many (but not all) areas, I have been pleased with the performance of the Bush administration. I will admit that this is perhaps part of the reason why this story did not make me react in the same way as those on the left. HOWEVER, I find it difficult to give creedance to the liberal viewpoint when behind every sentence they utter I hear, "I hate Bush". It seems as though many on the left oppose any initiative by the current administration based solely on their hatred of Pres. Bush. For a case in point, I refer to the first comment in this thread.
As for the legality of the data mining, you have given me some food for thought. I did some additional reading on the issue. [This is probably the point where I should tell myself that I'm getting into legal debates with a blog full of lawyers and I should probably stop. Oh well.] Anyways, it looks like there are some important distinctions between content- and non-content surveillance. The US Code 3121 says that "no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978". It goes on to say that this permission once obtained would only allow the agency to only trace the calls, not record the content thereof. In press briefings, the White House has said that all surveillance was done with court-authorization. Assuming this is true (I understand that some of you may have reservations doing so), it seems as though the data mining fell within lawful bounds.
Posted by: DC at May 19, 2006 9:41 AM
Yesterday at the Sixth District Democratic Convention, Rory Blake, Coble's opponent this year, mentioned this in his speech:
"Did any of you hear Howard Coble on the Brad and Britt radio show in Greensboro? Well, basically he said he wasn't concerned about all the surveillance because, after all, these are people who are trying to kill you and me, and if we have to give up a few rights in to fight them, it's OK with him. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are Americans. We will not give up our freedom. We will not give up our rights. We will not give up our liberties. Not for this cause or any other."
You will find the full text of his remarks here: http://www.blake06.com/may20.asp.
Posted by: pete at May 21, 2006 5:47 PM