Governin': Sen. Dan Coats Questions The Wrong Witness At The Wrong Hearing

from the thank-god-for-video-cameras dept

Let's all admit something: being in government ain't easy. Between all the lies you have to keep straight, counting all that bribe lobbying money, and constantly looking over your shoulder to see if the CIA is having you followed back to your office, being a representative of the people is one hell of an undertaking. Maybe that's why that revolving door of government and lobbying keeps spitting folks out of our congressional buildings.

Take Senator Dan Coats, for instance. Coats is a serious guy with serious thoughts, such as "Hey, why can't the damned public trust us to spy on them?" and "That guy looks like he has no friends, so he's probably a terrorist!" His most recent thoughts, however, appear to be something along the lines of, "Holy crap, where the hell am I?" Here's your senator at work, Indiana.

Should you be unable to see the video, that's Senator Coats sitting down and questioning the wrong witness at the wrong hearing that he wasn't even supposed to be attending. He rambles on a bit and you can almost see the hamsters spinning up in that noggin as he looks at the witness: "Wait a minute, something isn't right." But he powers through his mistake like a champion until a helpful aide passes him a note that I imagine read something close to: "The home called and they want you to go back to your room and take your pills."

Look, it's a mistake, I get that. Hell, I've shown up at some really awkward places due to a scheduling mishap (big shout out to all my girls from the Saint Benedict's Nunnery bathroom, yo!), but to not only show up in the wrong place at the wrong time, but actually start questioning the wrong damned witness makes me wonder if Coats has anyone around him helping him out. He's not...a loner, is he?

Filed Under: congress, dan coats

Sen. Dan Coats Uses His Five Minutes At Intelligence Committee Meeting To Rant About Media And 'Non-Trusting' Public

from the this-question-isn't-so-much-pertinent-as-it-is-long-and-pointless dept

Apparently, Sen. Dan Coats wasn't clear on the specifics of Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee meeting. The discussion was supposed to revolve around reforms of existing surveillance programs and a general push for more transparency and oversight. Coats, however, arrived with a head full of angried up blood and proceeded to pull a complete Abe Simpson.

Each senator was given five minutes to ask questions and receive responses. Coats blew his allotment by asking a question that wasn't a question, but was filled with contempt for nearly everyone who a.) wasn't the NSA and b.) wasn't a charter member of the National Surveillance Network Booster Squad.

Normally, I'd just excerpt a bit of it, but the whole thing is amazing in its complete tone-deafness. (There's a clip of it below, which should also be viewed to get the full "Old Man Yells at Cloud Americans" experience.) What makes Coats' pro-NSA rant even more jarring is the fact it followed directly after Ron Wyden aggressively painted Gen. Alexander into a corner about the NSA's cell site data collections, forcing the NSA head to use the "not under this program" escape hatch.

Well, Madam Chairman, the word trust has come up a couple of times here. And I think that's clearly something we'll have to deal with that makes it difficult to convince the American people that very significant measures have been taken to protect their privacy.

What's disturbing to me is that, despite the information that has been provided, declassified, made available to the public, made directly available to the media, has not resulted in always accurate analysis and presentation by the media or understanding by the public. They -- they just don't want to believe it.

I was shocked one morning in listening to a major network program, on one of the major networks, having discussed previously General Alexander, General Clapper and others at NSA [pause] that that media outlet had been briefed, given relevant, classified information to certain people who were in charge of this programming [pause] only to have, in a discussion during that program, a comment by the lead individual of, "Look. They're listening to everything we say."

This was after a detailed discussion about the programs -- what NSA does and doesn't do, what the intelligence committee does and doesn't do -- knowing that the leadership of those media outlets had been [?], briefed and given accurate information. And yet, because it's pleasing to the public -- because you've got to throw raw meat out there to those that refuse to look at the facts. This continues.

I don't know how we address this problem. I commend you, Madam Chairman and the Co-chair, for having an open hearing here. I don't know how many press opportunities or press people will walk away and at least give an accurate analysis and reporting of what is said here.

But it's very frustrating to know that we have programs that comply with the law, and have been approved by the Congress, that have been approved by the President of the United States, that are saving American's lives. And their efforts to compromise those programs, to convince a non-trusting public [longer pause] I guess my question goes to this: that is, we will be presented with a number of proposals in terms of how to further protect American people's privacy. And what I would like to know, and what I would like the committee to know, is that your very clear and direct and unpoliticized analysis and conclusions as to what kind of compromise to your operational programs -- the result, if we implemented these reforms.

What is the consequence of trying to convince a public that apparently doesn't want to be convinced -- what is the compromise in terms of operations and loss of life to those who have dedicated their life to trying to protect Americans? What are we losing by having to go through this tortured exercise of trying to get feedback to -- that no matter what we say, no matter what is provided [pause] The FISA court is now looked down on as "can't be trusted."

Do we need another organization to oversee the FISA court, to oversee your programs? How can we trust that second organization? If we can't put our trust in this committee, in this Congress, in this President -- that what we're trying to do here is provide protection for the privacy of American people but save their lives from another horror situation like 911.

We have proven that we have prevented these programs from going forward. We will not probably always be successful. But have you not had these programs in place, I would hate to think what we might be talking about here this morning, what kind of headlines and what kind of incidences we would have been reporting -- and the public's demand for why didn't you, if you had the capability to stop it, why were you prevented from doing it?

A brief pause and then this bit of hilarity as Coats catches a glimpse of the clock.

I guess I don't have a question. My time is up.

Evidentally, Dan Coats believes the best way to improve the NSA's oversight is to shut up and stop questioning the government. Shorter version: this would be a great country if it wasn't for all the people. Like many other supporters (and Gen. Alexander himself, who claimed that if the NSA had the bulk records collection in 2000, it could have prevented the 9/11 attacks), Coats conjured up the 9/11 Pt.2 spectre, implying that our blood will be on our hands if anything even slightly stymies the NSA's collection activities. By the end of his non-question, he bore a startling resemblance to someone who had forgotten where he was and what he was supposed to be doing -- not really the sort of image an "overseer" of national security programs should project. And by attacking the public for its lack of trust, he came across as someone who clearly shouldn't be trusted. How ironic.

Filed Under: congress, dan coats, intelligence committee, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, senate

Sen. Dan Coats On The Boston Bombing: You Know Who We Need To Keep An Eye On? Loners.

from the because-constant-surveillance-makes-the-unsocial-more-sociable dept

In the right hands, an attack like the Boston Bombing can make terrorists of us all. All it takes is a "type." Columbine turned trench coat ownership and Marilyn Manson fandom into signs of impending, shotgun-toting DOOM. (Or rather, "doom." Sorry.) 9/11 turned anyone with darker features and a copy of MS Flight Simulator into a suicidal zealot. Newtown turned Call of Duty players into ticking time bombs. (Mass Effect players already were ticking time bombs, but often exploded harmlessly into walls of text in Kotaku comment threads.)

Every tragedy creates a new archetype for politicians to focus on, as though suspects could be determined simply by one notable characteristic. If we (as one nation, under surveillance) could just track this one type of person, we'd be terrorist-free for years to come.

Senator Dan Coats has declared his pick for the One Type we should be keeping tabs on. In his appearance on ABC's This Week, Coats selected the Archetype Most Likely to Harm Americans. Of this, he seemed 100% sure, although his grasp on which Tsarnaev brother he is referring to is decidedly more vague, as Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy points out.

If we go to the transcript, here's his first intervention, on whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be Mirandized:

COATS: I think we should stay with enemy combatant until we find out for sure whether or not there was a link to foreign terrorist organizations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though he's a citizen?

COATS: Even though he's a citizen. There have been exceptions to this before with the public safety issue of course on Miranda rights. But also the fact that he's traveled back to his hometown which is a Muslim area, could have been radicalized back there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was his brother though.

Now you have to hand it to Senator Coats here -- inside of ten seconds, he makes a dubious statement about the law and a factually incorrect statement. It wasn't like these were obscure facts, either, like the capital of Chechnya or something. So, great prep work, Senator Coats' staff!

Now that the Senator has gotten the "facts" out of the way, it's time to start making generalizations!

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, what do you do though if no connection to a specific group is found? Instead we just find that these young men were inspired by al Qaeda, but not directed. That's almost impossible to find.

COATS: Well it is. And that's the reality of the world we're now living in. Because we not only face terrorism from abroad, that is, planned and coordinated. We face these lone wolves or these others or whoever gathers together that has a vengeance or a demented mind or who has been kind of radicalized through over the internet or through a mosque or whatever. We're going to continue to have to understand that is a threat to America also.

That's why we all need to be engaged in not only looking out for this type of thing, but helping identify and see, whether these loners, is there a kid in the classroom that's just --

RADDATZ: He wasn't a loner. He wasn't a loner (emphasis added).

True, as Drezner offers "in fairness" to the confused senator, it did seem as though the Tsarnaevs were operating without any sort of supporting network (much as Coats seems to be himself). But is this what Coats really wants?

[L]et's skip the preliminaries and get to the more basic point. Is Dan Coats suggesting that high schools profile which kids are loners and put them onto a "possible terrorist watch list"?

"Loner" covers a lot of territory. There are loners who have been ostracized by their peers. There are others who have opted out, so to speak, and prefer a solitary existence. Coats doesn't really seem to know what he's aiming for, but he's obviously not going to let that stop him from dragging "kids in the classroom" into the national debate on terrorism.

If Coats were in charge, the acronymous agencies in charge of our nation's security would be filling their database with all sorts of presumed threats. The weird kids who just don't "fit in." The kids who have no desire to "fit in." Agoraphobics. J.D. Salinger. Sufferers of social anxiety disorder. Some shades of the autism spectrum. Lighthouse operators. Morrissey fans. Former world champion chess players. Florida Marlins season ticket holders.

More seriously, is this what Coats really thinks is a valid method for combating terrorism? Should we (meaning various law enforcement and security agencies) start tracking "loners" at an early age in order to prevent theoretical acts of terrorism? If anyone's concerned that a certain student doesn't have enough friends or participate in enough extracurricular activities, I'm sure additional conversations with school administration, guidance counselors, school psychiatrists and (the now de rigeur) "law enforcement liaisons" should make these troubled youths feel more "normal."

It's quite possible Coats didn't mean for the statement to come across as terribly as it did, especially considering his blissful unawareness of the subject matter at hand, but I'm sure there's an underlying comfort hidden within his moronic suggestion. Terrorists aren't like "normal" people -- they're weird and frightening fringe dwellers who are clearly defined by their stunted social skills and desolate Facebook profiles. Only freaks commit acts of violence, not someone who appeared to be, for the most part, your average foreign exchange student. This sort of "truth" is easier to take. It's just another form of stereotyping -- a very safe option that rarely arouses the ire of the targets and offends no particular group.

Filed Under: boston, dan coats