Democracy Kills

The national intelligence director explains why Bush's critics have blood on their hands.

Jacob Sullum | September 4, 2007

Since he's resigning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales won't have much chance to exercise his powers under the Protect America Act. The new law charges the attorney general with determining which international communications involving people in the U.S. will be subject to warrantless surveillance.

Members of Congress were so distrustful of Gonzales that they insisted he share this authority with the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. But while McConnell, the apolitical expert, may enjoy a better reputation for honesty and independence than Gonzales, the longtime Bush crony, the two men seem to have similar instincts about privacy and executive power.

In a recent interview with the El Paso Times, McConnell regrets the debate about the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program. "The fact [that] we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he says. "Because it's so public."

McConnell is trying to frighten Americans into supporting President Bush's anti-terrorism policies. Worse, he is charging critics of those policies with complicity in murder.

As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, observes, "He's basically saying that democracy is going to kill Americans." And not just democracy but constitutional government of any kind, since by McConnell's logic anything that interferes with the president's unilateral decisions regarding national security "means that some Americans are going to die."

McConnell wants to have it both ways: Terrorists are so sophisticated that the government needs broad surveillance powers to thwart them, yet they are too stupid to realize someone might be listening to their phone calls or reading their email. Evidently the possibility occurred to them only after they read about it in the newspaper.

Since the discussion of NSA surveillance has not revealed information specific enough to help terrorists escape detection, it seems clear McConnell's real concern is that public debate might impede Bush's policies. This is a new twist on the old argument for secrecy: Information must be kept from the public not just to keep it from our enemies but to prevent the public from objecting to measures the president considers necessary to protect national security.

Providing further evidence that he sees classification as a way to avoid the inconvenience of defending the administration's policies, McConnell uses the interview to confirm something the administration has long insisted it could not safely discuss: that telecommunications companies helped the NSA conduct its warrantless surveillance. Although that much may have seemed obvious, the Justice Department has tried to stop lawsuits against the cooperating carriers by arguing that even acknowledging their help would endanger national security.

But now that Bush wants Congress to give the companies retroactive immunity from liability for aiding and abetting the illegal snooping, McConnell is suddenly more forthcoming. "Under the president's program," he says, "the private sector had assisted us." Now those assistants need assistance, he explains, because "if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies."

Judging from this example, Bush administration officials feel duty-bound to withhold information when it might be useful to critics of the president's anti-terrorism policies, since those policies are necessary to protect national security. But they believe the very same information can—indeed, should—be released at a more opportune time, when it will help the president pursue his policies.

In the interview McConnell makes a point of describing himself as "an apolitical figure" who has voted for candidates from both major parties and is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He means to reassure us that we can trust him, a nonpartisan professional, to make decisions about whose communications to monitor.

But McConnell is a professional spy. He naturally wants to do his spying as free from restrictions as possible. We would not trust prosecutors to say what due process is, and we should not trust spies to define the limits of our privacy.

© Copyright 2006 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Comments

The Extispicator|9.4.07 @ 12:24PM|#

I already saw this movie. Matt Damon is way better looking than that guy. Really captured his attitude toward the public, though.

stuartl|9.4.07 @ 12:36PM|#

I'm to lazy to read both "Democracy Kills" and "Is Democracy Bad for National Security?" Which is Jacob's real article and which was put in by a spy feeding us disinformation.

|9.4.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Why is it that the idea that "some Americans are going to die" is a powerful argument in favor of compromising the constitution, yet a weak argument in discussing the Iraq war?

|9.4.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Ummm, tried to link to the article and got an error message. Maybe put the article on the thread where we can actually read it?

|9.4.07 @ 1:07PM|#

"Why is it that the idea that "some Americans are going to die" is a powerful argument in favor of compromising the constitution, yet a weak argument in discussing the Iraq war?"

I got first dibs on plagiarizing that relentlessly.

|9.4.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Maybe, for the good of the nation we should just stop the continuous second guessing of a government that only has our security and best interests in mind with regard to its policies.

Now excuse me while I go vomit.

LibertyPlease|9.4.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Someone needs to spy on our masters, on our behalf. I miss the old (2000'ish) Government Information Awareness project at MIT. They had the right idea. Don't know why it was discontinued so suddenly.....

|9.4.07 @ 2:30PM|#

"Why is it that the idea that "some Americans are going to die" is a powerful argument in favor of compromising the constitution, yet a weak argument in discussing the Iraq war?"

(snark)Because those involved in prosecuting the Iraq War (police action) are all volunteers. (/snark)

I share your disdain for the war, but face it the Nixonian Republicans ruined war protesting by taking away the draft and making the Armed Forces all volunteer. IMHO the all volunteer military made it too easy for the POTUS to use them for whatever political agenda he sees fit. Too bad.

I know the military comminity likes the voluntary military because it limits the numbers of people who don't want to be in there. I think that loses sight of the true purpose of the American Military, as intended by the Founders. It is supposed to be controlled by Congress, as a deterent to a threat at our borders, not a mercenary force serving at the pleasure of the Executive Branch.

|9.4.07 @ 3:09PM|#

Cliff:

I'll play along. Why is it that soldiers are the most patriotic of all of us, yet they don't count as Americans when we say "Some Americans are going to die"?

|9.4.07 @ 3:32PM|#

"Why is it that soldiers are the most patriotic of all of us, yet they don't count as Americans when we say "Some Americans are going to die"?",/i>

Lamar;

I would say you are right about soldiers being patriots. I volunteered because I believed that the US is the best of all possible places to live and it should be defended.

I would say that they don't count as Americans when the current administration doesn't mention their sacrifices in the overall cost of the war, the bottom line cost to society.

IMHO once a soldier gets killed, his family is paid off and he is forgotten in the growing list of the dead. If a soldier is grievously injured, the Veterans Administration does it's best to deny or limit the soldier's benefits.

Right now is a great time to be a soldier, as long as you don't get injured or killed. I haven't heard of any baby killer comments or protests which call soldiers death merchants, but I have heard lots of stories where the soldiers are not being taken care of like they should be.

|9.4.07 @ 3:41PM|#

trollaohile|9.4.07 @ 4:07PM|#

"we should not trust spies to define the limits of our privacy."

Why? What could possibly go wrong?

|9.4.07 @ 4:13PM|#

There's a new piece up at the NYT site (not behind the wall) about Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel and was right in the middle of the wrangling over the legality of the "war on terror" policies: interrogation, surveillance, tribunals and all. Goldsmith was like Comey, apparently, someone who refused to allow his desire to please his political bosses to overcome his convictions about the rule of law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html

What's interesting about this is how the details of exactly how the administration bent the laws to increase the powers of the executive branch in the name of national security are trickling out, little by little. It's pretty satisfying to think of the VP and his advisors saying to each other, isn't there some way we can shut this guy up? No, not entirely.

It is nice to get these kinds of reminders that eventually the whole truth is going to come out. Also note the ironic point about how the end result will be the shrinking, not the expansion, of executive branch powers.

Shaun Connell|9.4.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Interestingly enough, I believe that democracy isn't justified to any extent. After all, democracy is based upon the idea that, statistically at least, "might makes right." To be honest, the people can't be trusted -- they just wave back and forth gobbling up what the media feeds them. Sad but true. ::shrug::

LarryA|9.4.07 @ 9:19PM|#

Interestingly enough, I believe that democracy isn't justified to any extent. After all, democracy is based upon the idea that, statistically at least, "might makes right." To be honest, the people can't be trusted -- they just wave back and forth gobbling up what the media feeds them. Sad but true.

I don't recall any governments where an excess of democracy led to the downfall of a country. Excessive control by government, however, has pretty much a straight record of failure.

|9.5.07 @ 5:40AM|#

It would seem that the authority to listen to suspect overseas conversations is either necessary to our defense against terrorists, or it is not. The Congress has decided that, for this month or so, it is, but they have arrived at that conclusion only after accusing the President and his administration of being in the business of spying on Americans gratuitously, of being entirely without care in carrying out their responsibilities, and of lying about the need for such surveillance. It was probably wise of them to change their minds.
As far as Mr. McConnell's comments are concerned, I believe it likely that the heated and hardly rational discussion fomented by the Democrats has caused some terrorists somewhere to be more careful with their communications, and that might cost a great number of American lives--will probably cost a few lives in any case. But in his embarrassment at his party's various retreats Mr. Sullum wishes to make from McConnell's remarks the case that Mr. McConnell is against democracy. In similar ways other leftist writers have been trying to depict the President as opposed to democracy, and this has been successful with both their leftist and moderate Democrat readers. This is all substantially revealing--both about Mr. Sullum and about Democrats.

|9.5.07 @ 9:53AM|#

"I don't recall any governments where an excess of democracy led to the downfall of a country."

Chile, 1972. There are other examples in Latin American history as well, but aside from Chile, many of the other examples are of the dubious banana republic-style democracy.

|9.5.07 @ 10:09AM|#

"I believe it likely that the heated and hardly rational discussion fomented by the Democrats has caused some terrorists somewhere to be more careful with their communications,"

You believe that? Oh, I see. You qualified it by saying it is only "likely" that "some" terrorists "somewhere" are going to be "more careful" with their communications. What horse hockey. Why don't you just admit that terrorists aren't blabbing their plans over the telephone? This whole telephone tapping thing is purely to cover the Federal Governments ass in case of another attack. Listening in to telephone calls won't do a thing to stop terror, but at least they can say they're giving it they're all.....by engaging in worthless surveillance.

"and that might cost a great number of American lives"

As opposed to 3,000 GIs in the desert? And YOU'RE the one accusing the Democrats having inconsistent values because something may or may not cause terrorist groups which may or may not exist or possibly alter their communications which are unlikely to be taking place over the phone?

Don Carlson, the Democratic retreat is repugnant to most of us here (I tend to think registered Democrats are a small minority), just as repugnant as the neocon theory that we have to destroy liberty to save it. Both parties want to cover their ass in case of another attack, and neither seems to think a link between spying on Americans and a reduction in terrorism is necessary.

|9.5.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Don Carlson,

On some other site, you might be able to get away with the inaccurate assertion that the subject of debate was overseas phone calls, or with not once using the word "warrant" in describing the debate that just occured in Congress.

But this is relatively smart crew here, and your attempts to steal those two bases are fooling no one.

|9.7.07 @ 1:10PM|#

McConnell is right. A press leak during the Clinton Administration alerted Bin Laden that we were surveilling his satellite phone, and he stopped. Apparently he was too stupid to realize we could and would do that.

The real danger of disclosure however is that it exposes us toour most effective enemies, those within. The ACLU, Democrats, media and courts will sieze upon every new revelation of sources and methods to tie our hands, as emerged yuesterday in the latest court ruling to declare unconstitutional a Patriot Act amendment even the Democrats saw as necessary.

Al Qaeda is intent upon commiting acts of nuclear terrorism on the US. Chances are they will succeed. The only chance we have of stopping them is through unbridled signal and human intelligence. But, as Osama has said "Our enemies are fools". Our bureucratic, paranoid culture will prevent those who are trying to protect us from an American Hiroshoima from doing their jobs, especially under the next Clinton Administration. We will be attacked with nuclear weapons, and having no one to counterstrike against, we will in all probability capitulate to Al Qaeda in the face of nuclear blackmail.

|9.7.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Why is it that the people inside the beltway, Republicans and Democrats both, don't understand that if we give up the freedoms for which we fought a revolution the terrorists win? Is there anything we can do to help them understand that?

|9.8.07 @ 7:04PM|#

"Since the discussion of NSA surveillance has not revealed information specific enough to help terrorists escape detection, it seems clear McConnell's real concern is that public debate might impede Bush's policies. This is a new twist on the old argument for secrecy: Information must be kept from the public not just to keep it from our enemies but to prevent the public from objecting to measures the president considers necessary to protect national security."

The point of such secrecy is to preclude certainty on the part of those being observed, to prevent fearmongering that might end successful operations and to protect sources of useful information from harm.