New Policy: Normally, my policy here at Pax Plena has been to let all comments ride. Everyone gets a free pass to say what they want. This was the case for a couple of reasons, but mainly because I wanted things to be somewhat fair. I get to opine in every single post and comments are readers brief way of staking their claim on an issue after I've already taken over most of the land. But increasingly, I find that discussion of the issues is an important part of blogging so I'm going to put the policy to rest and reply to comments made on a post from Friday.
Matt of
Matty Fred had a couple of interesting comments/links on the Washington Post
poll, pointing out mainly that some were skeptical of the poll's findings and that a separate poll done by Newsweek contradicts it. Unfortunately for the WP's critics, Saturday's op-ed did little to disabuse them of their skepticism- though their fear of the WP becoming a bastion of conservatism is beyond me. At any rate, the Post ran an editorial by Brookings Institution scholar (again, no bastion of conservatism) Richard A. Falkenrath praising the NSA spy program.
The outcry from the radical left was substantial to say the least. One thoughtful and articulate
blogger from Iowa offered that a constructive solution to the problem was for the Brookings Institution to burn in hell. Oddly, the title bears striking resemblance to some leftist arguments on global warming. Still others have said that the
real poll numbers to look at are the ones from
Newsweek- you know, that beacon of journalistic integrity that ran false stories about American troops desecrating the Quran (and later retracted them) around this time
last year.
Here's the rub- I can't really argue that people have no right to be skeptical of polls. They do. And polls, by definition, are imperfect beasts. Even public opinion is hardly a static entity. In the end, however, what's missing in this vacuous discussion is a genuine critique of the actual poll conducted by the Washington Post. The left may
prefer the Newsweek poll because the magazine matches their political inclinations but this does nothing to discredit the Washington Post's equally compelling aggregation of public opinion. No critique to date has actually offered any legitimate, statistical criticism of the poll's findings. Given this, it seems some on the left are more interested in the truthiness of the matter, rather than finding out exactly what Americans believe.
Regarding the program itself, there's little wonder why most Americans support it. USA Today's account notes that the information regarding cell phone calls was provided by the companies in question voluntarily. Because there is no prohibition against federal agencies receiving voluntarily provided information, the program is legal. In other words, the government didn't bug your phone. It doesn't care who you're dating or what's going on in your personal life. It's simply using numbers to look for patterns to find terrorists. Supercomputers. Cell phone numbers. Patterns. That's it. If you're not a terrorist, don't worry.
In reply, some are
arguing,
The whole point of having civil liberties is that they are not supposed to be subject to a majority veto. Hobbes may not have believed in natural rights, but our founders did. And their opponents, the anti-Federalists, were even more zealous about restraining the powers of the federal superstate, which is why they forced the Federalists to write the Bill of Rights directly into the Constitution.
It's an interesting turn of phrase, but here's what
the Founding Father, George Washington actually said with regards to secret intelligence gathering:
The necessity of procuring good intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged- all that remains for me to add is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon secrecy, success depends in most enterprises of the kind, and for want of it, they are generally defeated.
Like public opinion, times change and some instances require placing a premium on security. Washington understood this. The President understands this. And I believe most of the American people do as well.