COUNTER COUNTER COUNTER COUNTERINTUITIVISM. Over at The Plank Josh Patashnik criticizes Scott Lemieux and Matt Yglesias for their mockery of Ben Wittes's TNR piece in support of the much-derided warentless wiretapping bill. The only problem is that he doesn't actually disagree with them. No, he just wants "more hand wringing":
I'm not entirely convinced by Wittes's claim that the bill Congress passed was a sound one, but I also can't help but feel that Yglesias and Lemieux are being a bit cavalier in their dismissal of the need for expanded surveillance powers in the first place. There's probably no good way out of this dilemma (so perhaps a law with a strict sunset provision isn't such a terrible place to start), but it would be comforting to at least see a bit more hand-wringing and equivocation from Yglesias and Lemieux before condemning Wittes's piece.
It's not every day you see a call for more equivocation. The basic argument is just as silly. There isn't a choice between the bill that was passed and no change. Rejecting a proposal with obvious problems doesn't preclude passing a reasonable one. Both Matt and Scott make it clear they want a proposal with meaningful checks and balances because, without them, it doesn't matter what the law says, the executive will do whatever it wants. Witte is right that there are technical changes that need to be addressed, but for Patashnik to suggest that any bill that addresses them should be rejected only extremely reluctantly is absurd. Sometimes the cure is far worse than the disease, and when the cure is basically unlimited surveillance powers I don't need to equivocate very much before rejecting them.
--Sam Boyd
