I've read a lot of what Stewart Baker has written over the years in his various capacities, and i've just never been impressed with either his logic, or his arguments.
He really really doesn't get it, and seems to not be able to follow the logic of his arguments through to their end result (often claiming that those end results just won't happen, despite actual evidence to the contrary).
For example, he doesn't see how (and has in the past denied) his idea of having secret overseers made of a special class of citizens may resultin a star chamber, despite this actually happening multiple times in the past.
He also doesn't understand that his techniques are simply ineffective. Keeping surveillance and its limits secret has not stopped anything from happening. It's just caused it to be abused along the way. The "good terrorists" (in the sense of being good at terrorism, not morality) were already taking literally every precaution anyway, because they have to assume the worst. This is true whether they know they are being surveilled or not.
For a small government conservative, he is one of the most paternalistic people i've seen in a long time when it comes to intelligence. For example, he was responsible for forcing everyone else to provide incoming passenger details to the US, then, on the side, repudiated most of the US obligations to protect the info.
He also strongly believes 9/11 was an intelligence failure, but of "the FBI was required to follow too many laws, and wasn't allowed to use invasive modern technologies" type.
("In my view, there were two problems – a problem with the tools our agencies were able to use and a problem with the rules they were required to follow.")
I think this is an example of why American exceptionalism is so dangerous. If other countries were to implement policies that Baker has proposed, put in place, followed, etc., then it would be bad, and I suspect Baker would be able to recognize the badness. But America can do it because, well, America is already the Land of the Free, didn't you know? So obviously those abuses can't happen in America, because America is the Land of the Free.
That's how he can dismiss the evidence, because that's other countries, and the lesson doesn't apply to America.
Probably this doesn't bubble up to conscious awareness, and perhaps in Baker's case I'm being too generous and he really is just a straight-up fascist. But for average folks, who don't have any political power, and who nonetheless buy into this nonsense, I think this is a common frame they use to convince themselves.
I always thought it was funny: On the old http://www.volokh.com/ site, most blog posts would have a lively debate in the comments. But every post by Stewart Baker had comments turned off.
It's nice that The Volokh Conspiracy is now on the Washington Post because now Stewart Baker can't disable comments and people can point out the elementary flaws in his reasoning.
>He also doesn't understand that his techniques are simply ineffective. Keeping surveillance and its limits secret has not stopped anything from happening.
... did you not read that as satire? It pretty clearly seemed to be satire.
I thought the whole thing was a reductio ad absurdum re: keeping the extent of surveillance secret.
I don't think this means what you think it means :)
I addressed exactly the claims he was quoted about in the article, and pointed out other issues with his reasoning. I pointed out these exact reasoning flaws seem to be a recurring issue with him.
I did not attempt to invalidate his argument by attacking his character, I attacked his character on the side.
Criticism of a writer is only argumentum ad hominem if that criticism is an attempt to invalidate the the writer's statement by means of questioning his authority, which is certainly not what the OP was doing. Discussing the author's qualities outside of a debate of of the article's thesis is totally in-bounds.
Not authority; credibility. It's a nitpick, but the distinction is important when we're discussing government agents. Credibility is essentially rhetorical authority ("I am willing to take your word because I consider you an expert in the relevant domain"), rather than the kind of authority derived from official bestowment of power.
But we're talking about this guy named Stewart Baker, who just so happens to have authority as a senior officer of the executive branch of the United States Government.
This is also a type of authority. It is not the relevant type of authority when discussing whether or not a statement is an ad hominem.
It's impossible to point out that someone is blatantly lying without drawing attention to the fact that they are the sort of person who would blatantly lie.
Character and speech are inseparable. As the line from Shakespeare says "Speak, so that I may see thee."
Indeed, we are constantly evaluating the intelligence, integrity, goodwill, and authority of people based—in large part—on what they say.
It's absurd to think that we cannot demolish an argument as dishonest, stupid, ill-informed, or made in bad faith because doing so would inevitably imply the same of the speaker.
One of the he best reasons for maintaining a culture of free speech is that it permits the dangerous idiots to self-identify.
I'm not him, but such ridicule, while perhaps not appropriate for HN, is often effective at getting the target to think before they speak in the future (at least concerning the particular topic being discussed).
People don't like being ridiculed, so ridicule often gets through to them when straightforward corrections do not.
Hey sorry, didn't see this response til now. I've grown a bit tired of the endless snark and grasping at straws to make others look bad. I felt like mocking a really terrible, obtuse point would be fair.
He really really doesn't get it, and seems to not be able to follow the logic of his arguments through to their end result (often claiming that those end results just won't happen, despite actual evidence to the contrary).
For example, he doesn't see how (and has in the past denied) his idea of having secret overseers made of a special class of citizens may resultin a star chamber, despite this actually happening multiple times in the past.
He also doesn't understand that his techniques are simply ineffective. Keeping surveillance and its limits secret has not stopped anything from happening. It's just caused it to be abused along the way. The "good terrorists" (in the sense of being good at terrorism, not morality) were already taking literally every precaution anyway, because they have to assume the worst. This is true whether they know they are being surveilled or not.
For a small government conservative, he is one of the most paternalistic people i've seen in a long time when it comes to intelligence. For example, he was responsible for forcing everyone else to provide incoming passenger details to the US, then, on the side, repudiated most of the US obligations to protect the info.
He also strongly believes 9/11 was an intelligence failure, but of "the FBI was required to follow too many laws, and wasn't allowed to use invasive modern technologies" type.
See http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing6/witness_bake...
("In my view, there were two problems – a problem with the tools our agencies were able to use and a problem with the rules they were required to follow.")