Public Policy Debates: Drones and Spying, Where Do You Stand?

If ever I was going to end up on someone’s watch list…..it’d be after last week. Several weeks ago I attended a public radio sponsored event–a debate about the merits of NSA spying on us. In fact, the title was Spy On Me, I’d Rather Be Safe. A theater full of policy wonks, attorneys and ivory tower academics–how could I resist! 

Fueling a contentious discussion/debate with popcorn and alcohol hardly seemed necessary but it’s the way things are done here. An open bar helped grease the wheels of discussion both pre-event as well as during the audience participation phase. Not really understanding the format I wandered into the theater a little early to take a peek and was quickly whisked into a seat–lucky me, a prime seat smack in the middle, only a few rows back and right next to the videographer. 

 At the beginning (pre-debate) we were asked to vote out position which would then be compared with our position post-debate. Final winner to follow.  

Panelists can fall into a couple of categories: true specialists trying to promote a message or ideal or people simply trying to promote a book. Correction–panelists fall in one category: promoters. This group seemed to lean more toward the first version of promoters–all gainfully employed outside of the book-writing profession and truly convinced of their respective position. Advanced degrees, high ranking governmental pedigrees, and idealists. An able group to face off. Once they laid out their positions for or against governmental spying on us (U.S. citizens) the moderator poked and prodded which was followed by audience questions. 

The concept of spy-related activities isn’t new, not even new to this country. General Washington is often credited with being our nations first spy–and on the British even! During the Revolutionary war he enlisted a number of his men to gather intelligence on British activities. In fact, one of the very earliest examples was Nathan Hale who was subsequently hanged by the British when caught. Even spying on our own citizens has been going on for nearly a century—early examples funded by the government with one particularly infamous program–the Black Chamber. 

Once we’d heard both sides and several human rights folks from the audience had a chance to give questions it was time for our final vote to determine the debate winner. Not even close. 

Fast forward a few short weeks I found myself at another cocktail reception preparing for attending a debate about the use of drones in the military. What is it about cocktail receptions in Washington? Another hyper-credentialed set of panelists along with a gold-star moderator: Juan Williams! Interestingly enough, I’ll always remember exactly where I was when the news about Nelson Mandela’s death hit the wires: sitting in the fourth row middle seat embarrasingly staring at Williams and my unbelievable good fortune to be in the audience. 

After a brief introduction and welcome by Cindy McCain, positions were laid out and Williams began on the process of questioning, challenging and confirming. Unfortunately this format did not have audience voter buttons–so we don’t know how we felt before or after the 90 minute wonk-fest. This group was considerably less contentious toward one another than the spying group. Even the human rights representative, Daphne Eviatar, seemed to acknowledge a place for drones in the military—just not as they’re currently being utilized. One of the panelists, John Bellinger, did a fantastic job of wavering–he happened to be on the group that created our drone policy in the Bush (2) administration then in the position of drubbing the Obama’s expanding use of them.  

Admittedly a little star-struck and fully engaged it was someone difficult for me to disengage long enough to process and reprocess my own opinions. 

 I’d offer him up as a proponent on the human rights side–quite the character to watch. 

My needed didn’t move much on the U.S. spy debate—I started and remain firmly on the position that the methods currently utilized generate exponentially too much information to provide meaningful information–on balance. I read somewhere that the funding put toward domestic spying over the last few years could have full funded a national health insurance plan with money leftover to shore up Medicare and Medicaid. Helluva trade-off. UAVs in the military? Again as currently deployed—cheaper than war but be wary the day one of our enemies utilizes them in the same manner and provides our very rationale to justify their use–perhaps against the U.S.

About the watch list…….there was that incident at one of the Smithsonian’s. But I won’t go into that just yet.