On spying, liberals suddenly limp

Where have all the liberals gone?

President Obama, who as a senator accused the Bush administration of violating civil liberties in the name of security, now vigorously defends his own administration's collection of Americans' phone records and Internet activities.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he thinks Congress has done sufficient intelligence oversight. His evidence? Polls.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi defended the programs' legality and said she wants Edward Snowden prosecuted for leaking details of the operations.

Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, accused Snowden of treason and defended false testimony to her committee by the national intelligence director, who denied the programs' existence.

With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers and the liberal commentariat have been acquiescent to the spying programs. When libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) introduced legislation to curb surveillance powers, he had no cosponsors. When he announced a lawsuit claiming the surveillance is unconstitutional, five members of Congress joined him - all Republicans.

I kept looking for liberal dissent. Last week, the wires reported that a group called Voice of Resistance was meeting outside the Capitol to proclaim Snowden a hero and flog an effigy of Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), one of the first to brand Snowden a traitor. I arrived but found no protest. Instead, there were six journalists and a lone demonstrator wearing an antiabortion ball cap. He told me the group was actually right-wing. "The others are parking the car," he explained.

Polling last week by the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center produced discouraging evidence that Democrats have shed their suspicion of government overreach now that one of their own is in charge. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say terrorism investigations should trump privacy, compared with 51 percent in 2006, when the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping had come to light. Then, 37 percent of Democrats found the National Security Agency's actions acceptable, compared with 64 percent now. (Republicans went in the other direction, suddenly becoming more privacy-conscious.)

Certainly there are differences between now and then. Today the program operates under court supervision and has at least the veneer of congressional approval. (The administration circumvents the law's requirement that only "relevant" records be collected by claiming all phone records are relevant.) And it remains to be seen whether Snowden is a true whistle-blower or somebody who means his country harm.

Yet it is jarring to see the left so compliant now that the surveillance has been sanctioned by a Democratic president. Even if the programs ultimately prove defensible, isn't it worth finding out what they really are before liberals accept a suspension of civil liberties?

Last week, Reid weakly assured reporters that intelligence committee members "have done their very utmost, in my opinion, to conduct oversight. And that's why the American people, in polls - two polls that I saw today - support what is happening with trying to stop terrorists from doing bad things to us."

While Reid tests the political winds to determine which constitutional rights Americans should have, those who should be overseeing the program are defending it with just-trust-me logic. Feinstein declared that "these programs are within the law." The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, promised that "we're not violating any constitutional rights." Both said they'd like to see more about the program declassified, but their past efforts to produce disclosure have been weak.

A few Democrats have upheld the party's tradition of championing civil liberties - such as Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has devised a bill with conservative Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) to curtail the program; and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), who with Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) introduced legislation requiring more disclosure of secret court rulings. But the Conyers bill is likely to go nowhere, and Reid was cool to the Merkley proposal, saying only, "I'll be happy to take a look."

If he does look, he'll find that it does what progressives should do: protect the people from a too-secretive government.