Many think that free enterprise can do no wrong and that government can do no right. Facts don't seem to sway such ideologues that companies can really screw up and that government can do many things right.
Many complain that the government didn't respond fast enough to the Gulf oil spill. Many forget that it was BP that acted in some careless way that the spill occurred.
Many complain that the government didn't respond fast enough to the Times Square bomb incident. Many complain that the government made many mistakes. Many forget that the government acted very quickly and found many wide-spread clues in a little over two days. That mistakes were made doesn't surprise me. Consider the volume of information that has to be sifted through and the quick judgments that must be made to determine what information is important.
Free enterprise is no different in making judgments on information. One department of a bank is working with a borrower to change the terms of a loan; meanwhile another department of the same bank is working to sell the house at auction.
But when it comes to war and terrorists, many think the government is always right. "The President knows more than we do." Oh, yeah! Many assume that if the government says that someone is a terrorist then that person is a terrorist and should be tried in a military tribunal without any of the usual legal protections.
Aren't some of these people who believe such also calling for us to follow the intent of the Founders? The Founders didn't want unbridled power in any branch of government. That's why we have separation of powers with an executive branch, a legislative branch, and an independent judicial branch. With a military tribunal, we are having the executive branch acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
How do we know that Faisal Shahzad wasn't just caught up in some strange circumstances and was accused just to show that the government was doing something about terrorism? We readers of newspapers are probably seeing enough information to have some assurance that Shahzad is the perpetrator, but we can't make a life or death judgment on that basis.
That's why we have trials before judges where the government states its reasons to believe that the accused is guilty, where an accused lawyer's attempts to prove otherwise, and a jury of the accused peers weighs the arguments to determine the truth.
If we have it otherwise, any one of us could be falsely accused and be judged guilty solely on the basis of an accusation. When that can happen, there goes the "Freedom" that many claim to defend.
