Dan Solove writes about a New Republic article by William J. Stuntz, a law professor at Harvard, who apparently specializes in Christian law theory (who knew Harvard had a professor for that? Damned liberals!). Stuntz apparently has expressed some reasonable opinions in the past. But not this time. Stuntz attacks the right to privacy for individuals and the demand for transparency from the government:
Today, the danger that American democracy faces is not that rulers will know too much about those they rule, nor that too many decisions will be made without public scrutiny. Another danger looms larger: that effective, active government--government that innovates, that protects people who need protecting, that acts aggressively when action is needed--is dying. Privacy and transparency are the diseases. We need to find a vaccine, and soon.
Say what? I guess he might be one of those who thinks 'everything changed after 9/11.' Yep. He is:
The harder it is to tap our phones, the more government officials will seek out alternative means of getting information: greater use of informants and spies, or perhaps more Jose Padilla-style military detentions with long-term interrogation about which no court ever hears, or possibly some CIA "black ops," with suspected terrorists grabbed from their homes and handed over to the intelligence services of countries with fewer qualms about abusive questioning. In an age of terrorism, privacy rules are not simply unaffordable. They are perverse.
Wow! Just, wow! Here's the kicker, Stuntz argues that not only do we have too much of a right to privacy, the government has to tell us too much about what it is doing. Solove writes:
[Stuntz] argues that transparency makes it harder for government officials to do something, and doing something is better than doing nothing: "For most officials most of the time, the key choice is not between doing right and doing wrong, but between doing something and doing nothing. Doing nothing is usually easier--less likely to generate bad headlines or critical blog posts."
What an amazing thing for Stuntz write to argue. '"Doing something is better than doing nothing."' It will not surprise you that Stuntz is a strong supporter of the Iraq Debacle. I wonder what George Will thinks of that "'doing something is better than doing nothing"' principle?
Solove gives this argument more consideration than I think it deserves, but you should read his post on it and judge for yourself.
For me though, Stuntz's closing is all I needed to read:
"We have too much privacy, and those who govern us have too little."
George Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales could not agree more. We all know how right they have been.
Dana Milbank remarked the other night to Keith Olberman that while FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," BushCo now says 'the only thing we have is fear.' Well, it seems to be enough for Stuntz.