John Poindexter's response to a question regarding privacy troubles me:
question: Is privacy a right?It's certainly not a constitutional right. It's an individual right that has to be balanced with concern for the common good. Privacy has to be relative to other objectives - for instance, security. The greatest threat to privacy is terrorism. How much privacy was there in Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The attitude of John Poindexter and the Bush administration in general towards privacy rights of those who are NOT members of the administration or other "special persons" is a matter of great concern to me. A recent editorial posted on MSNBC.com by Jane Black discusses the very attitude that troubles me:
It seems reasonably clear by now that President George W. Bush sees the world in black and white. There are good guys and bad guys. Us and them. Except, that is, when it comes to personal privacy. Two major news stories in late April have highlighted the Bush Administration's flip-flop approach to privacy protection -- what I call suit-yourself privacy. The first is the mammoth prochoice rally in Washington, D.C. The second is the Pentagon's decision to enforce a ban on photos of flag-draped coffins leaving Iraq.On the face of it, the two have nothing in common. But at the heart of both stories is an individual's right to privacy. On Apr. 23, hundreds of thousands of people marched on the Capitol to protest, among other things, the Administration's decision to subpoena women's private medical records to support its case against late-term abortions.
The Justice Dept. claims this isn't an invasion of privacy because federal law "does not recognize a physician-patient privilege." It further asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential."
That very same day, Bush spokesman Trent Duffy condemned the publication of photos of flag-draped coffins in The Seattle Times and on various Web sites, including TheMemoryHole.org. Duffy said the White House found the images inappropriate because "the sensitivity and privacy of families of the fallen must be the first priority."
Privacy, it seems, is irrelevant if the Administration wants your personal information to advance one of its moral crusades. But it's of primary importance if it wants to keep from public view those images that drive home the cost of the conflict in Iraq -- and perhaps cause it political damage in the process.
Of course, this is hardly the first time the Bush White House has customized the definition of privacy to suit itself. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, hundreds of Arab men were held without being charged. Federal investigators declined to disclose even the most basic facts about them, including their names and where they were being held. The stated reason: protecting the privacy of detainees.
Meanwhile, Vice-President Dick Cheney has used privacy as an excuse not to release his own medical records -- even though he had four reported heart attacks before he took office in January, 2001. And he has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court with the argument that the public would be invading the privacy of his Energy Committee -- and risking "the President's constitutional authority to gather candid advice from his advisers" -- if notes of the committee's conversations were revealed.
