Editorial:
Whose
Privacy?
9/18/98
With Washington, D.C. and, to a lesser extent it seems, the nation consumed by the steamy details of Bill Clinton's extramarital dalliances, the question has been posed, by the President himself no less, "what, exactly constitutes private vs. public conduct, and where should the line be drawn?" Clinton clearly believes it is wrong for the government to use its vast powers to snoop around in people's lives and pry into the decisions and actions of consenting adults. Or does he? Every day in America, hundreds of doors are kicked in by gun wielding agents of the state in search of evidence of conduct which by any reasonable standard should be considered private. What coherent set of principles would allow, on the one hand, the government to seek out and criminally punish people who ingest unacceptable substances in their own home, on their own time, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes, yet prohibit the state from looking into the behavior of public servants, acting on public time, who occupy an office whose very stability is of vital import to the functioning and the future of the free world? The people whose lives are turned upside down by intrusions incident to the Drug War owe no debt of service to their countrymen comparable to that of the President. They have neither sought out positions of public responsibility, nor committed themselves to public accountability. They do not ask for secret service protection, they want no free air time from TV networks, they do not seek a paycheck, nor a pension, nor access to Air Force One courtesy of their fellow taxpayers. What they want most from their government is radical indeed. They simply want to be left, as much as possible, alone. There is no articulated right to "privacy" in the Constitution of these United States. The word does not appear in the Preamble, nor in the articles, nor in the Bill of Rights. But when one reads the text of the document upon which a nation and an enlightened system of government was founded more that 200 years ago, one thing is perfectly clear: before the government interferes in your life, searches your house, seizes your property, infringes on your liberty, they -- or more accurately, under a government of, by and for the people, we -- had better have a damn good reason. Our Chief Executive seems offended, even outraged, that his privacy has been so offhandedly disregarded by agents of the State. He did not see fit to mention, however, that during his administration there has been a steady erosion of privacy on all fronts, from economic to personal, under the guise of fighting the Drug War. Or that each year of his presidency has brought record numbers of arrests -- including over 640,000 in 1997 for marijuana -- over 80% of those for simple possession. Even if not impeachable, is Clinton's behavior, and the integrity of the office of the President, less compelling than the question of whether or not your next door neighbor is smoking a joint while watching Saturday Night Live? Isn't it conceivable that the adulterous affairs of a President could leave him vulnerable to untoward political pressures? Even blackmail? What comparable threat is posed by the consensual private conduct that daily gives rise to countless "no-knock" warrants under Clinton's Drug War? "Even Presidents have private lives," Bill Clinton scolded. But judging by his actions, this statement does not entirely encapsulate his beliefs. To be sure, Clinton wants his privacy, and believes that he is entitled to such basic consideration. In Bill Clinton's mind, a President deserves the right to keep the most intimate and personal details of his existence out of the reach of government scrutiny and power. He just doesn't think that the rest of us deserve the same protection. Adam J. Smith
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
