Two recent events call to mind continuing conflict over the role dialogue is supposed to play in policy formation, and whether we are committed to a full discussion of controversial topics, or prefer that people simply keep their mouths shut.
The first came to light during exchanges in hearings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. The topic was whether the temporary suspension of the need for intelligence agents to get warrants before they intercept messages from foreign suspects directed to Americans. The bulk of the dispute concerns whether the requirement imposed a time limit that would limit the effectiveness of the searches, but a more subtle, and perhaps significant exchange touched on the hearings themselves and the very fact that these issues are being debated at all (from an ABC news story):
"Some committee members questioned McConnell's credibility, especially comments he made to the El Paso Times last month that Americans would die because of open testimony in Congress. In that interview, McConnell was asked by the reporter, "So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress mean that some Americans are going to die?"
McConnell responded by saying, "That's what I mean -- because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told McConnell, "You're saying and standing by that, your previous statement, that when we debate these issues in the Congress of the United States, which is our system, that Americans -- some Americans -- are going to die. And I really think that's a stretch. And I think because of some of these things, it has done damage to what you bring forward. It puts a dent in the credibility."
This dilemma, unique to democratic governments, has been noted before. Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracies would be disadvantaged in military disputes because of this need for transparency. Secrecy allows for effective defense policymaking, but creates opportunities for abuse. On the one hand, McConnell may be making a valid point about what is necessary for him to do his job effectively, but he could also simply be defending his turf.
The second event is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, and his public speaking engagements while there--notably his address to an audience at Columbia University.
Some argued that he should not have been allowed to speak at all given his controversial views on subjects ranging from the existence of Israel, to whether the Holocaust really happened, and the treatment of women and dissident groups in his country.
Others claim that the right to free speech requires all points of view to be debated in open forums, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendel Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision, suggested that when we stifle a viewpoint we may be betraying a suspicion that we cannot successfully argue against it. If we think someone is wrong, we should give them the opportunity to speak their views and argue against it.
Personally I'm one the side of both transparency and open debate and believe that our nation is stronger as a result of both, but grows weaker when they are not allowed.
In 2301 we spend sometime speculating about the meaning of the term "among" in the Declaration of Independence's unalienable rights clause ("among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Other rights exist. Might one be the right to information?
