Thursday, 01 January 2004

Secrets and lies. While John Ashcroft's recusal from the Valerie Plame investigation made waves throughout the blogosphere, the other story that broke this week got little ink from our circle of pundits: Condi Rice is trying to avoid testifying under oath before the federal commission investigating the 9/11 attacks.

There's a reason why our National Security Adviser might not make full disclosure when answering certain questions, or why she might not even be able to answer them in public. There is one legitimate reason, and it is this: The answers to certain questions might reveal to Our Enemies things that We The People would prefer they didn't know. For example, if someone were foolish enough to ask Rice "Do we currently have a mole inside Al Qaeda?", then Rice would be justified in refusing to answer; we wouldn't want to reveal to Osama that a member of his inner circle was on our side. Not now. Maybe in 2040 when it's a moot point, but not today.

But, aside from the case where the public good requires a private confidence, there is no other reason why a United States Government official can justify keeping secrets from the American people. (There is one other reason for the government to keep a secret—to respect a citizen's right to privacy, on something like tax returns or medical records—but that doesn't apply here.) Representative democracy requires accountability to the people; without it, we have no basis for deciding how to choose our representatives.

The question of when a government official can lie to the people is even more extreme: Aside from an actual battlefield maneuver (the D-Day invasion, say, or Iraq's "Shock and Awe" campaign), I can't think of any reason that a public servant could justify lying to the public. It mocks the idea of a well-informed electorate, and violates the principles of a government by the people; it opens the door for unethical politicians to take advantage of our trust, and to use "national security" as an insincere ploy for putting their own petty interests ahead of ours.

With that in mind, I have no sympathy for Condi Rice's desire to avoid testifying under oath. The people have a legitimate, bipartisan interest in understanding the events that led to the 9/11 attacks, and how we might prevent terrorists from succeeding again in the future; this isn't a partisan witch hunt in disguise, unlike certain other "investigations" I could mention.

I really can't see how the public interest would be served through Condi Rice lying to the 9/11 commission—and I can't think of any other reason why Rice would seek to avoid testifying under oath. I have no qualms with Rice or other officials responding to a question with "I can't reveal that information at this time," but seeking to evade the oath outright is simply seeking to evade the legal consequences of breaking the oath.

The oath is there for a reason, and the reason is to protect the public interest. I'd like to see Rice take it.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 11:39 am. comments.