From the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?hp For those who can't access this article here is a summary. It appears that this Admin's penchant for secrecy extends beyond just its own tenure. Some rampant speculation on this is that they are withholding Clinton documents because those support Clarke's position that the Clinton Admin. did do more on Al Qaeda than the GW Bush Admin. did prior to 9/11.
I think it goes beyond speculation. We now have the administration trying to prevent the comission from knowing all that the Clinton administration did. We also know that Rice was scheduled to give a speech on 9/11 bashing the Clinton administration from doing too much with counter-terrorism and not enough with missle defense. Put those two pieces of evidence together and we have a scary picture of what happened and where the focus of this administration was pre 9/11.
wait...guys....this is consistent with this administration even prior to 9/11. the administration didn't release ANY documents from the prior administration, even those that might have been politcally self-serving for this administration to release. something you should know about privilege. it's often times an all or nothing proposition. if you give up even part of the universe of priviliged information, the argument from the other side is that you've blown the privilege entirely...and many courts have been persuaded by that.
Bull. They didn't release Clinton stuff because they wanted to keep Reagan and Bush I papers under wraps... through an Executive Order and certainly against the spirit of the Presidential Records Act. As it is, they have a tremendous track record of releasing stuff that helps them politically while going to great lengths to keep things that will hurt them under wraps.
Plus, it's not all of Clinton's papers they are witholding... they've OK'ed the release of about a third.
Well I guess we have another important Consitutional principle at least till next l next week, when perhaps they'll react politically and release them. It is sort of like when they floated the trial balloon of releasing just those parts of Clarke's testimony, but not the whole, in order to press perjury charges. However, I guess Congressman Frist has given up on that one.
I would buy that argument if we hadn't seen the Admin. quickly release documents, memos and emails to counter Richard Clarke.
man...whatever. this board has passed any modicum of moderation. we either have one side that says everything bush does is right...or we have the other that thinks he's the anti-christ. the political discussion on this board pales in comparison to what it once was.
This is interesting. Don't know if it was posted... LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Federal commissioners investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks have been poring over some 6,000 documents from former President Bill Clinton's presidential archive. Archivists for Clinton's presidential library spent three months gathering papers requested by the commission and recently finished sending the information to Washington, said David Alsobrook, director of materials collection. While presidential records are sealed for five years by law after a president leaves office, an exception was made to allow early access for the September 11 commission, and in some other cases. "Part of our job is to provide access to presidential records for special commissions, to U.S. attorneys and Congress. "All of these fall under the category of special access requests," said Alsobrook, a former archivist for former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. The request ranged from specific documents to general information about topics related to the commission's work, Alsobrook said Tuesday. He wouldn't be more specific. Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have agreed to meet privately with the 10-member commission. The commission also plans to schedule a joint private interview with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Rice to testify April 8) The Clinton Presidential Library is set to open November 18. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/01/clinton.commission.ap/index.html Hey, the commission is getting cooperation from somebody. Getting anything out of the White House, that they don't think makes them look good, is another matter. Hang in there, Max. We need all the moderate conservative voices here that we can get. I enjoy your take on things.
Max, you made an assertion that is just flat wrong. It's not a question of whether Bush is bad or good, it's a question of what he has done and what he has done can be checked factually. 1. You say it's an all or nothing proposition, but Bush released portions of the Clinton 9-11 docs. 2. Here's an article on the Exec. Order I referenced... it was signed and implemented. __________ Bush Clamping Down On Presidential Papers Incumbent Could Lock Up Predecessor's Records By George Lardner Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, November 1, 2001; Page A33 The Bush White House has drafted an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public. The five-page draft would also require members of the public seeking particular documents to show "at least a 'demonstrated, specific need' " for them before they would be considered for release. Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity." Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years." Other critics voiced concern about the impact of the order "in the post-September 11 world," with its wartime atmosphere. "The executive branch is moving heavily into the nether world of dirty tricks, very likely including directed assassinations overseas and other violations of American norms and the U.N. charter," said Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Graham. "There is going to be so much to hide." Bush is expected to sign the order shortly. A White House aide said the Supreme Court held in 1977 that former presidents can continue to assert various privileges for their records and the order will simply establish "a procedure by which they can protect their rights." The aide said "great deference" will be paid to their wishes. "The majority of former presidents have released virtually all of their records," the aide added. "This executive order does nothing to change that." The proposed order, dated Oct. 29, grew out of a decision by the Bush administration early this year to block the release of 68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers that officials at the National Archives, including the Reagan library, had wanted to make public. Relying on an obscure executive order that Reagan issued just before leaving office, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales prescribed a series of delays so that Bush could decide whether to invoke "a constitutionally based privilege or take other appropriate action." The papers in question, some dealing with Reagan-era officials who now have high posts in the Bush administration, were to have been disclosed last January under the 1978 law, which said that the documents could be restricted at the most for 12 years after Reagan left office. The new executive order would replace the 1989 Reagan decree and cover not only confidential communications between a president and his advisers but, as Graham put it, "almost anything in the White House files." For 12-year-old documents that are not covered by "constitutionally based privileges" but are subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the order states that the archivist "must withhold" them if possible. For records that might be privileged as state secrets, confidential communications, attorney-client communications, or "deliberative process" materials, a requester must establish "specific need" for them "as a threshold matter." A former president would then review them and tell the archivist whether they should be withheld or made public. The incumbent president or a designee would then look at them to see if he or she agrees with the ex-president's decision. Unless both agree they should be made public, the records will remain secret unless "a final court order" should require disclosure. "Absent compelling circumstances," the incumbent president will concur in the former president's privilege decision, the draft order states. But if the incumbent president does not agree on a former president's decision to grant access, "the incumbent president may independently order the archivist to withhold privileged records." The order would work "like a one-way ratchet," said Scott Nelson, an attorney for the Public Citizen Litigation Group. "If the former president says the records are privileged, they will remain secret even if the sitting president disagrees. If the sitting president says they should be privileged, they remain secret even if the former president disagrees." _____________ 3. A number of other issues relating to the release of information and records, including the declassifying of Clarke's briefing, the Cheney Energy Task Force, the reluctance to put Condi under oath, the changing of the EPA records at Ground Zero, the rigging of the Medicare numbers and the Plame issue show the political (not Constitutional and not principled) stands.
This was in an editorial i read in 'paper form' -- sorry -- no link. I thought of you guys here Maybe we should cool it a bit November's a long ways away.
If I'm not mistaken, these are the records in question... Clinton has given his OK, but the Bush Administration, operating under the ridiculous Exec. Order referenced in an above post is deciding what to allow the Commission to see. One other thing Max, does it not give you a slight case of the willies to hear Scott McClellan say... "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job...
Thanks for the article RR. My knowledge of separation of powers is old and creaky, but it's just incredible to me that a president can eviscerate/gut an act of congress unilaterally via an XO. Really shocking. I remember when this came out, but barely, looking at the date, it looks like they floated it under the radar taking advantage of the post Sept 11/Afghanistan situation.
More tinkering with Info for political purposes... http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0304/16secrecy.html
Can everyone give me an example of where an Administration actually asserted "Executive Privilege", when it wasn't because they were trying to hide a misdeed? Maybe it has happened. Of course, this whole concept first became big when Nixon tried to hide things during Watergate. I believe Clinton tried to use it to hide his affair with Monica. In general it seems that the presidents are always happy to provide information that they think makes them look good. Max, give me a good reason or at least an argument why Bush should withhold the Clinton papers from the 9/11 Commission at this time. Please try to address the present time and not speak in vague generalities about "Executive Privilege" in the abstract. Can't you see that this could easily be a case of using it to cover up something?
I agree with you that the partisan rancor around here is nearly sickening at times, but I have to admit that I am a bit curious about what is in the other 7000 or so pages. Not that I want to see them, but perhaps the 9/11 commission should. BTW, I don't think Bush is the antichrist...that post is held by Ashcroft. lol
