0
   

Obama Frees Bush Historical Records from Bush document secrecy

 
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:55 am
Obama Frees Bush Historical Records
Thursday 22 January 2009
by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


Obama's executive order on open government will free up documents on the history of the Bush administration.

When authoritarian forces seize control of a government, they typically move first against the public's access to information, under the theory that a confused populace can be more easily manipulated. They take aim at the radio stations, TV and newspapers.

In the case of George W. Bush in 2001, he also took aim at historical records, giving himself and his family indefinite control over documents covering the 12 years of his father's terms as President and Vice President.

It was, therefore, significant that one of Barack Obama's first acts as President was to revoke the Bush Family's power over that history and to replace it with an easier set of regulations for accessing the records.


Just as George W. Bush upon taking office in January 2001 immediately delayed the scheduled release of documents from the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Obama wasted no time in reversing that policy by signing a new executive order on his first working day in office.

Eight years earlier, George W. Bush initially postponed the document release and then - after the 9/11 attacks - sought to extend the cloak of secrecy over those documents virtually forever.

Bush signed Executive Order 13233 on Nov. 1, 2001, granting the sitting President as well as former Presidents or ex-Vice Presidents - or their heirs - veto power over release of many documents.

In other words, Bush was giving himself and his family effective control over key chapters of 20 years of American history (his father's eight years as Vice President and four years as President, and his own eight years as President).

Presumably at some point, that power would have passed to George W. Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, and to their progeny, giving the family a kind of dynastic control over how Americans would understand key events of an important national era.

Self-serving myths could become a substitute for accurate history - all the better to protect the Bush Family's interests.

Frustrations

In a real-life sense, what Bush's order did was frustrate the ability of journalists and historians to file Freedom of Information Act requests for even routine information from the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush-41 era.

Information that once was quickly available - like calendars of senior officials - became subject to multiple layers of approvals, stretching out a process from days or weeks to months or to a year or more.

First, the government archivists examined the material to excise any classified or personal information. That essentially was the extent of the old process for opening up routine documents in a brief period of time.

Under the Bush rules, however, even routine documents were referred to designees of both the sitting and former Presidents (or ex-Vice Presidents) for a decision on asserting some privilege. Even if no privilege was asserted, the process was stretched out by months, sometimes more than a year.

And once some routine document finally got released - if the information required a follow-up request to clarify something - the cumbersome process would start all over again.

Anyone with a deadline was either forced to write with limited (and possibly misleading) information or had to forego writing altogether. The delays were an effective means of killing stories that might embarrass the Bush Family.

A Gates Question

Sometimes the stories weren't just about history either. For instance, I encountered frustrations from Bush's executive order over the past two years as I sought documents pertaining to the credibility of Bush's choice for Defense Secretary, Robert Gates.

Gates had been deputy national security adviser under Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, and nailing down Gates's whereabouts on a specific day in April 1989 would have supported or undermined his credibility in relation to allegations implicating Gates's in Reagan-Bush-41 era scandals.

So, on Nov. 15, 2006, a week after Gates's Pentagon nomination, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Gates's calendars from 1989.

Based on my (pre-Bush-43) experience, I thought the information might be available before Gates's confirmation hearings in December. However, it took until late March 2007 for the George H.W. Bush Library to send me the calendar entries.

Initially, when I examined the calendar entries, they appeared to support Gates's claim that he was at work at the White House on the day in question. Still, I checked on a couple of entries that he had listed for public events, and it turned out that he had skipped them.

Because of those discrepancies, it became necessary to check on the non-public events listed on Gates's calendar, such as meetings with other officials. I filed two additional FOIA requests on April 5, 2007.

The two requests cleared the initial review by the archivists in mid-to-late summer 2007. But then, the requests got hung up in the Bush Family clearance process, requiring approval from representatives of both the senior George Bush and the junior George Bush.

One request wasn't released until May 2008, more than a year after my FOIA; the second request wasn't sent out until September 2008, more than a year after the archivists had removed any sensitive information.

The additional information clarified a few points for me but did not conclusively establish Gates's whereabouts on the day in question. That would have required another follow-up or two, but the interminable delays had left little time before Election 2008.

Assuming that Gates would be out of his senior position by the time any new FOIAs could be processed under Bush's rules, I decided that it made little sense to continue pursuing this question.

Ironically, President Obama has renewed the timeliness of this Gates credibility question in two ways: first, by keeping him on as Defense Secretary and now, by revoking the Bush Family's power to delay and obstruct.

In his first full day in office, Obama revived hope that historical records might become available in a reasonable length of time.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 754 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 11:01 am
This is actually a big deal.

Cycloptichorn
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 11:04 am
@Cycloptichorn,
It's a momumental deal!

BBB
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 11:07 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Yup.

Quote:
Clinton Lawyer: Obama's Order Designed To Pry Loose Key Bush Docs
By Zachary Roth - January 23, 2009, 11:25AM

Already, a consensus of experts has formed to tell TPMmuckraker and others that President Obama's executive order on presidential records, issued Wednesday, could impact efforts to pry loose key documents from the Bush White House.

And the man who served as President Clinton's lead attorney for executive privilege issues yesterday went further, suggesting that that was exactly Obama's goal.

Neil Eggleston, a White House counsel under Clinton, told TPMmuckraker that in his view, the Obama White House issued the order with specific ongoing cases in mind -- that is, with the goal of bolstering those efforts to obtain Bush's records.

Congress and good-government groups are currently fighting to get access to key Bush White House documents that might shed light on a range of subjects, from the level of White House involvement in the US Attorney firings, to the Valerie Plame leak probe, to the decision to invade Iraq. "This is absolutely about all those issues," said Eggleston.

At its heart, said Eggleston, Obama's order is about "who gets to assert executive privilege." It says that former presidents can claim such privilege, but they have no automatic ability to prevent the release of their records if the current administration deems it to be in the national interest. That echoes the view of other experts who have examined the order, including the conservative legal scholar Doug Kmiec, who spoke to TPMmuckraker yesterday.

In a sense, said Eggleston, it's a directive to the National Archivist. "It says: 'Archivist -- if Bush calls up and says don't release certain papers, don't listen to what he says, listen to what I say.'"

Eggleston, now a partner at Debevoise and Plimpton's Washington office, cautioned that if a decision were made to release certain Bush records, and the former president chose to go to court to stop it, it's not absolutely certain that he would lose -- since no executive order can alter the constitution's executive privilege guarantee. But he said that the order would at the very least be likely to sway a court towards openness.

So if we do eventually learn the full story of the Bushies' involvement in the US Attorney firings, and get access to information about their record on a range of other issues, it looks like we may have the new president to thank.


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/clinton_lawyer_obamas_order_designed_to_pry_loose.php

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 11:12 am
i wonder if dick and george are using "the googles" to search for countries with no extradition to the US
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:13 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
ACLU tests Obama with request for secret Bush-era memos
By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers
1/28/09

WASHINGTON " Dozens of secret documents justifying the Bush administration's spying and interrogation programs could see the light of day because of a new presidential directive.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Obama administration on Wednesday to release Justice Department memos that provided the legal underpinning for harsh interrogations, eavesdropping and secret prisons.

For years, the Bush administration refused to release them, citing national security, attorney-client privilege and the need to protect the government's deliberative process.

The ACLU's request, however, comes after President Barack Obama last week rescinded a 2001 Justice Department memo that gave agencies broad legal cover to reject public disclosure requests. Obama also urged agencies to be more transparent when deciding what documents to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The ACLU now sees a new opening.

"The president has made a very visible and clear commitment to transparency," said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "We're eager to see that put into practice."

The collection of memos, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, are viewed as the missing puzzle pieces that could help explain the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies.

Critics of the prior administration also see the release of the documents as necessary to determine whether former administration officials should be held accountable for legal opinions that justified various antiterrorism measures, including the use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Attorney General nominee Eric Holder recently denounced waterboarding as torture, but details about how the method was used have remained secret.

"We don't have anything resembling a full picture of what happened over the last eight years and on what grounds the Bush administration believed it could order such methods," Jaffer said. "We think the OLC memos are really central to that narrative."

Even though some key memos have been released or leaked to the media, at least 50 memos remain secret, Jaffer said, including a dozen memos related to the warrantless wiretapping program.

In one case, the ACLU found out about a memo because it was cited in a footnote. The government has refused to elaborate on the 2002 document, other than to describe it as a discussion of the Fourth Amendment's application to domestic military operations.

Jaffer said that it could reveal whether the Justice Department was advising the National Security Agency that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to its eavesdropping program, but he's not certain. The amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.

"There are about a dozen memos where we just have one or two lines about the subject matter and that's it," he said. "When you put it all together you realize how much is still being held secret."

The ACLU originally sought the documents by filing a series of lawsuits under FOIA.

Federal judges have ordered the release of some records, including thousands of pages documenting the FBI's concerns about the interrogation program.

The Bush administration, however, fought the release of most of the records.

In September 2007, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy rejected the government's claim of secrecy and ordered the Justice Department to submit surveillance documents for his review.

The ACLU has asked another judge to find CIA officials in contempt after revelations that videotapes of CIA interrogations had been destroyed. A criminal investigation is ongoing.

Since Obama's directive on disclosure, Melanie Ann Pustay, the director of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy, instructed federal officials that they should process requests for records with a "clear presumption in favor of disclosure, to resolve doubts in favor of openness, and to not withhold information based on 'speculative or abstract fears.'"

In another indication that the ACLU may get its way, the nominee to head the OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has previously indicated she thinks that such memos should generally be released.

Before her nomination, Johnsen wrote in an article for Slate, the internet magazine, that the central question in the debate was whether OLC could issue "binding legal opinions that in essence tell the president and the executive branch that they need not comply with existing laws " and then not share those opinions and that legal reasoning with Congress or the American people? I would submit that clearly the answer to that question must be no."

0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 11:31 am
Is anyone surprised that Bush fancied himself a dictator? That he viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights as "just pieces of paper"? Defending the Bush agenda is like saying Putin just wants the best for Russia.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama Frees Bush Historical Records from Bush document secrecy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 10:47:13