"Bush's Veil Over History "; he signed order to keep his secrets permanent

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/opinion/10kelley.html?th&emc=th

Bush's Veil Over History

By KITTY KELLEY
Published: October 10, 2005
Washington

SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

<<snip>>

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

[Dhalgren]

1. What happens when an Executive Order conflicts with

established law? Doesn't this Order have such a conflict? Does it go to the Supreme Court? Can congress over-ride it? This just seems to be an unacceptable infringement upon the people's right to know. Is there no recourse?

[Toots]

8. Why have no Elected Democratic Leaders asked that very question?

This was the very first act of Abuse of Power and no one, I mean NO ONE spoke up. Congress passed a law requiring by law presidential papers to be released no later than twelve years after that President left office. Required by Law......Bush* thumbed his nose, next Cheney thumbed his nose about Energy Meetings. No One spoke Up..No One Spoke Up...

[blm]

13. Actually, Kerry did. He said that he believed in a transparent oval office

that accounted for its actions. He promised open books except in the most extreme cases of secret national security concerns. He also promised once a month press conferences. Open and accountable government was a priority issue for Kerry.

Remember that back in IranContra and BCCI. it was Kerry who kept pushing for Reagan/Bush admin. papers to be made public, and the WH would go to court to have the papers declared "national security" secrets.

Sad, that the media won't give any airtime to this issue. It's dead serious. There is no democracy when the oval office governs this way.

[dajoki]

21. Clinton objected also...

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

[blm]

23. Marc Rich was another BCCI arms dealer. Scooter Libby was his DC advocate.

I'd say the Bushies used Clinton yet again. Poppy Bush always knew how to mainpulate Clinton to participate in his deals whether it was wittingly or unwittingly.

Sometimes I think that Clinton was incredibly naive at times.

I'd rather think that than suspect him as being complicit.

[dajoki]

24. i agree...

for how intelligent he is, to get caught up in those scandals doesn't make sense. of course they were out to get him no matter what.

[dajoki]

17. they are also covering up...

iran-contra to protect his daddy's ass.

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

[zann725]

19. Didn't I just read that Venezuela is opening investigation into BCCI money

laundering/scandal of the 1990's? Somehow I think their investigation will NOT be hampered the way that it would here...in our Senate and Congress, or Courts. Maybe we won't need the papers "locked up." There may be proof elsewhere?

Let's face it, Kerry took the investigation as far as he could. Now perhaps it's up to those darn Venezuelans...who offered aid during Katrina, and we denied.

If indeed the V's ARE RE-investigating Iran/Contra/BCCI...no wonder certain "people" in inner-circles here are less than thrilled with Mr. Chavez.

[dajoki]

27. good...

do you happen to have a link for that story, i'd like to read it. thanks.

[dajoki]

9. from same article...

What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders in chief. But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.)

Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly introduced legislation to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican Congress defying a Republican president are slim.

There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan and elder Bush administrations.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination. Their rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to condone torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with public welfare during times of national disaster - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina - will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the president's role in Environmental Protection Agency's policies on water and air polluters.

[Atman]

2. Why can't the next president issue his OWN executive order?

"Since Bush's executive order was illegal, I recind it." The release 'em all the next day. Sure it will be appealed, but once the secrets are out, who cares what happens in the court fight?

[mattclearing]

4. That is why he cannot let the White House fall into Dem hands. n/t

[blm]

25. Why do you think they HAD to rig the machines?

Kerry had been trying to make the IranContra and BCCI papers public since he found them. Poppy Bush fought back by having a judge declare them national security secrets.

Sadly, Clinton didn't allow them opened, either.

[dajoki]

33. why can't congress pass a law?

because the dems will sit by and do nothing.

[Serial Mom]

3. See my sig line ...

We need more politicians who think like Proxmire and reporters who think like Murrow, and LEADERS WHO CAN THINK

[NVMojo]

5. makes me wanna puke ...

[gratuitous]

6. Pinochet thought he'd granted himself immunity, too

"Permanent" is not a word in the political lexicon.

[dkofos]

7. And the next president can override that order and release the papers

immediately. If he/she wants to.

Just imagine the dirt that will be exposed when that happens.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. That's why we have repuke owned evoting machines.

:(

[Miss Chybil]

10. And so, the next president can sign an executive order undoing previous

presidential attempts to hide presidential secrets.

[MADem]

31. Yep, and the smart person would do EXACTLY THAT

If monkeyboy gets impeached, it will be a platform item, surely.

And we really ought to have some sort of law that prevents this shit--executive orders of that nature are plainly an ABUSE OF POWER. Hopefully, a Democratic congress will get cracking on that, one day.

[dajoki]

11. we can elect a democratic...

congress to overturn *'s executive order.

[texpatriot2004]

12. Article refers to legal action to get docs, can citizens join this?

Can we turn it into some sort of class action suit? Or join the legal battle that is already underway? Sure would like to. It's very important that the people of the US be able to see the documents of this administration as evil and sneaky and secretive as they are.

[dajoki]

18. i don't see why not n/t

[centristo]

14. this is the scariest

thing I've read in a long time. Unfortunately, its not shocking by any means.

[dajoki]

20. the scary thing is...

why are we only hearing about this now. who knows what other secret orders he signed.

[kentuck]

16. How can any decent American support such "secrecy"?

They are worse than fascists.

[dajoki]

22. was his timing a coincidence?

Nov. 1 2001, less than amonth after 9/11. or was he hiding his ignorance of the warnings leading up to the attack?

[napi21]

26. I think any President can over-ride any exec order made by a previous one.

I know Shrub over-ruled or over-turned, most of Clinton's exec orders!

I realize that means waiting another 3 years, but any suits or filings through the legal system would take that long anyway!

[liberalitch]

28. yes, they can BUT.....

It still means that he can hide what he's done so that it doesn't effect the 2006 midterms

[dajoki]

34. that wouldn't matter...

because National Achieves keep records closed for 12 years anyway.

[triguy46]

29. I'm there, I saw that then, didn't know how bad it would become. n/t

[Catchawave]

30. Good Grief...Kitty Kelly?

Shame, Shame, Shame DU !!!

[MADem]

32. I read Kitty Kelley's book

...and the honest truth of it is, there was very little gossip in it. She sourced the thing up the ying yang, and most of what she divulged was already out there. It was well written and very concise.