http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/politics/03SECR.html?ex=1042174800&en=a0e0
6b3e3c5acc46&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

The Bush administration has put a much tighter lid than recent presidents on
government proceedings and the public release of information, exhibiting a
penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and
lawmakers of both parties.
Some of the Bush policies, like closing previously public court proceedings,
were prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and are part of the
administration's drive for greater domestic security. Others, like Vice
President Dick Cheney's battle to keep records of his energy task force
secret, reflect an administration that arrived in Washington determined to
strengthen the authority of the executive branch, senior administration
officials say.

Some of the changes have sparked a passionate public debate and excited
political controversy. But other measures taken by the Bush administration
to enforce greater government secrecy have received relatively little
attention, masking the proportions of what dozens of experts described in
recent interviews as a sea change in government openness.

A telling example came in late 2001 when Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced the new policy on the Freedom of Information Act, a move that
attracted relatively little public attention.

Although the new policy for dealing with the 1966 statute that has opened
millions of pages of government records to scholars, reporters and the
public was announced after Sept. 11, it had been planned well before the
attacks.

The Ashcroft directive encouraged federal agencies to reject requests for
documents if there was any legal basis to do so, promising that the Justice
Department would defend them in court. It was a stark reversal of the policy
set eight years earlier, when the Clinton administration told agencies to
make records available whenever they could, even if the law provided a
reason not to, so long as there was no "foreseeable harm" from the release.

Generally speaking, said Alan Brinkley, a Columbia University historian,
while secrecy has been increasingly attractive to recent administrations,
"this administration has taken it to a new level."

Its "instinct is to release nothing," Professor Brinkley said, adding that
this was not necessarily because there were particular embarrassing secrets
to hide, but "they are just worried about what's in there that they don't
know about."

The Bush administration contends that it is not trying to make government
less open. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said, "The bottom
line remains the president is dedicated to an open government, a responsive
government, while he fully exercises the authority of the executive branch."

Secrecy is almost impossible to quantify, but there are some revealing
measures. In the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2001, most of which came
during the Bush presidency, 260,978 documents were classified, up 18 percent
from the previous year. And since Sept. 11, three new agencies were given
the power to stamp documents as "Secret" - the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human
Services.

In Congress, where objections to secrecy usually come from the party opposed
to the president, the complaints are bipartisan. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
the Vermont Democrat first elected in 1974, said, "Since I've been here, I
have never known an administration that is more difficult to get information
from." Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said things were
getting worse, and "it seems like in the last month or two I've been running
into more and more stonewalls."

Mr. Cheney says the Bush policies have sought to restore the proper powers
of the executive branch. Explaining the fight to control the task force
records to ABC News last January, he said that over more than three decades:
"I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the
president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers
Act, we saw it in the Anti-Impoundment Act. We've seen it in cases like this
before, where it's demanded that the presidents cough up and compromise on
important principles. One of the things that I feel an obligation on, and I
know the president does, too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our
offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."



Continued on site..............



xponent
Psssssst  Maru
rob
________________________________
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
the universe is laughing behind your back.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to