PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
Mobile
Home Delivery
philly.com
email
font size
options
 
Friday, January 23, 2009

Sunlight over secrecy



Elections do matter. Voting does make a difference. Case in point:

When George W. Bush was in office, secrecy trumped sunlight. Today, with Barack Obama in office, sunlight trumps secrecy.

On his first working day as president, Obama erased a key element of Bush’s secrecy ethos with a stroke of a pen. His action on Wednesday didn’t get much public attention; the issue at hand wasn’t nearly as sexy a subject as the return of American Idol. Nor did his action get much press attention, since it was soon overshadowed by a more visceral story, the Obama executive order decreeing the closing of Guantanamo. Nor will his action get much attention today, since everybody seems far more interested in whether Caroline Kennedy scrapped her Senate bid because of tax problems or illegal nanny problems or maybe because she realized she just had nothing to say, beyond “you know.”

In any event, in defense of boring substance, here’s what Obama did the other day: He scrapped a Bush executive order that had made it abundantly easy for ex-presidents and ex-veeps to shield their White House papers and documents from public scrutiny. The Bush order had basically violated the letter and spirit of a 1978 law requiring that presidential records belonged to the public. Obama, in his own executive order, put that law back in business.

The law, enacted in the aftermath of Watergate, sought to tip the scales toward sunlight. It mandated that presidential records be open to public view, but did not rush the process. Ex-presidents were given a 12-year grace period before their work had to go public, and they were permitted to withhold some materials for privacy and national security reasons.

But Bush, in his November ‘01 order, tipped the scales toward secrecy. (I know, you’re shocked.) He created a slew of loopholes that allowed ex-presidents to bust the 12-year deadline (with no subsequent time limit), and to withhold a far broader range of materials, simply by claiming executive privilege. Bush also extended these benefits to ex-vice presidents (Dick Cheney), and he even decreed that, once the ex-presidents and ex-veeps were dead, their heirs were empowered to keep the records under wraps. Bush also stipulated that, as long as any of these parties insisted on secrecy, the National Archives was powerless to compel release.

It’s no surprise that historians and archivists were ticked off by Bush’s action; as Seven Hansen, a former leader of the Society of American Archivists subsequently testified on Capitol Hill, “Access to the records of public officials is essential to accountability and rule of law.” And Thomas Blanton, a prominent Washington archivist, said that the 1978 law had been designed to fulfill “a core motivation of our constitutional system, that of preventing our presidents from becoming, or acting like, kings.”

More surprising, perhaps, was that even some congressional Republicans were appalled by Bush’s secrecy order. Dan Burton, an Indiana conservative, said a few years ago that the Bush order was “just insane” – and this is the same guy who once shot a watermelon in his backyard, as a ballistic experiment, in a futile bid to prove that the suicide of Clinton aide Vince Foster had actually been a murder.  It says a lot about Bush’s order that Dan Burton tried to get his congressional colleagues to overrride it via legislation. That effort, which dragged on for years, did not succeed.

Obama wiped out the Bush directive in seconds. Most importantly, his order specifies that only living ex-presidents can request that some materials be withheld, and that if their requests are ultimately turned down by the government, they are compelled to comply.

Obviously this issue may seem a tad abstract, particularly when compared to the job crises of the moment, and clearly it’s easier for Obama to strike a quick blow for the principle of transparency than to chart an economic recovery. But the ownership of presidential papers is no mere academic exercise. It’s basically about whether we can govern most effectively, learning from past mistakes, if we don’t have sufficient access to our own history.

Or figure it this way: “A nation…must believe in the future. It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people to learn from the past so that they can gain in judgment.” So said Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1941 at the dedication of his own future library. What Obama did on Wednesday, in that spirit, was to free up our access to the past, by nixing a kingly decree.
 
Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:20 AM  Permalink | 179 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:12 PM, 01/23/2009
    So DP, when is your first appointment to rummage through Obama's desk? Do you have the password to that fancy new Blackberry he has? You're not going to know anything BHO doesn't want you to know. He already stopped a guy from Politico from asking him questions about lobbyists during a meet and greet with WH reporters. How's that for transparency?
    — jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:45 PM, 01/23/2009
    He hasn't even been in office a week, and Obama is already being criticized for being withholding information from the media and not responding to questions. Change? Looking like more of the same. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html and http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95SR0K80&show_article=1
    — jfar86
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:48 PM, 01/23/2009
    Wow. Obama signs an order to promote sunshine and restore accountability to the Executive Office and the right-wing "butwhatabout" complaints start immediately. Back on topic, it's a good thing that the POTUS cannot hide from public scrutiny. I believe it is a founding principle regardless of left/right ideology. Yes, jmc, that applies to B HUSSEIN Obama as well. You're doing a bang up job of decrying everything the man does regardless of whether he made the right choice or not.
    — Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:51 PM, 01/23/2009
    It seems Pres. Obama will keep the Bush policy of missile strikes inside Pakistan (and I'm glad he did) as a drone killed up to 10 suspected Pakistani militants today! Is it legal to fire missiles into another sovereign country killing their citizens? I guess it okay to kill them, just not capture them. I thought the 'war on terror' was over and we would not do such terrible things or as Prs. Obama said,'As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals'. I guess this missile strike is keeping with the left's ideals? What's the scoop? http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_continues_pakistan_missi.html
    — NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:05 PM, 01/23/2009
    The "scoop" would be that an elected official kept a campaign promise. «SNIP» During the campaign, Obama said he would launch attacks into Pakistan against terrorist leaders like Osama bin Ladin if he had the intelligence to support such missions. «SNIP» Source: ibid. What does your query have to do with DP's blog about sunlight?
    — Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:13 PM, 01/23/2009
    Here is the scoop. Bush signed that order to prevent Republicans from rummaging through Clinton's papers in the aftermath of 9/11, since many wanted to know about Clinton's administrations actions and if they could have stopped the attack or killed Bin Laden before it happened. Bush stopped that with his executive order so the nation was not torn apart. Now some right wing organization will no doubt seek Clinton's papers, as will some try and get Bush's in 12 years. As for Obama, his executive order making all interrogations follow the Army field manual. However, there is a loophole. It set up a cabinet level commission to study circumstances under which non-military agencies (i.e. CIA) can use other means depending on the level of the terrorist captured. So, while maybe not waterboarding, will he allow sleep deprivation? What will this commission come up with, and will it be made public in the interest of transparency? I agree with NEPhilly....apparently Obama wants to close GITMO because it is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and dimishes our moral standing. However, killing civilians with missiles without warning in a sovereign nation without trials, which causes outrage in the Muslim world, is perfectly okay. Better to kill them than to take them to GITMO and torture them.
    — tjhaol
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:17 PM, 01/23/2009
    Phrossty, nothing:) Is that a rule? Are we going to discuss sunlight over secrecy nonsense all day? I found it interesting:) Just because it was a campaign promise, does that make it legal or right? Or is it a false choice between our safety and our ideals? Discuss:)
    — NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:20 PM, 01/23/2009
    Phrossty....here is the sunlight issue. Who cares about this executive order which gives access to Bush's papers in 12 years and Clinton's in two years. We have GITMO closing in a year at the same time the NYT runs a story about a GITMO releasaed detainee running an Al Qaeda recruiting center in Saudi Arabia and the WaPo saying Obama has ended Bush's war on terror. And we also do not have anyplace to put these detainees, but we will come up with something soon because we set up a process. We have an executive order saying no lobbyist can work in the administration, and if they do, they cannot participate in decisions affecting what they lobbied. But lo, two deputy secretaries are former lobbyists, and Tom Daschle was a lobbyists for health insurers and interest groups...but Obama says he needs exceptions for those two individuals. So the order stands, except when he says it doesn't. Then we have an executive order saying only use the Army Field Manual for interrogations, except in those circumstances defined by this cabinet level commission comes up with for non-military agencies. Is this change? Or is this the beginning of a president in over his head who hasn't a clue what he is doing. Do not get me wrong...I support the President, I just do not support his policies.
    — tjhaol
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:28 PM, 01/23/2009
    OK. Fair enough. I presumed we ought to stay on topic. But you're correct, we're not constrained to so do.... It may be a false choice. It is consistent with his campaign promises to go after terrorists wherever they may be. I'm not sure where I stand on the 'sovreign nation' debate. War sucks. It's a crime against humanity. Once war is chosen as a course of action, there are rules of engagement that ought to be followed. The US of A does have enemies hell bent on destroying us and our way of life. The POTUS has a duty to stop them. This might mean crossing a border or ordering a special operation or two (which some may consider more insidious). Nonetheless, the excerpt from the inaugural address I take to mean we shouldn't sacrifice our liberty for our safety, nor compromise our principles for a win at all cost pyrrhic victory. Showing a willingness to use lethal force does make aggressive diplomacy more effective IMHO.
    — Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:37 PM, 01/23/2009
    Polman... you're BEAUTIFUL! Obama re-takes the oath of office only allowing ABC News to cover (a HUGE financial contributor to Obama's 'immaculation' on Tuesday) and you write an article talking about "Sunlight over secrecy"! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
    — JGD84
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:47 PM, 01/23/2009
    Phrossty, it sounds almost neo-con in policy. Understand, I agree with his actions and fully support them! It just goes to show its a little harder to govern and make life and death choices, than to lob rhetorical bombs from the campaign trail! I wonder if Nancy Pelosi will call for someone to be prosecuted over it, ha, ha, ha, just kidding:)
    — NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:53 PM, 01/23/2009
    JGD: You're so right! They should have done that publicly to embarrass Obama for his flubbing of the original oath. Roberts didn't make any mistakes: Obama is the Oaf of Office!
    — Talvenada
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:57 PM, 01/23/2009
    TJHAOL: Nice spin on Bush protecting Clinton, because his openness in the last 8 years means he was NOT keeping his own records secret.
    — Talvenada
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:01 PM, 01/23/2009
    Since the action is consistent with his campaign stance, it makes me wonder where the "most-liberal Senator (President) ever" hogwash comes from. Pres. Obama has consistently shown an ability to listen to all sides of an issue and make a decision based on the situation, not a predispostion. That is one of the reasons I voted for him. I liked the idea of electing a leader who is willing to listen to an opposing point of view and make a reasoned decision over having one's mind made up and surrounding oneself with assenting voices only. (I'm guilty here of lumping McCain with Bush.) Does Obama have progressive views and allow those views to influence his decision? Certainly, but I don't think he's nearly the far-left socialist, terrorist sympathizer who can do no "right" some folks make him out to be.
    — Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:06 PM, 01/23/2009
    NEP, I don't recall Obama telling anyone the war on terror was over and the focus on Pakistan was a campaign promise. He was even criticized for the threat to take action within a soverign nation.
    — JimR


179 comments | View All Comments | View All By Latest
View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 

Total pages: 12 | Jump to:
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.

Advertise Here