Bush
Administration's Habits of Secrecy Unprecedented and Rising
|
Bush Administration's Habits of Secrecy Unprecedented and
Rising
On May 13,
1798, founding father and future fourth American President James
Madison must have been thinking about President George Bush when
he wrote to Vice President Thomas Jefferson, "Perhaps it is a
universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged
to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
Bush uses the pretext of national security to justify increased
government secrecy and control of information, even for
information that has nothing to do with protecting America from
threats. In the name of terrorism the Bush Administration is using
secrecy to control access to reams of self-damaging information
and keep it away from the people so as to protect the
administration and his father.
At the
White House, Habits of Secrecy
President Bush has always resisted disclosing information about
executive-branch decision making and activities. The White House
has offered an extremely limited number of press conferences and
Q&A sessions with President Bush. Often the only members of the
public allowed to ask questions at 'town hall' events have signed
Bush loyalty oaths before the carefully scripted events. (Compare
this to British Prime Minister Tony Blair who periodically answers
televised questions from elected officials.) The Bush
administration also steadfastly refused to provide intelligence
reports to the 9-11 commission investigating the attacks until the
threat of a subpoena, even with substantial media attention. We
now know Bush wanted the reports kept secret because they
contained potentially embarrassing information. A report by the
commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks found secrecy,
or over-classification, is thwarting the government's ability to
fight terrorists. Sens. Trent Lott (R-MI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)
noted in an op-ed column in the New York Times that 9-11
commission Chairman Thomas Kean observed that "three-quarters of
the classified material he reviewed for the commission should not
have been classified in the fist place." Lott and Wyden criticized
secrecy as excessive, saying it "has become so pervasive in the
federal government that it's often unclear whether facts are
classified for legitimate security reasons, or simply for the
political protection of agencies and officials.
|
Energy
Regulatory Commission Defeats Community Activism
A former U.S. Army Ranger Captain, Joseph McCormick, wanted to
find out more about a large natural gas pipeline slated to run
through middle of his community. McCormick's goal was to exercise
his right organize a protest against the construction, the first
step of which was to discover which residents would be affected by
the 100 foot wide, miles long, tree-cleared area through which the
30 inch high-pressure pipe would run. The Greenbrier Pipeline
Company refused McCormick access to construction plans and a
project map, so the Ranger turned to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. The FERC denied McCormick's request on the basis that
revealing the route could make information accessible to
terrorists, even though the information was previously available
to the public. McCormick has said he was bewildered. "I understand
about security," the former business executive said, "But there
certainly is a balance--it's about people's right to use the
information of an open society to protect their rights." "It
strikes me as not the full story," said McCormick of the notion
that keeping critical information from an enemy was the reason for
the government not revealing details of the enormous project. The
FERC now classifies as secret even the most basic information
about similar projects. An agency official has said its approach
is "balanced," adding that security concerns amply justify the
changes. When another local resident, Gini Cooper, was also
rebuffed in her attempt to get pipeline information, she filed
what is called a FOIA or Freedom of Information Act request to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Passed in 1966, the act is
designed to protect the public's right to know. What she got in
return was a list of planned affected landowners, about 80 pages
long, with all of the names blacked out. Government officials
later approved the pipeline, due in part to less effective
opposition from the community, which in turn was partly the result
of the FERC not providing a precise map of the project and
disclosing its affected landowners. And in case you are a
terrorist (please, do not read this if you are) and want to blow
up the natural gas pipe, you can now freely enter the library in
Floyd--without identification, criminal background check or even a
card identifying you as a non-Muslim--and read a map which
contains its exact route.
Cheney's
National Energy Policy Development Group, Super Secret
The National Energy Policy Development Group, an energy task force
run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is another example of the Bush
administration's reluctance to providing information. In May 2001
the task force released a report urging increased gas and oil
drilling (including on public land) and easing regulatory barriers
to building nuclear power plants. Because the White House refused
to provide a satisfactory amount of internal documents about the
task force, such as the names of its members, the antagonist
activist groups Sierra Club and the gadfly Judicial Watch sued to
obtain access to the records. They said that energy industry
bigwigs were de facto task force members and therefore subject to
a 1972 law called the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which
requires disclosure of the work of advisory groups that include
non-federal employees. The act requires such government committees
to make their membership "fairly balanced in terms of points of
view" and to hold meetings in public. Congress's General
Accounting Office had already sued Cheney on February 22, 2002 for
refusing to disclose the records, but lost its case. With the
second litigation, a federal judge told the White House to provide
the records, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The
court battle continues. The White House is arguing the court
cannot force Cheney to provide information about his advice to the
president, citing the Constitution's separation of powers clause.
Despite significant media attention, the Bush administration has
steadfastly refused to provide details regarding who the vice
president met with in formulating the energy policy, reportedly
saying such action would deprive the executive branch of the
freedom to solicit wide-ranging and unvarnished opinions from
outside the government.
|
Limiting
Disclosure of Embarrassing Friendships
It's been speculated that Cheney may be trying to protect himself
from the embarrassment of having depended heavily on the
self-interested-possibly dishonest--advice and propaganda of his
girlfriends in the energy industry. In early 2001 Cheney met with
Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman
Kenneth Lay, head Indian of a corrupt and fraudulent company that
for years has enjoyed extensive cooperation with Bush and
President Bill Clinton. "The Bush Administration is obsessed with
secrecy," reportedly said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), the ranking
Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee and lone-wolf
pest of the Bush administration. "This is profoundly unhealthy to
our democracy. The result is not just bad decisions on energy, but
a rejection of the principles of open government and public
accountability." (And for the historical record, just in case our
readers accuse EVOTE.COM of being too hard on the Republican Bush,
a decade ago it was also wrong for the Clinton administration to
fight efforts to obtain records about the task force Hillary
Clinton used to develop a national health care insurance proposal.
So there.)
|
Protecting
the Business Interests of Friends Through Secrecy
The initial contracts to rebuild Iraq, worth billions, were
evaluated in secret. The involvement of Cheney's office in the
awarding of enormous sole-source contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to his "former" employer (he's still getting paid),
Houston, Texas-based Haliburton, were kept secret. Bids were
limited to companies invited to participate and many were close to
the Bush administration. Congress later pushed for open bidding on
Iraqi contracts. When Keeping Data Secret Makes
No Sense Bush even forced a court fight from senior
members of a congressional committee to obtain access to the
Commerce Department's corrected census counts. Census data
obviously has nothing to do with security. Two persons were
recently put on the federal no-fly list. When the individuals in
question put in a FOIA request to find out why they had made the
list, their request was denied on the basis that providing the two
men information about themselves would violate their
privacy. Data is often re-classified after it has already been
widely disseminated. The Justice Department retroactively
classified information that it had previously given to Senate
staff members nearly two years earlier concerning allegations made
by an FBI translator who accused the bureau of gross mismanagement
and whistleblower retaliation. And the Defense Department
retroactively classified embarrassing weaknesses in the National
Missile Defense program after the unclassified information
had been disclosed and widely disseminated. The U.S. Department of
Defense censored its own video made to train employees on
responding to public information requests. (Parts of the video
released to the public were blacked out for copyright reasons, the
department said.) Two other examples include federal officials
forcing an Associated Press reporter covering a speech by U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Hattiesburg, Miss. to
surrender a digital recording of the speech; and an AP
photographer was removed from the scene of a train derailment in
Woodbridge, N.J., after stepping onto railroad property. For the
record, the feds prior to Bush number two getting into office also
classified information that was not sensitive. Examples include
World War II weather reports, newspaper articles on former Iran
Hostage Terry Anderson, and information on a government official
Halloween trick-or-treating with his progeny.
Cloak of
Secrecy Could Cost Lives
Other needless government secrecy initiatives include critical
consumer and business information that is increasingly being
withheld form the public. Tire and automobile information, for
example, that manufacturers are required by law to provide under
the early-warning system created after the Ford-Firestone scandal
five years ago, is now kept secret. In 2000 Congress passed the
Tread Act, or Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability
and Documentation Act, a new auto and safety law, just after one
of the highest-profile corporate scandals within recent memory
transpired; that faulty Firestone tires on Ford Sport Utility
Vehicles were coming apart on the road and had caused accidents.
According to the Department of Transportation, upwards of 270
persons died and 800 injured, where dangerous Firestone tires
played a role. A key part of the law was an obligation that
manufacturers provide safety data, such as consumer complaints,
warranty claims, and field reports from dealers, to a government
early-warning system which would inform consumers of potential
dangers. But the tire and auto manufacturers blew a gasket. After
months of lobbying by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and
others, transportation officials deemed that important safety
information such as consumer complaints, field reports from
dealers and warranty claims be classified as secret. By July of
2003, the NHTSA also exempted from FOIA incident information on
child restraint systems and tires. The manufacturers succeeded in
convincing the Bush White House to limit the public access to the
tire and auto safety information, which had been available to the
public for many years, and was in direct opposition to the intent
of the TREAD Act. The head of the NHTSA, Joan Claybrook,
reportedly said the public's right to know is one of the law's
cornerstones. "The intent (of the Tread Act) is to have an open,
available source of information so consumers can not only
contribute to it but can be saved by it too." After the successful
lobbying effort by manufacturers, Claybrook commented that safety
information was made secret "because the auto companies objected
to it... This is a double check system that was created by the
Congress to work, work for consumers, work for oversight of the
government. And now it's being destroyed by the Bush
administration keeping everything secret for no good reason."
Laura MacCleery, auto-safety council for the nonprofit consumer
group, Public Citizen has said "it was more or less a bait and
switch. You're talking about information that will empower
consumers. The manufacturers are not going to give up that
easily." The NHTSA did not cave to industry pressure, reportedly
said Ray Tyson, a spokesman for the agency. "We've listened to all
who have opinions and reached a compromise that probably isn't
satisfactory to anybody." Claybrook has said "the auto companies
have a huge sway in the Bush administration, and not only with
their financial contributions." Andrew Card ran a trade group of
American automakers and was a lobbyist for General Motors. An
attorney for the NHTSA, Jacqueline Glassman, is a former lawyer
for DaimlerChrysler Corporation. In addition to the tire and auto
information, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is also
more frequently denying public requests for information that would
allow Americans to analyze its product safety findings and product
recalls. Flying in Secret
Of course America and the world must continue to take vigorous
measures to prevent more planes from being used as missiles by
terrorists. But due to this effort the Federal Aviation
Administration has made it more difficult for Americans to view
the kind of safety information once considered routine. Shortly
after 9/11, the FAA stopped online access to records on
enforcement actions taken against airlines, mechanics, pilots, and
others who screw up. The FAA has made much, if not all, of that
information secret. Rebecca Trexler, an FAA spokesman, has said
this occurred when it was discovered that information was
available on things like breaches of airport security. But instead
of just keeping secret information useful for terrorist strikes,
the FAA covered up all enforcement records, including safety
information voluntarily submitted by the airlines. Because of
rules the TSA adopted in 2002, Americans no longer have access to
important government safety and security information of all modes
of transportation. The sweeping restrictions on information that
can be made publicly available goes beyond specifics about
screening systems or security, but includes the effectiveness of
security measures and enforcement actions. The new TSA rules also
created a new, looser standard for denying access to information.
The public can be withheld information if its "impractical" to
release it. The agency denied a request to comment on the matter
from a major media outlet.
Toxic Water or
Terrorism: Which is More Dangerous?
The denizens of Aberdeen, Maryland can tell you all about Bush's
abuse of keeping information secret at their health's expense. One
evening about 100 persons powwowed at the Aberdeen firehouse to
learn the latest about a potentially toxic ingredient in rocket
fuel called perchlorate. It had entered the aquifer that supplies
the town's drinking-water wells. Blame was quickly placed on the
proximate U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, where weapons have
been tested since World War I. After news of the water
contamination became known, a group of citizens began working with
the Army to stop the unseen pollution from spreading. But in early
2003, the Army deemed it had a good idea-good for themselves, that
is. It began censoring maps, removing building locations and
street names. This made it much more difficult for the residents
to understand and follow the track of the pollution, or where
environmental testing was being done. Army officials said the
reason for the cloak of secrecy was that the expunged information
could provide helpful clues to terrorists who wished to spy on or
attack the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The head of a citizen's group
and 20-year Army veteran, Arlen Crabb, reportedly said he does not
buy it. His well is within two miles of the base and his group is
suing the Army, arguing safety and health concerns. "It's an abuse
of power," said Crabb. "We're not a bunch of radicals. We've got
to have the proof. The government has to be transparent."
Feds Stop Court Cases Because They Will Lose
And in the Federal courts, Bush is pursuing secrecy claims besides
the much-publicized terrorist cases. Bush officials are
increasingly invoking a "state secrets" privilege that allows
government attorneys to request that criminal and civil cases be
effectively closed by claiming that national security would be at
risk if they proceed. A CIA Operations Officer, Jeffrey Sterling,
36, is black and sued the agency for discrimination. In September
of 2003 a CIA security officer visited his lawyers and demanded
they return documents the agency had already provided to them. The
officer reportedly said a mistake had been made, and the records
contained information that if disclosed would gravely damage
national security. The lawyers have said the officer warned them
that failure to comply could lead to prison or loss of a security
clearance. The attorneys gave back the records, even though the
papers were important for their case. So what was the important
information that al-Qaeda could use to attack the United States in
the case of Jeffrey Sterling? In a federal Alexandria, Virginia
courtroom, a lawyer for the Justice Department said the records
included a pseudonym given to Sterling for an internal CIA
proceeding on his discrimination complaint. The pseudonym had
never been used in an operation, and because of a clerical error,
had already been disclosed. One of Sterling's lawyers, Mark Zaid,
has said the pseudonym is just a misdirection play by the CIA. The
real reason the agency demanded the files back, he said, is that
they included information supporting Sterling's discrimination
complaint. Zaid said he has never encountered such heavy-handed
treatment from the CIA. "When they have an administration that is
willing to cater (to secrecy), they go for it because they know
they can get away with it." The CIA later provided the same
information it previously said would put national security at
risk.
Even Methods
of Getting Information are Secret
In September of 2001, Mohammed Ali Ahmed (Is that an Irish name?)
and his three children were removed from an American Airlines
flight. In 2002 this Indian Muslim and naturalized U.S. citizen
filed a civil rights suit against the airline. But TSA Director
Admiral James Loy intervened, reportedly saying that giving Ahmed
information about his family's removal would compromise airline
security. Wayne Krause, of the Texas Civil Rights Project and
Ahmed's lawyer, reportedly said the government, in other words,
was asserting a claim to withhold the very information Ahmed
needed to pursue his case. "You're looking at an almost
unprecedented vehicle to suppress information that is vital to the
public and the people who want to vindicate their rights."
Inability to get the information Ahmed's lawayers needed resulted
in the TSA stopping the case against them. Go figure.
It's Not a Secret, But You Still Can't Know
About It
On his web site, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, (D-CA) detailed how the
designation, "sensitive but unclassified", has been used by the
Bush Administration to block the release of important government
records. Waxman states that sometimes Bush invokes the designation
"to cover up potentially embarrassing facts, rather than to
protect legitimate security interests." It appears that virtually
any government employee can stamp a document with the designation
sensitive but unclassified. Examples include:
-
The State Department withheld unclassified conclusions by the agency's Inspector General that the CIA was involved in preparing a grossly inaccurate global terrorism report.
-
The State Department concealed unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from the African country of Niger.
-
The State Department's Inspector General also used the sensitive but unclassified designation to conceal the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in creating the grossly inaccurate 2003 annual terrorism report.
-
The Bush administration again abused the classification process to withhold releasing a report until after last year's election and the confirmation of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. The 9-11 Commission staff findings detailed that federal aviation officials received multiple reports that warned of airline hijackings and suicide attacks prior to September 11, 2001.
-
The Department of Homeland Security ironically concealed the unclassified identity and contact information of a newly appointed Transportation Security Administration ombudsman, whose responsibility it was to interact daily with members of the public regarding airport security measures.
-
The CIA concealed the unclassified names of U.S. companies that conducted business with Saddam Hussein under the Oil for Food program.
-
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought to prevent a nongovernmental watchdog group from making negative public criticisms of its nuclear power plant security efforts based on unclassified sources.
|
Government
Keeping Secrets From Itself
Bush is not only worried about information getting to al-Qaeda-but
also that other nest of terrorists. (Namely, members of Congress.)
New administration policies have limited Congress' ability to
exercise its constitutional authority to monitor the executive
branch. Occasionally even obtaining basic information about the
White House's actions is prohibited. During the 2003 debate about
the Medicare bill, for example, the chief actuary of the Medicare
program was told he would be fired if he answered questions from
members of Congress. The Bush administration, during the debate,
withheld from Congress more accurate and consequently much higher
cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation than
what they claimed. When Congress did vote on the bill, virtually
every lawmaker believed the legislation would cost hundreds of
billions less, during a 10-year span, than what the Bush
administrations says it will now cost. Both Republican and
Democratic lawmakers are now angered they voted on the bill with
such grossly inaccurate information. FOIA
Rollbacks Underway
The Freedom of Information Act is the brainchild of former
California Congressman John Moss. During the nearly four decades
the act has been around, created as one of the 1960s landmark laws
that promote "government in the sunshine," FOIA has helped
Americans learn about important issues from government researchers
secretly injecting unsuspecting Americans with radioactive
plutonium to corporate farms pocketing taxpayer subsidies.
Continually employing alarmist national security propaganda as a
pretext for just about everything during the post 9/11 zeitgeist,
on October 12, 2001, former Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a
memo to government agencies discouraging the release of
informational documents. It said, basically, 'If you can find any
good reason, legal reason (the exact phrase was "sound legal
basis"), for withholding information, we'll back you up.' Tucked
into the charter of the new Department of Homeland Security is the
single greatest rollback of FOIA since its creation. Indeed, the
DHS actually issued regulations which say that in certain
circumstances, if a court orders them to release information,
their employees are instructed to ignore the court order. The Bush
administration also sought and won a legislative FOIA exemption in
2003 for all National Security Agency "operational files." Their
main rationale was that conducting FOIA searches diverts resources
from the agency's mission. Since this of course applies to all
government agencies, the Bush crowd simply used this excuse to get
more needless secrecy. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
has also recently issued regulations that have the effect of
limiting the disclosure of what is now called "critical energy
infrastructure information" under FOIA, such as gas pipeline
safety information. "This flies in the face of openness in
government," Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) has said about Bush's
evisceration of FOIA. "While I understand every president wants to
protect their turf and keep people from overseeing what they're
doing, it's the responsibility of Congress to do just that." And
predictably, despite strong evidence to the contrary, the Bush
crowd says they still love FOIA. Daniel Bryant, the Bush
administration's assistant attorney general for legal policy,
reportedly said, "I think what you've seen is a White House that
has valued openness and that knows that openness with the public
facilitates confidence in government." "The fact is the government
is as open as it has ever been," reportedly said Mark Corallo,
director of public affairs at the Justice Department. "Everything
we do, we do in public. Any perceived secrecy has to do with the
fact that we are at war with a global terrorist network that wants
to kill innocent Americans. But despite that, we are the most open
government in the world." Protecting the (Bush)
Family
In another attempt to protect security-the security of the Bush
family name, that is-on November 1, 2001, President George Bush
quietly issued a sweeping executive order that effectively
repealed the post-Watergate, 1978 Presidential Records Act, which
required the release of presidential papers five years after
leaving office. (Some restrictions apply up to 12 years, with
others continuing longer.) The meat of the executive order says
that, should someone want to see specific presidential records,
unless the former president, vice president, possibly their heirs
or representatives, or current White House agrees to have the
archival documents released, it could remain secret indefinitely.
To get access, whoever wants the records must take the matter to
court and win. "President Bush has made it very difficult for
people to gain access to presidential records," Sen. Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM) has said. "We're talking about things that are not national
security issues," reportedly said Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), while he
was chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. "We're
talking about other issues that need to be explored and looked at
very thoroughly." The Bush administration has said the order was
intended to create "an orderly" process for releasing presidential
records. "We believe it does a good job, as we've seen in the
release of former president Reagan's records," White House
spokesman Anne Womack has said. White House Communications
Director Dan Bartlett has defended Bush and rejected the negative
criticism of what many say is its penchant for secrecy. Bartlett
has said that besides the extraordinary steps the president has
taken to protect the nation, Bush and other senior officials must
keep private advice given in areas such as intelligence and
policymaking, if that advice is to remain candid. Overall,
Bartlett said, "the administration is open, and in the process in
which this administration conducts its business is as transparent
as possible." There is "great respect for the law, and great
respect for the American people knowing how their government is
operating." Bartlett also said that some administration critics
"such as environmentalists... want to use (secrecy) as a bogeyman.
For every series of examples you could find where you could make
the claim of a 'penchant for secrecy,' I could probably come up
with several that demonstrate the transparency of our process."
When the communications director reportedly was asked to provide
examples, he offered none.