(removed graph of historians rating of Bush presidency after Ustwo had a hissy fit.)
Who owns presidential documents?
The Presidential Records Act addressed this issue by making all presidential documents the property of the National Archives and accessible to historians, media and the public after a period of 12 years from when that president leaves office. Access to the records can be denied after the end of the 12-year embargo only if a former or incumbent president claims an exemption based on a "constitutionally based" executive privilege or continuing national security concern.
In 2001, Bush issued an Executive Order that effectively extended the exemption by allowing the former or incumbent president to block the release of docs after the 12 year period for any reason.
The timing of the EO was interesting....just when 68,000 pages of Reagan records were due to be released (including Iran/Contra docs). It also gives the both the current and former Bush the means to block former Bush records (perhaps records dealing with Iraqgate/providing arms to Saddam through BCCI - only speculation on my part?).
Does the public have the right to presidential records?
Can future historians write an accurate and complete history of a president without access to sensitive and controversial documents that no longer pose a threat to national security?
Quote:
Let the presidential record show...
A Bush order keeps presidents' papers secret. Don't let that stand.
By now, many have forgotten the records-censoring executive order issued by President Bush in November of 2001. The order gutted the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and gave presidents the right to prevent the release of their presidential papers – forever.
This audacious act requires nothing less than a national conversation about the role of history in a representative democracy. For it mocks the very notion that the historical record of the presidency is Americans' shared property, the font of all meaningful historical examination of what went right and what went wrong and how we can do it better in the future....
....The 2001 executive order even allows a sitting president to block the release of a former president's records, even if that president doesn't object to the public disclosure of his personal papers.
To challenge action taken under the order, historians, journalists, and ordinary citizens must seek redress in court.
Historians, who know that our history begets our future, rose up in outrage. Congress responded, albeit slowly. The House passed legislation this year to nullify President Bush's order by the veto-proof margin of 333 to 93, with 104 Republicans breaking administration ranks.
That bill was also on its way to passage in the Senate when, on Sept. 24, Sen. Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky objected to floor consideration of the measure, automatically holding up a vote.
I called Senator Bunning's office the other day. Yes, a staffer told me, the senator has a hold on the bill. And no, he won't be saying why.
This act should gall those who care about the sanctity – and significance – of the nation's history.
If those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it, then what becomes of those who manipulate their history? And what does it say of the citizenry who allows the whitewashing?
...If Bush's executive order is not overturned by Congress, it will allow presidents, their heirs, and – for the first time – vice presidents and their heirs, to deny the American people access to the full historical record of their administrations. History will lose to propaganda, unless those who record it are freed to do their work.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1224/p09s01-coop.html
|
IMO, this EO is right up there as one of Bush's worst abuses of power...in order to control the "history" of his administration.