Who Owns Presidential Documents...You (and me) or the Pres (and his heirs) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

1. history is what narratives about what happened say it is.

I disagree.

Quote:

it is a type of text taken up with narratives that construct and link elements--maybe events, maybe other things--into a type of pattern.

I disagree.

Quote:

2. your notion of history via the example of "roots" is kinda absurd. historians make shit up all the time--

Historians may make stuff up, but made up stuff is not history. Again I disagree.

Quote:

if you want to hold up the standard of "what actually happened" and you take that idea "what actually happened" at all seriously, then there is no written history, just types of fiction.

I disagree. We have written records of people in the military, weapons inventories, battle communications, medical records, reports of deaths/injuries, etc. these things make an historic record. A historian can even count the number of spent shells on a battle field to help determine the course of a battle. That also would be real history, that can make up a real historic narrative.

Quote:

3. as for documentation of the bush-process of selling the fake case for the iraq war--you wouldn't be interested because you're politically inclined not to be, and methodologically inclined not to look at that sort of documentation. so your history--the one you'd write--wouldn't use them. almost any other historian doing the same project would use those documents, were they available. your history would soon become an example of politically motivated fiction claiming to be history because its arguments, types of evidence and logic that connected these into patterns, wouldn't stand up. if you don;t believe me, try doing it. it'd be fun.

What is it that we don't know about the lead up to the war? I clearly state why I supported the war, and the information I used to come to my conclusion. I gladly include the trade-offs and the costs. I have never ignored them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...this is not about impeachment or subpoenas. It is about access to presidential documents after they leave office.

I agree with rb....you dont understand history or the value that uncensored presidential policy documents bring to a more complete understanding of a president's policy decisions and actions, and thus a more complete history of that president's term of office.

Like I stated history is best served with honesty. If you don't understand how information and documents can be "staged" that o.k. , however you will be generally be taken advantage of as you seek truth.

roachboy · 04-13-2008, 01:56 PM

dc_dux · 04-13-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Like I stated history is best served with honesty. If you don't understand how information and documents can be "staged" that o.k. , however you will be generally be taken advantage of as you seek truth.

If you dont understand how more can be "staged" by the "actors" in question when presidential documents are withheld from the public...thats ok too.

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you dont understand how more can be "staged" by the "actors" in question when presidential documents are withheld from the public...thats ok too.

I understand, that is why I prefer discovered historic documents over "staged" documents.

You intrigue me. You think Bush is dishonest, yet you want documents from Bush to prove his dishonesty. Odds are a dishonest person will keep dishonest documentation. That is why I don't force this issue. I would rather historians spend time researching things that are "spontaneous".

roachboy · 04-13-2008, 02:29 PM

what do you mean by "things that are spontaneous"?

dc_dux · 04-13-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I understand, that is why I prefer discovered historic documents over "staged" documents.

You intrigue me. You think Bush is dishonest, yet you want documents from Bush to prove his dishonesty. Odds are a dishonest person will keep dishonest documentation. That is why I don't force this issue. I would rather historians spend time researching things that are "spontaneous".

I want a more open transparent government.....I dont know why that is so intriguing.

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what do you mean by "things that are spontaneous"?

For example Scooter Libby sends Chaney an email about a conversation he had with a reporter about a CIA agent. If Libby knows the email is public record, the email will reflect how he wants his email to be perceived by the public. If Libby writes a note on a napkin to Chaney, and Chaney throws the note in the trash, and someone finds the note and makes it public. I would put more value on the note than the email. I understand that both could be staged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I want a more open transparent government.....I dont know why that is so intriguing.

I told you what I found intriguing. Honest government suggests that the players have an opportunity for private thought. If I support an action by a ratio of 51 to 49 percent in my mind compared to a person who supports an issue 99 to 1, and we both vote the same way, I focus on the vote and have less interest in the minutia surrounding the vote.

dc_dux · 04-13-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I told you what I found intriguing. Honest government suggests that the players have an opportunity for private thought.

ace....you obviously dont accept the characterization of the PRA by the National Archivist...:

provides a "careful balance between the public's right to know, with its vast implications to historians and other academic interests and the rights of privacy and confidentiality of certain sensitive records generated by the President and his staff during the course of his White House activities."

... lets just leave it at that.

Quote:

If I support an action by a ratio of 51 to 49 percent in my mind compared to a person who supports an issue 99 to 1, and we both vote the same way, I focus on the vote and have less interest in the minutia surrounding the vote

I have no idea what this means nor do I care.

roachboy · 04-13-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

For example Scooter Libby sends Chaney an email about a conversation he had with a reporter about a CIA agent. If Libby knows the email is public record, the email will reflect how he wants his email to be perceived by the public. If Libby writes a note on a napkin to Chaney, and Chaney throws the note in the trash, and someone finds the note and makes it public. I would put more value on the note than the email. I understand that both could be staged.

isn't this obvious?
btw--do you write emails as if they are matters of public record?
just wondering.

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

isn't this obvious?
btw--do you write emails as if they are matters of public record?
just wondering.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you obviously dont accept the characterization of the PRA by the National Archivist...: [INDENT]provides a "careful balance between the public's right to know, with its vast implications to historians and other academic interests and the rights of privacy and confidentiality of certain sensitive records generated by the President and his staff during the course of his White House activities."

Because I don't know how they do that objectively. Seems to me that a person (s) with an agenda could be very dangerous.

Quote:

... lets just leave it at that.

We agree on something.

dc_dux · 04-13-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Seems to me that a person (s) with an agenda could be very dangerous.

You mean like Bush by preventing (or delaying indefinitely) the release of Reagan and GHW Bush documents as well as his own in the future?

Perhaps more than half of the Repubs in the House (as part of a bi-partisan 333-93 vote) felt that way when they supported the '07 PRA amendments to restore the original intent of the '78 act (or something close to it)....or perhaps they simply believed it balances the public interest and the interest of past, present and future presidents.

aceventura3 · 04-14-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You mean like Bush by preventing (or delaying indefinitely) the release of Reagan and GHW Bush documents as well as his own in the future?

Perhaps more than half of the Repubs in the House (as part of a bi-partisan 333-93 vote) felt that way when they supported the '07 PRA amendments to restore the original intent of the '78 act (or something close to it)....or perhaps they simply believed it balances the public interest and the interest of past, present and future presidents.

What happened to - "...lets just leave it at that."?

I know Bush has an agenda.
I know what his agenda is.
I know that records destine for the public domain will be "staged".
I know our best sources for historical information are facts regarding what happened rather than what people write.
I know that Bush's EO clarified the issue of access to Presidential records as we entered a war that had elements currently relating to an area of the globe dating back over decades and involving mutiple administrations.

What I don't know is - can I trust the judgment of a National Archivist.

Sorry, but I voted for Bush, he is my elected President and I want him to make the decision on what information gets released. When Obama or Clinton gets elected, they can do whatever they determine to be correct.

roachboy · 04-14-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

I know our best sources for historical information are facts regarding what happened rather than what people write.

modern history--you know, history in the modern period, capitalist-style rationalized history, professionalized as a "science"--relies almost entirely on documents--all the more the further back in time you go. this is not open to dispute: it's simply how the form operates.
so this distinction between "what happened" and "what people write" is a kind of throwback. like a serious one.

anyone who is not an idiot (and many are idiots, trust me) who does history knows that something written down is more often than not problematic, and much of (to my mind) the fun of doing history lay in tinkering with the status and meaning of documents--and playing around with the status of this idea of "the document"--and playing with the conceptual frameworks that let you talk about history at all--but i digress---so anyone who writes a history is going to be entirely aware that written=written not that written=definitive or "true" because it is written.

this is linked to the importance of argument and procedures for building them in a piece of historical writing--the argument and procedures generate a distance from particular pieces of writing (necessary for critical appraisal, however that runs) and the integration of an interpretation of these pieces of writing back into an image of the world or what happened in the world or in that particular region of social being at that particular time.

host · 04-14-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....What I don't know is - can I trust the judgment of a National Archivist.

Sorry, but I voted for Bush, he is my elected President and I want him to make the decision on what information gets released. When Obama or Clinton gets elected, they can do whatever they determine to be correct.

ace, congress determined how it should be done....all president since the law was passed in 1978....followed it's provisions, until Bush came along and politicized the process. The purpose of the 1978 law was to depoliticize it:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print
February 1, 2002
ENRON'S MANY STRANDS: THE WHITE HOUSE; Bush Policy on Releasing Records Differs in Case of Clinton Ones
By DON VAN NATTA JR.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have said their refusal to give Congress information about the administration's contacts with energy industry executives is based on the executive branch's fundamental right to receive ''unvarnished'' advice from people outside the government.

But two months ago, the Bush administration authorized the release to Congress of thousands of e-mail communications by senior White House officials in the Clinton administration, including messages sent by outside advisers and senior aides to Vice President Al Gore.

With the approval of the Bush administration, the National Archives and Records Administration turned over to the House Committee on Government Reform 2,000 pages of Clinton White House e-mail messages. The committee is headed by Representative Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who requested the records in September.

The Bush administration also allowed the release to Congress of White House notes of conversations on some of President Bill Clinton's 11th-hour pardon decisions.

The electronic messages, dating to 1995, deal with a wide variety of campaign finance issues. They include e-mail messages to Mr. Gore from senior aides, including his general counsel and chief of staff. They also include e-mail from people outside the government to senior White House officials, including Mr. Gore. Lawyers for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore did not raise objections to their release.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, however, said the White House policy on confidentiality of executive branch records was inconsistent.

''When the administration claims it is acting out of principle, it needs to be consistent,'' Mr. Waxman said. ''But here there's no consistency.''

The release of those messages on Nov. 28 and Dec. 24 was not the first time last year that the Bush administration raised no objections to the release to Congress of documents or e-mail messages from the Clinton administration.

On five previous occasions, the archives released records of contacts with outside parties seeking to influence Mr. Clinton's last-minute pardon decisions, including a transcript of a conversation between Mr. Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel relating to the pardon application of the billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Again, the Bush administration raised no objections.

In a letter to the committee, the archives said the Bush administration had waived any state-secret privilege to allow the notes of the conversations with Mr. Barak to be released.

On Nov. 1 last year, Mr. Bush signed an executive order that permitted a sitting president to grant or block any request for a previous administration's documents. Later that month, he permitted the Clinton administration e-mail messages to be turned over to Congress.

Anne Womack, a White House spokeswoman, said today that the Clinton administration documents were released to Congress because Mr. Clinton had not objected to their release.

''Former administration officials had an opportunity to review the requested documents,'' Ms. Womack said. ''As our presidential records executive order states, we will generally defer to the wishes of the past president. And therefore they were released as requested.''

Ms. Womack said it was unfair to compare the release of the Clinton administration documents and the Bush administration's stance on the energy task force records.

''These are totally different situations,'' she said. ''These Clinton documents were requested as part of a Congressional subpoena, and this is a situation where we believe the G.A.O. has overstepped its authority.''

Earlier this month, Mr. Bush agreed to release 8,000 pages of documents from the Reagan administration, but blocked the release of about 60,000 other Reagan-era documents, citing national security concerns. There was no objection to the documents' release by former Reagan administration officials. ....

......The release of the Clinton White House documents raises legal and political questions for the Bush White House, which has repeatedly argued that an important principle is at stake in its refusal to turn over the energy task force documents. It also could emerge as an issue in the lawsuit to be filed by the General Accounting Office against Mr. Cheney in an effort to get access to documents related to the administration's energy task force.

On Monday, Mr. Bush said: ''We're not going to let the ability for us to discuss matters between ourselves to become eroded. It's not only important for us, for this administration, it's an important principle for future administrations.''

The documents that the Bush administration refuses to turn over are lists of executives who met with Mr. Cheney's energy task force. The accounting office also seeks the subjects of the discussions.

The information from the Clinton administration includes internal discussions between Mr. Gore and his staff members, as well as a National Security Council transcript of a conversation Mr. Clinton had with Mr. Barak.

Associates of Mr. Clinton said it was the first time in history that a transcript of a president's conversation with a head of state was released. An associate said today that Mr. Clinton was not consulted about releasing the Barak conversation.

''That was not our decision to make,'' the associate said. ....

Quote:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...e_for_the.html
Candidate Watch
Is Hillary Responsible for the 'Library Lockdown'?

...According to Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, <A HREF="http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070312155007-75763.pdf">a non-profit group that monitors declassification procedures</A>, delays in processing FOIA requests have mounted steadily during the seven years of the Bush presidency. Back in 2001, it was taking the Reagan library between 16 and 18 months to process a FOIA request. It now takes six and a half years. According to the National Archives, the current backlog for processing FOIA requests to the George H.W. Bush presidential library is four and a half years.

Some of these delays are the result of staffing shortages. But some are caused by the need to submit documents to former presidents for review. <A HREF="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20070301/weinstein_stmt.pdf">According to Allen Weinstein</A>, the archivist of the United States, an average of 90 days was spent on such reviews in 2004. By April 2007, the average time devoted to such reviews had increased to 210 days.

Blanton praised former President Clinton for releasing "more historically valuable documents and more secret documents than all previous presidents put together." He said across-the-board declassification orders during the Clinton administration and new restrictions on declassification under Bush had overwhelmed the system. Prior to the 2001 Bush order, the National Archives could automatically release records on its own initiative after 30 days, provided that no objection was received from a former president or government agency.

"The process is really daunting," said Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the National Archives. "Every FOIA requests requires a huge amount of work. A lot of these requests are fishing expeditions, requiring us to look at millions and millions of pages. Once we have vetted everything for classified material, it then goes to the former president's representative, and then the current president. It is really cumbersome."

Some news organizations have made an issue out of <A HREF="http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351">a letter President Clinton wrote to the Archivist in 2002</A> exempting all-but-routine "communications" with the First Lady from the general release of records until 12 years after the end of his presidency, i.e. 2012. We find this less of a problem than the delays in processing FOIA requests. Bill Clinton can reasonably claim to be following precedent in this particular instance. His predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, requested similar exemptions for communications with their "advisers."

On the other hand, neither Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush ever ran for the presidency of the United States.
The Pinocchio Test

Nobody comes off particularly well on this one. Republicans lack credibility when they criticize the Clintons for dragging their feet on the release of presidential records. The 2001 Bush executive order reversed many of the gains made during the Clinton years on access to government archives and release of secret information. But Hillary Clinton should not pretend she is an entirely innocent bystander. It is clear that former presidents have considerable say in deciding which of their records get released, and that influence has increased greatly under Bush II.

aceventura3 · 04-14-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

modern history--you know, history in the modern period, capitalist-style rationalized history, professionalized as a "science"--relies almost entirely on documents--all the more the further back in time you go. this is not open to dispute: it's simply how the form operates.
so this distinction between "what happened" and "what people write" is a kind of throwback. like a serious one.

anyone who is not an idiot (and many are idiots, trust me) who does history knows that something written down is more often than not problematic, and much of (to my mind) the fun of doing history lay in tinkering with the status and meaning of documents--and playing around with the status of this idea of "the document"--and playing with the conceptual frameworks that let you talk about history at all--but i digress---so anyone who writes a history is going to be entirely aware that written=written not that written=definitive or "true" because it is written.

this is linked to the importance of argument and procedures for building them in a piece of historical writing--the argument and procedures generate a distance from particular pieces of writing (necessary for critical appraisal, however that runs) and the integration of an interpretation of these pieces of writing back into an image of the world or what happened in the world or in that particular region of social being at that particular time.

Perhaps I have not been clear.

Written information is important. Here is how I would prioritize it.

Written factual information is most important, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc.

Legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, judicial opinions are next or first depending on the issue.

"Spontaneous" writings are next of importance in my opinion.

Written opinions, interpretations of facts by decision makers is next.

Written opinion, interpretations of facts, etc by support staff and others is next.

(Understand that the above was written off of the top of my head, I am not an expert and I am sure if I gave the issue more thought the list would be more detailed and more thorough. If you want to overlook the point and focus on that aspect - I am not interested)

However, for example I don't think President Clinton should be forced to disclose the donor list for his Presidential Library. I think the donors should have a right to privacy as does the former President. If we suspect illegal activity we should take legal action to obtain the information. Otherwise, in my opinion, the historic relevance is the library, not the written list of donors. In fact I think people want to see the list for purely political reasons and are not concerned with history. I would argue the same point regarding much of the interest in Presidential documents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, congress determined how it should be done....all president since the law was passed in 1978....followed it's provisions, until Bush came along and politicized the process. The purpose of the 1978 law was to depoliticize it:

You don't think this was a political issue from the beginning??? I think the only reason the bill was passed and signed was because of Nixon and a weak President Ford - at a time when the public was most distrustful of executive power.

host · 04-14-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps I have not been clear.

Written information is important. Here is how I would prioritize it.

Written factual information is most important, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc.

Legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, judicial opinions are next or first depending on the issue.

"Spontaneous" writings are next of importance in my opinion.

Written opinions, interpretations of facts by decision makers is next.

Written opinion, interpretations of facts, etc by support staff and others is next.

(Understand that the above was written off of the top of my head, I am not an expert and I am sure if I gave the issue more thought the list would be more detailed and more thorough. If you want to overlook the point and focus on that aspect - I am not interested)

However, for example I don't think President Clinton should be forced to disclose the donor list for his Presidential Library. I think the donors should have a right to privacy as does the former President. If we suspect illegal activity we should take legal action to obtain the information. Otherwise, in my opinion, the historic relevance is the library, not the written list of donors. In fact I think people want to see the list for purely political reasons and are not concerned with history. I would argue the same point regarding much of the interest in Presidential documents.

You don't think this was a political issue from the beginning??? I think the only reason the bill was passed and signed was because of Nixon and a weak President Ford - at a time when the public was most distrustful of executive power.

Since 1978, four presidents approved and followed the PRA for the next 20 years, until GW Bush, and as I supported with the first article in my last post, he used his new directive to keep secret the Reagan presidential papers, while publicly disclosing the Clinton papers.

aceventura3 · 04-14-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Since 1978, four presidents approved and followed the PRA for the next 20 years, until GW Bush, and as I supported with the first article in my last post, he used his new directive to keep secret the Reagan presidential papers, while publicly disclosing the Clinton papers.

You did not answer my question. Do you think this was a political issue from the beginning?

If this an issue about open government, should members of Congress be held under the same standard as the President?

roachboy · 04-14-2008, 08:58 AM

that's a reasonable list to use as a starting point, ace.
i'd probably not sequence it that way (from most to least "reliable" seems to be how you organized it)...
but with that, it seems like we don't really have a disagreement about the importance such documents play in the building of an understanding of what an administration might have done and why after the fact---maybe only about how each of us would approach that history, were either you or i to write it.

so what it seems the issue is comes down to whether you are inclined to support the bush administration's sealing of its documents for 12 years and why.

i do not support it. i think that it is particularly incumbent on this administration to make its rationale--its internal processes--available if only because of the extraoridinarily problematic and divisive policies that it has chosen to pursue--so "for the country" maybe an act that cuts against its apparent grain and takes transparency a little seriously would be good.

i don't really understand why a conservative would support less rather than more transparency on principle--it runs against everything about the usual criticisms from the neoliberal set of government functions, regulation, institutions, etc.

why do you support this again?

aceventura3 · 04-14-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

why do you support this again?

I trust the judgment of the President. Given the fact we are at war I would prefer the government to error on the side of disclosing less information about how decisions were made regarding the issues involving the ME in particular.

I have no interest in "voyeurism" in the context of wanting to have private matters made public.

I respect and honor the notion of private council, attorney/client privilege, and people having a right to express private opinion in the context of historic decision making processes.

roachboy · 04-14-2008, 09:19 AM

ah. so this is a straight political question for you--as i suppose it is for me.
but i see politics as entirely intertwined with history and how it is done, and i think that it is politically important (and not just for reasons of debunking, but for a host of reasons that i alluded to earlier) that these documents be available
---while it seems that for you this is not really about history or historians or the historical record or any of that--it's about supporting the bush administration.

which is fine, i suppose: but there's no real discussion in it.
i mean, it's obvious that neither of us is going to budge.

host · 04-14-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I trust the judgment of the President. Given the fact we are at war I would prefer the government to error on the side of disclosing less information about how decisions were made regarding the issues involving the ME in particular.

I have no interest in "voyeurism" in the context of wanting to have private matters made public.

I respect and honor the notion of private council, attorney/client privilege, and people having a right to express private opinion in the context of historic decision making processes.

ace....I'm guessing that this post didn't do it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=95

This is a serious question...I think you see the effort I put into this to be a sign that it is a serious question.

Since the contents in the post I linked to, have not influenced you to be too embarassed to post:

Quote:

.....I trust the judgment of the President....

Is there ANY information that you can think of, that I could post, that would influence you to be too embarassed?

...i.e., How could you possibly post:

Quote:

.....I trust the judgment of the President....

Is it because of his tight rein on spending?....His penchant for clearly and constantly telling the truth to us? His canny decision making on who presents an imminent threat to our national security, and then who to preemptively attack and occupy? What?

dc_dux · 04-14-2008, 10:44 AM

ace.....take Bush out of the equation if you possibly can and think President X

Is this really the approach to presidential documents you think best balances the public interest and the interest of President X in the future?

Pres X speaking:
"We should not be required by law to share source documents (including your top priority docs - written factual information, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc. ..and legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, etc.) with historians (and the public) 12 years in the future for fear that those historians may have a dangerous or political agenda.

Trust us to tell future historians (and the people) all that they need to know about our administration so that they may write about our actions and policies based on our version of the truth.....why would we lie to you?"

I just dont get it.

aceventura3 · 04-14-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ah. so this is a straight political question for you--as i suppose it is for me.
but i see politics as entirely intertwined with history and how it is done, and i think that it is politically important (and not just for reasons of debunking, but for a host of reasons that i alluded to earlier) that these documents be available
---while it seems that for you this is not really about history or historians or the historical record or any of that--it's about supporting the bush administration.

which is fine, i suppose: but there's no real discussion in it.
i mean, it's obvious that neither of us is going to budge.

Did you think the Star Report was worthy of publication?

Do you think President Clinton should disclose his Presidential Library donor list?

Does history require the publication of the First lady's schedule on the days the President had meetings with a certain intern?

I say no to all of the above, and none of it is about Bush or past Republican Presidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....I'm guessing that this post didn't do it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=95

This is a serious question...I think you see the effort I put into this to be a sign that it is a serious question.

Since the contents in the post I linked to, have not influenced you to be too embarassed to post:

Is there ANY information that you can think of, that I could post, that would influence you to be too embarassed?

...i.e., How could you possibly post:

Is it because of his tight rein on spending?....His penchant for clearly and constantly telling the truth to us? His canny decision making on who presents an imminent threat to our national security, and then who to preemptively attack and occupy? What?

Host on this issue I would defer to the judgment of any Commander in Chief. If the leader of our military the person most responsible for national security wants to keep a document confidential - I would support him or her.

Why do you folks keep wanting to make this a Bush or partisan issue? Why don't you trust that I believe what I write?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....take Bush out of the equation if you possibly can and think President X

Is this really the approach to presidential documents you think best balances the public interest and the interest of President X in the future?

Pres X speaking:
"We should not be required by law to share source documents (including your top priority docs - written factual information, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc. ..and legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, etc.) with historians (and the public) 12 years in the future for fear that those historians may have a dangerous or political agenda.

Trust us to tell future historians (and the people) all that they need to know about our administration so that they may write about our actions and policies based on our version of the truth.....why would we lie to you?"

I just dont get it.

O.k., I don't have anything else to help clarify my position. I have made many points, used several examples, and gave clear and specific reasons for my views. Unless another, someone on the sidelines who has been reading this thread, can tell me what I missed or how I am wrong in my view of the situation, I am going to assume it is you and not me.

Ustwo · 04-14-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If this an issue about open government, should members of Congress be held under the same standard as the President?

Teddy Kennedy would be an amusing read I'm sure.

This is an excellent point, that was ignored. Whats so special about the president that congress should be exempt from the same standard?

dc_dux · 04-14-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...I am going to assume it is you and not me.

Yep.

It is me, and host and roachboy, and Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and the American Historical Association, and every non-partisan open government organization, and 333 members of the current House of Representatives......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This is an excellent point, that was ignored. Whats so special about the president that congress should be exempt from the same standard?

First, I would note that Congress has always been much more transparent than the White House....the records of every speech, every debate and every act on the floor of the House and Senate and every Congressional Committee are included in the Congressional Record. The same cannot be said for every White House meeting or decision.

And in the short term (while in office), members of Congress are held to pretty much the same standard as a president (or cabinet secretary, etc) through the Freedom of Information Act, which has similar exemptions:

(1) properly classified in the interests of national defense or foreign policy,

(2) consisting of internal guides or directives discussing enforcement strategies, the release of which would risk evasion of the law,

(3) the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by other laws,

(4) containing confidential or privileged commercial or financial information,

(5) protected by certain litigation privileges,

(6) the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

(7) compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to create the risk of certain harms,

(8) contained in or related to oversight of financial institutions by an agency charged with regulation or supervision of such institutions,

and ? (9) containing geophysical and geological information regarding oil wells.

The courts have nearly always ruled to narrowly construe these exemptions in favor of disclosure of relevant documents......until Bush's EO, which impacted FOIA (by putting a greater burden on the "requester") as well as PRA.

In the long term (after they leave office), documents of individual members of Congress, as opposed to documents of the body as a whole, are not the property of the National Archives.

Ustwo and ace....if someone were to propose a bill to make records of ALL members of Congress the property of the National Archives and thus subject to similar long term requirements...I would probably support it.

But damn,you're talking millions and millions of documents of thousands of members of Congress over time.....big $$$$ !!!!

04-13-2008, 01:56 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-13-2008, 02:29 PM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what do you mean by "things that are spontaneous"? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-14-2008, 08:58 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's a reasonable list to use as a starting point, ace. i'd probably not sequence it that way (from most to least "reliable" seems to be how you organized it)... but with that, it seems like we don't really have a disagreement about the importance such documents play in the building of an understanding of what an administration might have done and why after the fact---maybe only about how each of us would approach that history, were either you or i to write it. so what it seems the issue is comes down to whether you are inclined to support the bush administration's sealing of its documents for 12 years and why. i do not support it. i think that it is particularly incumbent on this administration to make its rationale--its internal processes--available if only because of the extraoridinarily problematic and divisive policies that it has chosen to pursue--so "for the country" maybe an act that cuts against its apparent grain and takes transparency a little seriously would be good. i don't really understand why a conservative would support less rather than more transparency on principle--it runs against everything about the usual criticisms from the neoliberal set of government functions, regulation, institutions, etc. why do you support this again? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-14-2008, 09:19 AM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ah. so this is a straight political question for you--as i suppose it is for me. but i see politics as entirely intertwined with history and how it is done, and i think that it is politically important (and not just for reasons of debunking, but for a host of reasons that i alluded to earlier) that these documents be available ---while it seems that for you this is not really about history or historians or the historical record or any of that--it's about supporting the bush administration. which is fine, i suppose: but there's no real discussion in it. i mean, it's obvious that neither of us is going to budge. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-14-2008 at 09:21 AM..

04-14-2008, 10:44 AM	#62 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.....take Bush out of the equation if you possibly can and think President X Is this really the approach to presidential documents you think best balances the public interest and the interest of President X in the future? Pres X speaking: "We should not be required by law to share source documents (including your top priority docs - written factual information, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc. ..and legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, etc.) with historians (and the public) 12 years in the future for fear that those historians may have a dangerous or political agenda. Trust us to tell future historians (and the people) all that they need to know about our administration so that they may write about our actions and policies based on our version of the truth.....why would we lie to you?" I just dont get it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire