They Have Secrets
An editorial in today's NY Times confronts one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency: its opacity. From the very start, the Bush White House has operated in secret, and in so doing has successfully made the executive branch more powerful and less accountable than the other two formely co-equal branches. This reliance on secrecy was manifested early on when the Vice President refused to reveal who was present at his energy meetings. The current manifestation is the administration's push to dismiss cases filed for improper behavior by the CIA and other executive agencies on the basis that to allow the cases to move forward would reveal important "state secrets." It is this manifestation that the NYT editorial takes on.
To avoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought early dismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct, brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national security secrets at risk.
Thus far, the courts have meekly acceded to the administration's demands without bothering to check to see whether the arguments had any merit or any relevance to the suits before them. The US Supreme Court itself has refused to do anything on the issue, apparently happy to aid their own relegation to the sidelines. The result, of course, is that justice is being denied and the constitutional scheme of checks-and-balances has become an irrelevance.
The editorial has found a hopeful sign, however, and that signal has come from Congress (of all places).
Congress — which has allowed itself to be bullied on national security issues for far too long — may now be ready to push back. The House and Senate are developing legislation that would give victims fair access to the courts and make it harder for the government to hide illegal or embarrassing conduct behind such unsupported claims.
Last week, Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, jointly introduced the State Secrets Protection Act. The measure would require judges to examine the actual documents or other evidence for which the state secrets privilege is invoked, rather than relying on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be publicly disclosed. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an important supporter of the reform, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Feb. 13. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, expects to introduce a similar measure in the House.
The bill as described is certainly a good start at cutting back the powers asserted by the Unitary Presidency, but that assumes that it will be passed in each house of Congress. Given the actions of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House over the last year, that assumption may be unwarranted. It also assumes that there will be a veto-proof majority, and that also is as unlikely as the veto is likely.
In other words, while I am grateful for the NYT editorial, I am not as optimistic as the editorialist.
352 days to go.
To avoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought early dismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct, brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national security secrets at risk.
Thus far, the courts have meekly acceded to the administration's demands without bothering to check to see whether the arguments had any merit or any relevance to the suits before them. The US Supreme Court itself has refused to do anything on the issue, apparently happy to aid their own relegation to the sidelines. The result, of course, is that justice is being denied and the constitutional scheme of checks-and-balances has become an irrelevance.
The editorial has found a hopeful sign, however, and that signal has come from Congress (of all places).
Congress — which has allowed itself to be bullied on national security issues for far too long — may now be ready to push back. The House and Senate are developing legislation that would give victims fair access to the courts and make it harder for the government to hide illegal or embarrassing conduct behind such unsupported claims.
Last week, Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, jointly introduced the State Secrets Protection Act. The measure would require judges to examine the actual documents or other evidence for which the state secrets privilege is invoked, rather than relying on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be publicly disclosed. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an important supporter of the reform, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Feb. 13. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, expects to introduce a similar measure in the House.
The bill as described is certainly a good start at cutting back the powers asserted by the Unitary Presidency, but that assumes that it will be passed in each house of Congress. Given the actions of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House over the last year, that assumption may be unwarranted. It also assumes that there will be a veto-proof majority, and that also is as unlikely as the veto is likely.
In other words, while I am grateful for the NYT editorial, I am not as optimistic as the editorialist.
352 days to go.
posted by Diane at 4:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home