{"article":{"id":12763,"heading":"New White House Order on Secrecy of Historical Presidential Records Is Unlawful","author":"Public Citizen","created":"2001-11-09 03:09:54","modified":"2005-08-15 00:42:58","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:42:58","article":"
Nov. 5, 2001

Public Citizen issued the following three press \r\nreleases today:

New White House Order on Secrecy of Historical \r\nPresidential Records Is Unlawful

Bush Administration Officials Should Be \r\nMade to Explain Actions to Congress,
 Public Citizen Says \r\n

WASHINGTON, D.C. - When Bush administration officials testify before \r\nlawmakers tomorrow, they should be made to explain how an executive order issued \r\nlast week extending the secrecy of presidential documents is legal, Public \r\nCitizen said today. Public Citizen contends that the order is not \r\nlegal.

In a letter sent to Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.), Public Citizen \r\ncited judicial decisions apparently ignored by the White House when it \r\npromulgated the order. The order will be the subject of oversight hearings to be \r\nheld Tuesday by the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial \r\nManagement and Intergovernmental Relations, which Horn chairs.

Issued \r\nlast week by the Bush White House, the executive order violates applicable \r\nprovisions of federal law by extending the secrecy of presidential documents \r\nfrom past administrations. The order applies to records of presidents from \r\nRonald Reagan forward, which are governed by the Presidential Records Act, a \r\n1978 law passed in the wake of Watergate to assure public control over and \r\naccess to presidential documents. The executive order attempts to give both the \r\nsitting president and former presidents the power to prevent the National \r\nArchives from releasing documents that the act requires to be made \r\npublic.

Fifteen years ago, the Reagan Justice Department issued a \r\nvirtually identical order that required the Archivist to abide by assertions of \r\nexecutive privilege by former President Nixon. Public Citizen sued in federal \r\ncourt to block implementation of that order and prevailed.

That \r\nlawsuit,  Public Citizen v. Burke, required nearly two years of effort but \r\nultimately resulted in a 1988 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. \r\nCircuit repudiating the Reagan administration's position.  The opinion, \r\nwritten by Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative appointed by President \r\nReagan, held that the Archivist of the United States, who runs the National \r\nArchives, could not be required to defer to a former president's claim of \r\nexecutive privilege.

\"Public Citizen fought this very same battle before \r\nand won,\" said Scott Nelson, attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation \r\nGroup.  \"We're fully prepared to fight it and win it again.\"

Under \r\nthe Presidential Records Act, an outgoing president can impose a 12-year \r\nrestriction on public access to documents that involve confidential \r\ncommunications between the president and his advisers - communications subject \r\nto the so-called \"executive privilege.\"  After the 12 years are up, the law \r\nprovides that such documents be made available to members of the public upon \r\nrequest. 

The 12-year restriction on Reagan presidential documents \r\nhoused at the National Archives' Reagan Presidential Library expired earlier \r\nthis year.  When the Archives informed the White House that it intended to \r\nrelease the documents to the public, the White House first directed the Archives \r\nto wait eight months while it studied the issue, and then promulgated the new \r\nexecutive order.

Under the new executive order, both a former president \r\nand the incumbent president have an unlimited amount of time to review any \r\ndocuments the Archives proposes to release after the 12-year restriction period \r\nexpires.  If the former president objects to the release of any materials, \r\nthe executive order provides that the incumbent president will concur with the \r\nformer president's wishes unless there are \"compelling circumstances\" that favor \r\ndisclosure.  But even if the sitting president finds that there are \r\n\"compelling circumstances\" and disagrees with the former president, the order \r\nrequires that the Archives abide by the direction of the former president and \r\nkeep the documents secret.

At the same time, the order provides that even \r\nif the former president agrees that materials can be released, they will be kept \r\nsecret if the sitting president wants them to remain under wraps.  Before \r\nthe Archivist can release any documents, both the former president and the \r\nincumbent must agree.

The order turns the Presidential Records Act's \r\npresumption that materials are to be released after 12 years on its head.  \r\nBy requiring the Archivist to bow to the direction of a former president that \r\ndocuments not be released, the order also violates the fundamental principle \r\nthat executive branch officials must follow the law, not the personal wishes of \r\nformer officeholders.

According to Nelson, assertions by the Bush White \r\nHouse that the new executive order is necessary for reasons of national security \r\nare only attempts to confuse the issue.  Other provisions of the \r\nPresidential Records Act already forbid the release of any classified \r\ninformation that would damage national security.  This order applies to \r\ndocuments that are subject to release under the Act because they do not involve \r\nnational security. The order would permit a former president (or the incumbent) \r\nto bar disclosure of communications with presidential advisers simply because \r\ntheir release would be embarrassing.

\"This order has nothing to do with \r\nnational security,\" Nelson said.  \"It reflects the current administration's \r\ndesire to have secrecy merely to avoid embarrassment - and that desire is \r\ncontrary to federal law. We are confident that this order can't withstand \r\njudicial scrutiny.\"

A copy of Public Citizen's letter is available at http:\/\/www.citizen.org\/litigation\/briefs\/FOIAGovtSec\/articles.cfm?ID=6418

###

Energy \r\nInsecurity: Corporations Receive Special Treatment to Prop Up Dangerous Nuclear \r\nPower Without Safety Commitments

WASHINGTON, DC.- Public Citizen today \r\njoins a broad coalition of consumer and environmental groups denouncing energy \r\npolicies that subsidize nuclear power without securing any commitments from the \r\nindustry to improve plant security. The inability to secure nuclear power from \r\nterrorist attacks places millions of Americans needlessly at risk. Public \r\nCitizen calls for an end to the billions of dollars in subsidies that prop up \r\nthe industry and demands immediate regulatory improvements to protect Americans \r\nfrom the threat of nuclear catastrophe.

\"Federal regulators, consumer \r\ngroups and even the nuclear power industry acknowledge that nuclear power plants \r\nare not prepared to withstand a terrorist attack from land, sea or air,\" said \r\nJoan Claybrook, Public Citizen president.  \"In a decade of testing for mock \r\nland-based assaults, the security provided by the nuclear industry failed to \r\nstop intruders 47 percent of the time.\"

Recent efforts to beef up \r\nsecurity at the nation's 103 operating nuclear reactors, including ringing \r\nplants with National Guard troops, cannot guarantee the reactors' safety because \r\nnuclear reactors are not designed to withstand the impact of a commercial \r\njetliner. Public Citizen urges the establishment of a more comprehensive \r\nregulatory framework to force the nuclear power industry to figure out how to \r\ndeal with a terrorist assault. Public Citizen also calls for an immediate \r\nmoratorium on the approval of new power plants until the security of Americans \r\ncan be guaranteed.

\"The risk of a Chernobyl-style catastrophe at an \r\nAmerican nuclear power plant is real,\" said Tyson Slocum, research director for \r\nPublic Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. \"At a minimum, \r\nthe regulations covering safety at nuclear power plants must be upgraded in \r\nresponse to Sept. 11. But instead of asking the nuclear power industry to \r\nimprove safety, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has continued relicensing \r\nprocedures for reactors without holding these plants to higher standards in \r\nexchange for allowing them to operate for another 20 years.\"

Congress, \r\ntoo, has sacrificed public safety by continuing to promote subsidies for the \r\nnuclear power industry. Reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act - legislation \r\nthat forces taxpayers to cover most of the estimated costs of a nuclear power \r\ncatastrophe and allows the nuclear power industry to save an estimated $3 \r\nbillion annually on insurance premiums - appears certain.

Although the \r\nU.S. House of Representatives passed its energy bill in August, the Senate has \r\nbeen embroiled in a procedural battle to rush a vote on the House legislation. \r\nSen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)gaining concessions to force a vote soon by attaching \r\nthe entire House bill as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The \r\nHouse legislation provides billions of dollars in taxpayer giveaways to the \r\nnuclear industry, including millions of dollars to recruit students to work in \r\nthe commercial nuclear industry and millions more to subsidize every kilowatt \r\nhour of electricity generated by nuclear power.

\"Billions of dollars of \r\ntaxpayer subsidies to the nuclear power industry won't buy Americans the safety \r\nand security they demand,\" Slocum said.

###
 
Australian \r\nOfficials Urged to Reject
U.S. Company's Food Irradiation \r\nPlan

Consumer Group Expresses Concerns Over Safety of and Need for \r\nRadiation \"Treatment\" for Exotic Fruits











 









          






<\/div>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Public Citizen issued the following three press releases today:","numcomment":1,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/11\/publiqpxnar.htm","filesize":"15.0 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/11\/12763.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":12766,"heading":"Everything they do is unlawful - almost!","article":"Almost everything these idiots (government bureaucrats) do it illegal. They don't realize they should be serving us - not ruling us. But we are so stupid, we pay them to mess with us! How stupid is that. STARVE A FEEDING BUREAUCRAT!","author":"Judy","parent_id":12763,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2001-11-09 16:03:59","modified":"2001-11-09 16:30:32","fileurl":""}]}