TheAgitator.com
Politics and Censorship
Sunday, April 4th, 2004Interesting article on how the Bush administration determines what information ought to be classified in the interest of national security and what information is safe to be released.
Looks more and more like national security has very little to with what gets classified. Instead, information that backs or backed the administration’s case for war is deemed okay, where information that might hurt the White House is censored for alleged national security reasons. The most obvious example is Richard Clarke’s original testimony to a House committe investigating 9/11 that was critical of the White House. That testimony was once determined to be too sensitive for release. Now that the White House sees an advantage in releasing it — namely, discrediting Clarke by revealing reported discprencies in his two testimonies — his original testimony is suddenly hunky-dorey for public consumption.
There are other examples, too:
To make its case for war at the United Nations, the White House also released recent audiotapes of intercepted conversations — usually among its most highly guarded secrets — between Iraqi military officers…… A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of “Key Judgments.”
“Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons. . . . [I]t will probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade,” the section said, adding that “most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”
When a fuller, eight-page version of the key judgments section was released after the war, it contained lengthy, well-marked dissents by some in the intelligence community.
On the question of whether certain aluminum tubes were imported to Iraq for use in nuclear weapons programs, the first document said: “Most intelligence specialists assess this to be their intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.”
The second document included a dissent by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR), which said it did not believe there was “a compelling case” that Iraq was working to acquire nuclear weapons. And INR and the Department of Energy questioned whether the tubes were well-suited for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
The second declassification, said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a group devoted to declassifying secrets, showed the administration was not “protecting sources and methods. They were creating a document for public consumption that argued for the war.”
The White House announced today that it will vet the special commissions 9/11 report “line by line” to be sure it doesn’t reveal anything that might compromise national security.
Something tells me the White House will define “national security” broadly enough to include “anything that might hurt Bush’s chances for reelection.”
Indeed. What’s really confusing is why they back this censorship, which crosses over to preventing people from testifying all the way to preventing a commission from even arising, in the first place. They are always forced to capitulate to the 9/11 commission, whose popularity far surpasses that of any one figure.
I am undecided on the issue of classification. My two, conflicting thoughts are these:
- Granting the Executive sole discretion in determining classification of information is guaranteed to result in misuse of the power. George Bush has proven this well.
- Granting the Congress any review of the Executive’s classification decisions is foolish, as the Congress are the greatest source of classified information leaks. Those bastards just can’t keep a secret.
I am not in favor of doing away with classification entirely. Neither am I convinced of a good method for mitigating the problems. Does anyone have a good solution?
Kill ‘em all?
Oh.. I guess that’s not a “good” solution.
A more pressing concern than document classification is “executive privilege,” which reared its head in the debate over whether Dr. Rice would testify before the Commission. The argument was that having Rice testify before a congressionally-created commission would compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to properly advise the president.
Executive privilege has always been a myth of constitutional construction. It’s alleged source is Article II’s charge that the President “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Ofices.” This was later spun to mean all such advice was privileged unless the President alone decided otherwise.
My first objection to the privilege argument is that although there is a separation of powers between the branches of government, the branches are not “co-equal”; In a republican (small “r”) government, the legislature is the ultimate agent of the sovereign people. The Constitution’s structure upholds this view. Congress can impeach and remove the president and federal judges, for example. Similarly, the Constitution requires the President to provide Congress with information on the “State of the Union,” but not vice versa.
During the debate before the war, the White House withheld a good deal of information from Congress on “national security” grounds. This was unconstitutional, in my view, because the Executive has no such right to withhold. Even if Congress acts irresponsibly and leaks stuff, it’s still their decision to make. Similarly, handling document classification is ultimately a legislative decision, though of course *Congress* may delegate initial classification authority to the President.
I am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that politicians use political power to cover their political asses.
1. if anyone knows where one might hear the audiotapes of the iraqi military officers/saddam republican guard, etc.. lemme know. it could be fabulously tasty icing on my pro-invasion stance.
2. i will most certainly find myself in the minority on this but i think way too much time/money/energy is being spent on this 9/11 commission. i’m tired of the fingerpointing. it’s not anyone’s or any agency’s fault/failure to a degree where one can say conclusively a-ha “if you would have done xyz then that day would not have happened.” we could spend years and billions and billions playing that game. it’s time to move forward. says this civilian. michelle
shemale fucking cool Best vanity transsexual top.
ebony trannies nice transsexual movie best
young porn shemale best Fice vanity shemale best pictures.
transsexual ass hard She likes shemale porn sample cute.
porn shemale cocktail.com nude free shemale gallery only
trannies jerking off hard She is fan of black shemale porn star nice and shemale picture post xxx pictures and nude shemale best videos.
shemale strokers nude Cheap shemale xxx top and much more.