Comments on: Politics and Censorship

By: michelle

michelle — Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:48:15 +0000

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

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:13:34 +0000

I am shocked – SHOCKED – to learn that politicians use political power to cover their political asses.

By: Skip Oliva

Skip Oliva — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:27:21 +0000

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.

By: Poobah

Poobah — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:37:23 +0000

Kill ‘em all?

Oh.. I guess that’s not a “good” solution.

By: Matthew Peck

Matthew Peck — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:48:16 +0000

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?

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:38:44 +0000

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.