According to the Associated Press, former presidents can't withhold records. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly made the decision.
"By law, the National Archives has the final say over the release of presidential records and Kollar-Kotelly ruled that Bush’s executive order 'effectively eliminates' that discretion. It allows former presidents to delay the release of records 'presumably indefinitely,' she said." You can read the article here: www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19129
This is one of my early objections to the Bush Presidency. In November 2001 Bush issued an executive order, the gist of which was to remove the right of the National Archives to release presidential papers. It makes the release of those papers, which are the property of the people of America, dependent on the permission of the president who generated the papers and the sitting president. By this executive order, Bush was able to protect both Reagan and his father from FOIA investigations into the Iran-Contra affair. As a byproduct he also protected the Clinton administration. Whether the Clintons have ever made use of this order is unknown to me. Source: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-12.html
Why is this important today? Because the right wing has begun the "Islamo-facist" war chant. Many right-wing blogs and Faux News are supporting the myth that Iran declared war on the United States in 1979. If that is the case, then the sale of American weapons to Iran to finance the Contra war was a traitorous act. And Mr. Bush does NOT want us to know his daddy and the sainted Reagan were in on it.
Furthermore, a bill, H.R. 1255, that would overturn the executive order passed the House in March and is pending in the Senate. If you want more details on the bill go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01255:
This is excellent news and gives me hope the system (the American system of government) will correct itself fully after six years of neo-con attacks on transparency in government, on the Constitution, on the separation of church and state and on the system of checks and balances that makes the executive, legislative and judicial divisions equal in power.
Maybe, just maybe, someone in Congress will submit a bill that specifically defines so-called "signing statements" as extra-legal opinions that have no bearing on the laws as passed by Congress and, as such, are not to be taken into account by any legislative, executive or judicial body.
But Judge Kollar-Kotelly stopped short of declaring the order itself unconstitutional or setting limits on the authority of former presidents and vice presidents and their heirs to decide when, or whether, to release their records.
The National Coalition for History, a historians’ advocacy group, called the ruling “a partial but significant” victory for historians and researchers. But the plaintiffs were disappointed that the ruling did not go further.
“The court is enforcing procedural standards, but has avoided the hard questions about the role former presidents, former vice presidents, and their heirs can play when it comes to disclosure of presidential records,” said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel of the National Security Archive, a plaintiff. “Unless the executive order is reversed or withdrawn, decisions about the release of records from this administration may ultimately be made by the Bush daughters.” Legislation to overturn the order remains blocked in the Senate. —Jennifer Howard
<<<<
Re: H.R.1255
The House voted 333 - 93 to suspend the rules and pass the bill. According to Thomas there has been no cloture vote on this bill in the Senate (S.886) so under what "facts" is Peacemaker suggesting that the bill is blocked??????
The senate bill is not voted on yet but the House bill was passed.
However, there is no information available yet that it was blocked. With Republican tendency to block cloture, that may well happen. Depends on how American they are, doesn't it?
Your quotes imply that the ruling was meaningless. My quote, from the same article says it all.
"U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the U.S. Archivist's reliance on the executive order to delay release of the papers of former presidents is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law."
So following an order from the President, who last time I heard was the head of the executive branch, and the boss of the U.S. Archivist, is capricious and an abuse of discretion?
When your boss orders you to do something, that means you no longer have discretion.
It does not matter if such an action delays the release of such documents, unless such a delay is illegal. The article doesn't mention why such a delay is illegal. Of course that's pretty much what i've come to expect from Reuters.
It doesn't sound like the order explicitly contradicted a law. The legislature has the ability to overturn the order through legislation if they choose to do so.
It sounds like this judge is abusing her office and her discretion by even considering this case.
And Mr. Bush does NOT want us to know his daddy and the sainted Reagan were in on it.
This may be true oldfart, and although i do not agree with your "right wing islamo-facist" conspiracy theory i bet there are other former presidents who would be worried that such records could be released.
"This is excellent news and gives me hope the system (the American system of government) will correct itself fully after six years of neo-con attacks on transparency in government, on the Constitution, on the separation of church and state and on the system of checks and balances that makes the executive, legislative and judicial divisions equal in power." - oldfart
I agree on this count. Perhaps your courts will lead you back to democracy and its expression.
http://chronicle....ial-papers
October 2, 2007
But Judge Kollar-Kotelly stopped short of declaring the order itself unconstitutional or setting limits on the authority of former presidents and vice presidents and their heirs to decide when, or whether, to release their records.
The National Coalition for History, a historians’ advocacy group, called the ruling “a partial but significant” victory for historians and researchers. But the plaintiffs were disappointed that the ruling did not go further.
“The court is enforcing procedural standards, but has avoided the hard questions about the role former presidents, former vice presidents, and their heirs can play when it comes to disclosure of presidential records,” said Meredith Fuchs, general counsel of the National Security Archive, a plaintiff. “Unless the executive order is reversed or withdrawn, decisions about the release of records from this administration may ultimately be made by the Bush daughters.” Legislation to overturn the order remains blocked in the Senate. —Jennifer Howard
<<<<