Our
View: Bush is afraid of the light
Author
Sissela Bok once observed that “while
all deception requires secrecy, all secrecy
is not meant to deceive.”
The
insight seems contemporarily resonant in
light of Supreme Court hearings held Tuesday.
The case involves task force meetings held
in 2001 in which the Bush administration
attempted to devise a new national energy
policy. The administration has refused to
disclose the identity of those who participated
in the meetings.
The
plaintiffs in the case, the Sierra Club
and Judicial Watch, allege that notorious
top-level oil, electricity and nuclear industry
executives, including former Enron chief
executive Kenneth Lay, attended. The inference
is plain: an administration with infamous
ties to such industries met with corrupt
officials to devise a national plan of action
that would secure the country’s energy
supply and simultaneously enrich greedy
corporate officials.
We
won’t pretend to know whether the
administration’s claim of executive
privilege is constitutionally valid. It
does seem that the high court is leaning
toward ruling in its favor. In fact, it
would probably be a dangerous precedent
to set if the president and his cabinet
could not keep certain proceedings confidential.
Like Bok said, secrecy is not necessarily
intended to mislead.
That
said, the case is a prominent reminder of
the current administration’s love
affair with privacy. Sometimes, of course,
the battle for secrecy is less than direct,
but let’s have a look at the record.
Secrecy
has been concentrated in events surrounding
the 9/11 Commission. There was the original
refusal to even create the commission, then
disagreement about the scope of the investigation,
then the flap surrounding Condoleeza Rice’s
testimony and now there remain questions
about why exactly Bush and Vice President
Cheney are refusing to testify separately
and publicly.
The
Medicare bill signed into law late last
year suddenly became $150 billion more expensive
within days of its passage. The administration
is accused by some of keeping an estimate
by the Medicare actuator under wrap until
the passage occurred, but it has refused
to allow a formal inquiry.
The
Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported that
Bush has expanded the number of federal
officials who are legally allowed to keep
information secret.
Republicans
in the Texas legislature launched a redistricting
plan last year so blatantly biased that
Democrats fled across state lines to prevent
a quorum that would allow a vote on the
matter. Such redistricting must be approved
by the Justice Department, which has refused
to release internal memos and plans depicting
the proposed districts.
The
Washington Post has reported details of
“Web cleansing” taking place
on the White House’s homepage. The
Post said that information reflecting poorly
on the administration, such as prewar government
estimates of the cost of the Iraq invasion
and occupation, has been removed.
Information
about opened ended contracts with Haliiburton
has also been squelched, an especially troubling
reality since Halliburton has been dogged
with allegations of overcharging the military
for meals and gasoline.
And
if it weren’t so darn painful listening
to the president’s inarticulate policy
explanations, we’d also decry his
lack of press conferences, which take place
less frequently than those of any other
president since home television use became
widespread.
As
Sissela Bok said, secrecy is not always
a bad thing. But it is a bad thing if we
always have secrecy.
|
