Alberto Gonzales, poster boy for Bush administration stonewalling, testifying in April. (AP)

By Steven Aftergood
saftergood@fas.org

In 2005, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey told colleagues at the Justice Department that they would be “ashamed” when a legal memorandum on forceful interrogation of prisoners eventually became public.  In fact, however, disclosure of such secret Bush Administration documents may be the only way to begin to overcome the palpable shame that is already felt by many Americans at the thought that their government has engaged in abusive interrogations, secret renditions or unchecked surveillance.

The next President will have the authority to declassify and disclose any and all records that reflect the activities of executive branch agencies.  Although internal White House records that document the activities of the outgoing President and his personal advisers will be exempt from disclosure for a dozen years or so, every Bush Administration decision that was actually translated into policy will have left a documentary trail in one or more of the agencies, and all such records could be disclosed at the discretion of the next President.

A new President may find it advantageous to quickly distinguish himself (or herself) from the current Administration and its policies.  By exposing what is “shameful” in our recent past the new Administration could demonstrate a clean break with its predecessor, and lay the foundation for a more transparent and accountable Presidency.

Most of the leading candidates from both parties have specifically criticized the secrecy of the Bush Administration.  In particular, those who are now serving in Congress have repeatedly been on the receiving end of White House secrecy, and may be all the more motivated to repudiate it in deed as well as in word.

“Excessive administration secrecy... feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government,” Sen. John McCain has said.  “I'll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information,” said Sen. Barack Obama.  “We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources and methods as pretexts to hide the truth.”  “We need a return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, to a president who respects Congress's role of oversight and accountability,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The most troubling and the most secretive Bush Administration actions are those in the realm of national security policy, and that is the first place, though not the last, where the next Administration could constructively shed new light.  It goes without saying that genuine national security secrets such as confidential sources and legally authorized intelligence methods should be protected from disclosure.  But that still leaves ample room for revelation of fundamental policy choices, and certainly of any illegal or embarrassing (“shameful”) actions that may have been improperly classified to evade accountability. For example:

1.  Domestic Surveillance.  The White House is seeking and Congress is poised to grant retroactive immunity for telephone companies that assisted the Administration in its surveillance activities.  But immunity for what? “This Administration may have enjoyed completely unrestrained access to the communications of virtually every American,” said Sen. James Webb (D-VA) earlier this month.  “Do we know this to be the case? I cannot be sure. One reason I cannot be sure is that I have been denied access to review the documents that may answer these questions about the process.”  Such uncertainty should be remedied once and for all by official disclosure.

2.  Interrogation and Torture.  After months and years of awkward circumlocution, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden admitted on February 5 that U.S. interrogators had subjected three al Qaeda prisoners to waterboarding, or simulated drowning.  But the acknowledgment raised more questions than it answered.  On what authority did interrogators engage in what has long been considered a prosecutable action?  What other coercive interrogation techniques have been adopted?  If waterboarding is now deemed permissible under some circumstances, is there any interrogation technique that the Administration would still rule out?  What has been the humanitarian cost around the world?  As a practical matter, has the U.S. government effectively legitimized torture?  If there is to be accountability for the interrogation of prisoners in U.S. custody, the first step must be a forthright disclosure of what the Bush Administration has done.

3.  Extraordinary Rendition.  The U.S. Government has seized suspected terrorists and transported them without any semblance of judicial process to foreign countries where they have been tortured, a process known as “extraordinary rendition.”  In one particularly outlandish case, a Canadian national named Maher Arar was arrested in New York on the basis of erroneous information and deported by the U.S. Government to Syria, where he was brutally interrogated over the course of a year. Following his release, the government of Canada concluded that his detention was a mistake and issued a formal apology.  But the Bush Administration declined to follow suit.

4.  And Much More.  The topics noted above became controversial due to press reports, leaks, whistleblower accounts, lawsuits and similar indications.  But there is reason to wonder what other yet unknown deviations from accepted practice the Bush Administration might have pursued under cover of secrecy.  Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified.  There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third.  In other words, there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress.  Given what we do know of the character of the present Administration, this whole mechanism of executive authority seems in need of public ventilation.

And so here are some questions that journalists could usefully pose to the presidential candidates:

Q.  Will you disclose the full scope of Bush Administration domestic surveillance activities affecting American citizens, including all surveillance actions that were undertaken outside of the framework of law, as well as the legal opinions that were generated to justify them?

Q.  Will you specify precisely what sort of coercive interrogation techniques were employed by the Bush Administration, as well as their purported justifications, so that the nation may openly decide whether to embrace or to repudiate such techniques?

Q.  Will you renounce the practice of extraordinary rendition that is not sanctioned by any judicial process? Will you issue a formal apology to Maher Arar for his mistaken arrest, deportation and torture?

Q.  Will you disclose at least a summary account of the contents of each of the Bush Administration's National Security Presidential Directives, as well as your own?

Steven Aftergood directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, where he writes the Secrecy News blog. E-mail: saftergood@fas.org

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Funny You Asked Posted by Kurt Tompkins - 02/08/2008, 03:28 AM I was at a rally recently for one of the presidential candidates and he had mentioned this very same thing. He said that in his administration there will be no secrets, no back room deals, no under the radar agreements and no lies told to the American People. He then said that if given the opportunity to be president he would do his best to help uncover the lies of the past and get the truth out to the American people.. this speech was told in liberty hall and it was a guy named Paul..

100 Years War Posted by Don Robertson - The American Philosopher 02/08/2008, 06:35 AM One should consider history before examining too closely the GWB record. His crimes are ideological, even religious. I am reminded unfavorably, of the Inquisition and the divine rights of kings. The Inquisition started in Spain, and spread all over Europe. It was run by the Catholics for a while, before it was run by the Protestants, and then by the Catholics again, and then the Protestants again. The Inquisition culminated in our retrospective view of it as the 100 Years War, which was considerably longer than 100 Years. It would be much better to give GWB a pass, and stop believing in and electing Presidents and, Prime Ministers while noting their no longer existent divine rights of kings. In the better analysis, nothing important really has changed all so much since the Dark Ages. Every human belief system is but a mere religion, anything Richard Dawkins can think included. Today we all pray at the festive but foul, and polluted alter of empirical barbarism. Life is only so long. And when each is through, they will do no more harm. We should by our beliefs try not to harm so much while we last. Others are coming here after we leave, hopefully. Life is a party. Enjoy yourself as much as possible, but, don't trash the place or set any bad precedent. Don Robertson, The American Philosopher

We wish... Posted by Gordon Metcalfe - Free speech advocate 02/08/2008, 09:10 AM I was half-way through composing a joke the other day: 'A CEO, a Neocon, a Baptist minister and a Freeper walk into a bar...' That is as far as I got, and then Mittens announced his leaving the race. Damn...start over. BTW: Mitt paid 35 million for his delegates. I wonder how much he would take for them. But seriously, I have to doubt that McCain would shed any light on any security secrets, nor would Clinton. McCain is for war, war, war and Bill kicked up zero fuss when Reagan pardoned every last IranContranite (down to the most minor characters) on the way out the door. Good luck with that.

SCOURGE OF THE AGES Posted by nicholas phillips - Technical Consultant 02/08/2008, 09:13 AM Don, you seem more of a poet or pontificator than a philosopher, or maybe there's just no place for philosophers in THE WAR CRIMES TRIAL OF HERR bUSH. Surely you jest when you say that we should give GWB "a pass." Here's some philosophy for you; Should we have given the nazis at Numemburg a pass? bush has pulled every diry trick in the book and then some. HE has INTENTIONALLY bypassed the Constitution with literally hundereds of signing statements, he has illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign country that posed no clear and present danger and caused the deaths of approx 1,000,000 Iraqis and over 4000 U.S. servicemen. In doing this he handed all the no-contract work to his and dick cheney's cronies, while dissappearing 5 BILLION in cash! Don, GWB basically used his position to lie, steal and cheat the American Republic, and now you want to give him a pass! Are you NUTS?! Or just a "conservative" republican? I say hang the little monkey ba$tard from the highest yardarm!!

Your scope is way too narrow Posted by Douglas Wilson - 02/08/2008, 06:04 PM You're certainly right that there is much, much more. And step one should be to take custody of Cheney's famous safe immediately after taking the oath on next January 20 and blast that sucker open. I shudder to think what nightmares will emerge. But I do know that they started almost immediately after taking the oath on January 20, 2001. Remember the secret meetings with the oil & gas boys that determined our energy policy, which has meant we are eight years behind in building energy alternatives? That's just one example. There isn't one policy, from refusing to allow Medicare drug purchases en masse by the government to the environment to any other policy touched by this administration that doesn't have nasty little secrets behind it. Just list all the lobbyists and look up what they got enacted, and you'll find the trail of influence peddling that sold our national policymaking to the highest bidder. We don't shoot corrupt politicians, and I think it's a shame. Anyway, I would just ask the candidates one question about all this: Will you open the records of the Bush administration as much as the law allows?

what records? Posted by tony robeson - 02/08/2008, 06:21 PM Steven - You're assuming that there will be any records available to look at. We already have the case of the missing roughly 5 million e-mails that just so happen to corresepond to critical moments. While it's no consolation, perhaps the absence of records will in itself be the basis for accountability.

Seeing the Hazy Hoax Posted by R C - Ra Conteur 02/09/2008, 12:27 AM What these past few years seem to reveal is just what Dwight Eisenhower warned us so stridently of on his last day in office. The military/industrial empire has taken control of the nation and these administrations wield little if any power. The secrets that need to be reviewed if not revealed are considered to be on a need to know basis. American, elected Presidents since Eisenhower have not met the "need to know" test for dozens of policies. If and when courageous people in Congress choose to fight this fight, we may begin to understand what has happened to our democracy over the past 58 years. Don't count on it. Whatever comes out of the safe is pure hokum fabricated bunk - designed to manipulate you by people who believe you to be backwards simians: "I say hang the little monkey ba$tard from the highest yardarm!!"

Posted by Jerome Dobbins - citizen 02/10/2008, 01:50 PM Still waiting for that, "hard dose of truth." ~ D. Cheney / 2000 campaign

hang the bastards Posted by dave walker - 02/27/2008, 01:34 AM The next administration should immediately appoint an independent council to unvestigate the outright corruption,fraud,lies,etc. that the worst administration in history has adorned us with. Rove,Miers,Bolton,et al should be brought before Congress in shackles if they refuse to appear. Who the hell do these people think they are? This council should have carte blanche as far as subpoena and arrest power go. Bush and his cronies need to be held accountable for the damage they have done to the people of this country and our honor worldwide.

Era of Secrecy is over? We shall see! Posted by Michael 01/21/2009, 04:41 PM If Obama is sincere and the "Era of Secrecy" is over. He should immediately release all information on UFOs and alien contact. Even our astronauts have said UFOs and Aliens are real... so why lie to the American people? OBAMA - TELL US THE TRUTH and help bring this world together... Start with Roswell and Kleckburg, PA incidents. Everyone that reads this, please cut and past this message to all news organizations. Sometimes you have to fight to have the truth and then be strong enough to live with what was discovered. This is one of those issues. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list