FROM THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC DOUBLE STANDARDS:
Bush, Cheney champion privacy — for themselves
usatoday.com
For readers in hurry, here's the punchline:
So Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's. And it may well be that they are entitled to have unchronicled conversations with advisers. But there is no good reason the names of people who have talked to the vice president about energy policy should be protected. No reason, of course, except the obvious one — that Cheney has something to hide from Congress.
<Article follows>
Bush, Cheney champion privacy — for themselves
By Tony Mauro
Every new president pledges to do the public's business in the open and promises to cooperate with that co-equal branch of government, Congress. But all presidents soon think twice about those promises. They inevitably start pulling down the shades and complaining that Congress is intruding on their presidential powers.
The looming court battle between Vice President Cheney and the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress that filed suit against him Friday, brings both those presidential impulses to the fore at once. And it shows the flaws in the administration's policies on openness and presidential power.
This constitutional confrontation is all about a few scraps of information the GAO seeks from Cheney — primarily, the names of people consulted last year while Cheney chaired an energy-policy task force.
Cheney's refusal to turn the information over, we are told, is part of a Bush administration effort to staunch the flow of power from the executive to the legislative branch. For too long, Cheney says, presidents have stood by as Congress has chipped away at their executive powers.
That is a remarkable complaint coming from an administration that has thrown its weight around virtually unchecked, especially since Sept. 11. Among other bold acts, Bush has launched a war and canceled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with barely a peep from Congress. It is Congress, through a series of Supreme Court rulings, that has had its powers weakened in recent years.
Cheney's other rationale is that he wants this administration — and all future ones — to benefit from unvarnished policy advice. Wise people will not speak candidly to presidents, he says, if they think their "every word" will become public.
He is exaggerating; the GAO wants attendees' names, not transcripts of what they said. And wise people already know that, one way or another, the fact that they spoke to an energy-policy task force will become public. Those uncomfortable with that minimal scrutiny should stay home.
Cheney's instinctive reaction to say no to public disclosure is no surprise. This administration has been quicker than most to embrace secrecy, with restrictive policies on everything from presidential papers to the Freedom of Information Act.
In the GAO litigation, Cheney may invoke some form of the disputed doctrine of "executive privilege." That claim of confidentiality for presidential communications was famously and unsuccessfully cited by President Nixon during Watergate.
In some ways, the relationship between presidents and advisers is similar to other privileges or confidential relationships the law recognizes, like those between priest and penitent, or husband and wife. But the Bush administration might have more credibility championing its right to huddle with energy advisers if it had shown more respect for some of these other privileges. This administration, for instance, wants its sources kept private, but put a journalist in jail for wanting to protect hers. The Justice Department kept Texas writer Vanessa Leggett in jail for 168 days for refusing to divulge her sources in a murder case. She invoked the reporter's privilege, near and dear to my journalist heart. If we have to name our sources, we worry that the public will view us as research assistants for the police and not talk to us, impairing our First Amendment role.
Attorney-client confidentiality is another privileged relationship this administration seems to view dimly. Cheney wants candor from his advisers, as lawyers do from their clients. But the Justice Department let it be known that the conversations between lawyers and individuals detained late last year for interrogation about terrorist connections could be monitored.
So Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's. And it may well be that they are entitled to have unchronicled conversations with advisers. But there is no good reason the names of people who have talked to the vice president about energy policy should be protected. No reason, of course, except the obvious one — that Cheney has something to hide from Congress.
Tony Mauro, the Supreme Court correspondent for American Lawyer Media and Legal Times, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. |
