SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (72426)2/8/2003 3:08:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Someone, blow the whistle on Bush's excessive secrecy

By Pat M. Holt
Columnist
The Christian Science Monitor
from the February 06, 2003 edition

WASHINGTON - It is time for Congress or the courts to blow the whistle on the Bush administration's excessive secrecy. The secrecy is especially pernicious when set in the context of the administration's proclivity to spin. "Spin" is the fashionable word. "Twist," "distort," "deceive," or "cover up" would be more forthright.

Consider these examples:

• The White House tried to obstruct the appointment of an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, implying it doesn't want Congress to know what it knows. Contrast President Truman's cooperation when Congress appointed a joint committee to investigate the attack on Pearl Harbor.

• Attorney General Ashcroft insists on closing court proceedings that are ordinarily open, including some the Constitution requires to be open. He's done this under the flimsiest of excuses: The release of names of arrestees would give away to Al Qaeda bosses who has been arrested. Or that release of names would violate the arrestees' right of privacy.

• The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health and Human Services have been given the authority to classify documents as "secret." Wielding a SECRET stamp gives bureaucrats a particular sense of exhilaration; and we can be sure that if a bureaucrat has this power, he or she will use it.

• Vice President Cheney argues that the administration came to the government determined to restore the powers of the president to what they were before the congressional onslaught during the Vietnam War and Watergate. Since the Washington administration, the powers of the president and Congress have moved against each other like a seesaw. They may be expected to continue to do this, but not at such an abrupt pace.

What particularly upset Mr. Cheney was the request by the General Accounting Office, on behalf of Congress, for the names of those in his office who participated in discussions of oil policy at the start of the administration. He argued vigorously that presidents (as well as vice presidents and Cabinet members) need and deserve frank advice that they cannot get if the advisers think it may be made public. Nobody disputes this, but only counsel from staff and personal advisers enjoys such protection.

• Perhaps most egregious of all, Mr. Bush has signed an executive order which gives the sitting president the right to control the release of the papers of any past president. That is, if Bush were so inclined, he could bar the release of the papers of George Washington. His White House counsel, in fact, did order the National Archives not to release 68,000 pages from Ronald Reagan's administration. These included papers from George H. W. Bush's vice presidency.

Later the current Bush permitted the release of almost all of the Reagan pages in question. In the meantime, however, the White House has issued another order permitting former presidents, vice presidents, their representatives, or surviving relatives to bar release of documents for a variety of reasons: "military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the president and the president's advisers." This is an arrogant assertion of presidential power when applied to past presidents. It allows the president to determine what the people may know - or don't know - about what their own government does.

It is highly questionable whether any president has ever had the power to control presidential papers contrary to the will of Congress, as this executive order would permit. It raises a serious question of whether the motive of the current president is to cover up his father's actions in the Iran-contra arms scandal. Under the law, such affairs are supposed to be regulated by the National Security Council (NSC). At the time of Iran-contra, the NSC consisted of Mr. Reagan, Vice President Bush, Secretary of State George Shultz, and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Afterward they declared their positions as follows: Reagan and Mr. Bush said they didn't know about it; Mr. Shultz and Mr. Weinberger said they opposed it. That's two abstentions and two against. How, then, could the scandal have happened? And is it any wonder the controlling, abstaining participants would want to cover their part?

• Pat M. Holt is former chief of staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

csmonitor.com



To: JohnM who wrote (72426)2/8/2003 4:43:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Porto Alegre to the United States: Restrain the Empire!

by ROBERT JENSEN
CounterPunch
February 1, 2003

counterpunch.org

Last week at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, I talked with dozens of people from around the world. I learned a lot about the struggles for justice in their countries, but the most important lesson I brought home was about my own country.

The question I thought people at the Forum would ask me is, "Why does the U.S. government follow such brutal policies of economic and military domination around the world?" I thought they would want me to explain the United States to them. But they didn't -- because, I came to realize, they already knew the answer to the question.

In one session I listened to a man who works with the MST, the landless movement in Brazil that is widely considered to be the biggest and most important social movement in the world today. He told us that the people he works with often are lucky if they get a fourth-grade education; many are illiterate. "But I don't have to tell them about imperialism," he said. That they understand. They live with it.

The question that people in Porto Alegre did ask me was simple: What are people of conscience in the United States -- what am I -- doing to stop the U.S. government, especially in its mad drive to war in Iraq?

Those of us organizing in the United States are in a strange situation. Our task is to work to educate the people of our own privileged and affluent culture about what the rest of the world already knows: The United States is an empire, and -- as has been the case throughout history -- empires are a threat to peace and life and justice in the world. There is no such thing as a benevolent empire.

It is crucial that we in the United States who have so much unearned privilege that comes with living in the empire face their question: What are we willing to do to stop our government? What are those of us in the heart of the beast doing to tame that beast?

The United States is preparing for a war in Iraq that virtually the entire world opposes. No matter how brutal the regime of Saddam Hussein, the world understands that even more threatening is the empire unleashed and unrestrained.

The cynical among us say that it is clear that Bush and his boys want this war, and that the war will come. That may be true; there's no way to see the future. But I know that no matter what will come, our task is clear:

We are the first citizens of the empire. In the past, empires had subjects. But we are truly citizens, with freedom of expression and rights of political participation that aren't perfect but are real. With those freedoms comes a responsibility, to use them to stop our government from pursuing a war that will kill and destroy innocents while further entrenching U.S. power in the Middle East and U.S. control over the strategically crucial oil resources there.

We have a choice. We can hide from our responsibility. Or we can stand up, speak up, organize, and join the people of the world in movements to challenge the powerful, to resist the empire.

It may seem safer to avoid that choice, to hide from that responsibility. But I learned one other thing in Porto Alegre: The people of the world do not accept the American empire. All over the world there are movements for social justice that are strengthening, gathering support and challenging power. They are the future. History is not on the side of the empire.

To take the side of the empire is to give into our fear, to cast our lot with the past. To resist the empire is to grab onto hope, to cast our lot with the future. It is literally a choice of empire and death, or resistance and life. This is not about liberals v. conservatives or Republicans and Democrats; both parties are on the wrong side of this struggle right now. This is about a far more fundamental choice.

There is much work to be done on many fronts. One thing we can all do is come out on Saturday, Feb. 15, when people in New York City, Austin and around the world will rally to oppose the U.S. drive to war. Information is available at unitedforpeace.org

If you doubt the importance of this, think back to September 11, 2001. On that day, we got a glimpse of what it will look like if the empire is dismantled from the outside, if the empire continues to ignore the world. But we have a choice. We, the first citizens of the empire, can commit to dismantling the empire from within, peacefully and non-violently, in solidarity with those around the world struggling for justice.

Let me leave you with one image from Porto Alegre, from the floor of the arena in which the closing ceremonies took place. As the conveners of the World Social Forum delivered a final declaration and stood on stage, the sounds of John Lennon's "Imagine" came over the loudspeakers, and the 15,000 people in the arena stood, held hands, moved with the music and sang of a world with no countries, a world living life in peace, a world without possessions and greed.

When the song was over, I turned to an older man sitting next to me. I had told him I was from the United States and we had exchanged nods and smiles throughout the event, but he spoke little English and I spoke even less Portuguese. At that moment, language mattered little. I extended my hand to him. But he rejected it.

Instead, he reached out, grabbed me and enveloped me in a hug as big as that song, as big as Brazil, as big as the world.

"Peace," he said. "Paz," I replied.

We are Americans, but if we choose to resist we are not the American empire. And if we do resist, there is a world we can join, a world that is waiting for us.

Perhaps I am investing too much symbolism in one simple hug. But that moment with that man, that hug in Porto Alegre, was for me the promise of life outside the empire. It was the feel of a future that we can all imagine. It is easy, if we try.

_________________________________________________________

Robert Jensen is an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, a member of the Nowar Collective, and author of the book Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream and the pamphlet "Citizens of the Empire."

He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.