Historians Fight Bush/Cheney to Stop Destruction of Presidential Records

Historians Fight Bush/Cheney to Stop Destruction of Presidential Records

Alternet.org

Thirty-two of the nation’s leading historians have sent letters to congressional leaders calling on them to strengthen the Presidential Records Act (PRA). The effort, led by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and joined by the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the National Coalition for History, notes that while the PRA requires the administration to preserve presidential records, “it fails to provide an effective means of enforcing compliance with that requirement.” (View the letters here and here.)

This effort has taken on increased urgency as the Bush administration prepares to leave office and may be ready to expunge the record on its tenure. Bush has already repeatedly manipulated and rewritten open government laws in order to cover up his wrongdoings:

This is extremely important. This can't happen we need to know exactly what went wrong in that office in order to fully understand the situation we are in today and how to not let it happen again.

This increasing secrecy in the White House is contradictory to the responsibility of the government to be fully accountable to the very people that put them there in the first place.

If they had nothing to hide, then they have no reason to destroy these records.

I agree. Bush's piece of mind in his retirement shouldn't be a legitimate cause for destroying such a valuable record of historical knowledge. It should remain our right as citizens to understand exactly what happened in that term of office. To analyze and scrutinize that information and make personal and academic conclusions so that we have the knowledge to keep our executive body in check. We will accomplish this by publicizing this knowledge, hopefully enough to induce a significant shift in voting.

If members of Bush's cabinet remain in office for this next presidential term, if perhaps Karl Rove remained, for example; we will be able to make a stronger and more educated decision as to who we want to stay in government and vote accordingly.

This should be taken to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.

Note: Rove has resigned from the White House by the way. Even though I won't necessarily call him a bad politician, it would be especially useful to know how much influence he had on Bush's decision making (specifics provided only by the presidential records will be able to support our accusations effectively), and whether or not it was significant to the effect that it resulted in the worst policy issues the country has ever seen.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by cognoscente]

Do you children actually believe that any incriminating evidence would not have already been destroyed or changed from all previous presidents (and anything left wasn’t meant to be left as part of the ‘great’plan)?

The point of upholding the Presidential Records Act is to ensure that over time we acquire knowledge of all executive office holders, so we can analyze and scrutinize that information, come to conclusions based on decisions made by those office holders, and possibly publicize those conclusions so that the general population knows what went wrong or conversely, what went right (if that's of any interest ). In such a case, if members of the original Bush cabinet remained on the new Republican presidential nominee's (unlikely, but John McCain's) own cabinet, there could be political ramifications, which limit our ability to keep our executive branch of government in check. If we don't have this essential knowledge we can't make educated decisions when we vote for presidential candidates. Similarly, if we can not at least bring this information to the attention of higher members of Congress and Senate to affect a change, then we are incapable of keeping the government in check.

The Presidential Records Act:

1. 
   Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

   
   
   Is this for real? I'd like to see a discussion here on these boards on the constitutional basis for such a privilege.
   
   

2. 
   Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.

   
   
   The current Archivist, Allen Weinstein, appears to be easily impressionable. This is especially apparent in the notable Alger Hiss case. Hiss was a U.S. State Department official who was accused of being a Soviet spy. Through extensive research, and even after gaining access to highly valued Soviet intelligence, his initial conclusion that Hiss was innocent of conspiring with Soviet spies was arbitrarily reversed, resulting in a conviction of perjury for Hiss. Was there a CIA or government influence on this decision? It seems to me it was a matter of retaining solidarity on the issue within those private circles. Although it may have been true that he was not a spy, the CIA or whatever body responsible for the initial accusation (we can never know), wanted it to stay that way. And no amount of legitimate research would change that. Is this man qualified to decide whether or not any of these records have "historical, informational, or evidentiary value?" Or is this man covering up important information at the whim of a sitting duck President? If we examine the history of these office holders themselves, will we detect a frightening trend, that most of these men were influenced by the regimes of those times and neglected to preserve the most important knowledge of those presidents for the public to consume? Are they arbitrarily, or worse, selectively destroying information that might be incriminating to those cabinet members or decision makers of the former presidents in the future? Doesn't that count as "administrative value"?
   
   

Some will argue that the executive branch of government should have the inalienable right to keep the people out of the way when it is in their best interest (and supposedly of the best interest of the country, which they govern), so that the country will be safe and secure. They will argue that the President and his cabinet are the most qualified to make such decisions, as their seats in office imply.

Feel free to point out any flaws in my argument. I'm just a casual study. I have no scholarly credentials! But it's people such as myself, that advocate their ideals for all to see and hear, that make this great nation possible. And although I write this from Canada, my heart will always remain in the United States of America.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by cognoscente]

There is a flaw in my argument, which I would like to point out.

As outlined by the Act, the records are released at least five years after the end of Administration.

We won't be able to make such a branch balancing vote because no one decision maker, or member of cabinet is going to stay long enough in that "sphere of governing influence" to be held accountable for what they did, or for their decisions to be scrutinized by the media and public, due to the fact that those issues will decrease in relevancy as time passes. So what's the point of going to the supreme court then? I guess it's the right of the executive branch to maintain it's "sphere of governing influence" over the people themselves. So that their jobs aren't compromised... Because we all know that the government has to make some nasty decisions that the common folk just won't be willing to accept, don't we?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by cognoscente]