needs
03 Mar 2006, 10:58 AM
I'm posting this here because of a general sense that people here care about the practice of history. Over the past six years, the Bush administration has pursued two policies that have severly limited the work that historians can do. It's vital to see both overturned.
1. In 2001, Bush passed Executive Order 13233, which severely curtailed the National Archives' (NARA) policy (as laid out in 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207) of opening Presidential records to historical scrutiny 12 years after a President has left office. The XO gave Presidents and his heirs the power to restrict material from release to the National Archives beyond the normal national security redaction. It was widely suspected at the time that the XO was intended to prevent the release of documents from the Iran-Contra Scandal that might prove embarassing to GHWB. The XO goes far beyond that one instance to grant in the President's family the power to remove public documents from eventual historical scrutiny. The XO reflects a desire to place private hagiography above public historical inquiry, and to shield the President from historical scrutiny.
Here's the US code on the release of Presidential materials
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201----000-.html
Here is the XO, which is a fairly breathtaking assertion of authority over public records by someone who has ceased to be a public official.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html
2. As reported on the front page of the NYT today, the CIA, DIA, and NSA have been "reclassifying" materials previously made available in archives. This practice was only discovered as historians could not find documents they had previously photocopied from NARA files. Even the chief archivist of the US was unaware of what was being removed from the archive. In other words, this reclassification was done with little public oversight and so little public notice that those people intimately using those archives were never aware of the practices. The materials reclassified, according to the Times, included, "intelligence estimates from the Korean War, reports on Communism in Mexico in the 1960's and Treasury Department records from the 60's."
Here's the article from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03archives.html?hp&ex=1141448400&en=b9932bb452d6188e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Both of these programs use misguided notions of national security and executive privilege to shield government officials from historical inquiry.
More commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/24/DI2006022401578.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401805.html
There is currently a public lobbying effort by historians and archivists to have these two policies overturned. I would urge you to contact your Congressperson to urge repeal of Executive Order 13233. Your contact would be especially valuable if your rep or senator sits on either the House Government Reform Committee or the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.
1. In 2001, Bush passed Executive Order 13233, which severely curtailed the National Archives' (NARA) policy (as laid out in 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207) of opening Presidential records to historical scrutiny 12 years after a President has left office. The XO gave Presidents and his heirs the power to restrict material from release to the National Archives beyond the normal national security redaction. It was widely suspected at the time that the XO was intended to prevent the release of documents from the Iran-Contra Scandal that might prove embarassing to GHWB. The XO goes far beyond that one instance to grant in the President's family the power to remove public documents from eventual historical scrutiny. The XO reflects a desire to place private hagiography above public historical inquiry, and to shield the President from historical scrutiny.
Here's the US code on the release of Presidential materials
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201----000-.html
Here is the XO, which is a fairly breathtaking assertion of authority over public records by someone who has ceased to be a public official.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html
2. As reported on the front page of the NYT today, the CIA, DIA, and NSA have been "reclassifying" materials previously made available in archives. This practice was only discovered as historians could not find documents they had previously photocopied from NARA files. Even the chief archivist of the US was unaware of what was being removed from the archive. In other words, this reclassification was done with little public oversight and so little public notice that those people intimately using those archives were never aware of the practices. The materials reclassified, according to the Times, included, "intelligence estimates from the Korean War, reports on Communism in Mexico in the 1960's and Treasury Department records from the 60's."
Here's the article from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03archives.html?hp&ex=1141448400&en=b9932bb452d6188e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Both of these programs use misguided notions of national security and executive privilege to shield government officials from historical inquiry.
More commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/24/DI2006022401578.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401805.html
There is currently a public lobbying effort by historians and archivists to have these two policies overturned. I would urge you to contact your Congressperson to urge repeal of Executive Order 13233. Your contact would be especially valuable if your rep or senator sits on either the House Government Reform Committee or the Senate Committee on Government Affairs.