Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, expressed grave disappointment in President Bush’ decision to issue an executive order allowing the White House or former presidents to veto the release of presidential papers.

The Clinton Administration improperly used executive orders to thwart the people’s rights. We expected more from President Bush. He should now retract this executive order to avoid a legal fight, added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

A legal fight between Mr. Klayman and Mr. Bush would certainly be amusing.

11/01/01 08:00pm

link

Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the public owns the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents. These documents can be accessed through the Freedom Of Information Act beginning five years after the end of an Administration (the law allows a President to postpone this for another seven years under certain specific circumstances, but at the end of twelve years the documents must be made available to the public).

Last summer the Bush administration decided to hold up the release of 68,000 pages of presidential records from the Reagan/Bush White House. This appeared to be a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act.

In a Fox News article dated June 07, 2001, Anne Womack, assistant White House press secretary, is quoted as saying that the delay in releasing the documents was temporary: "We've asked for a short extension in order for the documents to undergo a legal review at the Justice Department,".

The other shoe has now dropped. Today's Washington Post reveals that the administration has drafted an executive order that would allow former and incumbent presidents to " keep their records locked up for as long as they want," according to Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. Says Craig, "it reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

Why would the current administration want to suppress the release of non-classified documents from a previous administration?

The Fox News story may provide a clue:

'Historians ... say they think President Bush is worried about what some of his top aides might have written when they worked for Reagan in the 1980s. "I think what Bush is doing is protecting the people who were in the Reagan administration and his father's administration who are still around," said American University historian Anna Nelson.'

It's not difficult to see why the son of George Herbert Walker Bush might prefer to hide information about that disgraceful period. Its harder to understand why Congress, the press and the rest of us let him away with it.

10/30/01 09:20am

link

Even as the Administration appears incapable of effectively investigating or responding to the Anthrax attacks, it seemingly has no shortage of law enforcement resources when it comes to protecting society from the evil of medical marijuana. Last week, federal agents in California raided and shut down the cannabis club in West Hollywood, where over 900 people with ailments like cancer and AIDS had been buying the drug. The club had operated with the approval of city officials and in compliance with California law.

Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden is quoted in the NY Times today saying that "the recent enforcement is indicative that we have not lost our priorities in other areas since Sept. 11".

Why is raiding medical marijuana providers still a priority for federal agents? Shouldn't they be doing something productive, like inspecting checked baggage at airports?

Just asking.

10/15/01 08:00am

link

Tabulation and publication of the results of the NORC Florida Ballot Project, a count of 180,000 "invalid" Florida votes from the 2000 presidential election has been postponed indefinitely.

"Right now, we don't have the time, the personnel or the space in the newspaper to focus on this," Catherine Mathis, vice-president of corporate communications at the New York Times Co., said in an interview. "There's a much bigger story right now."

10/11/01 10:00am

link

I'm so glad that our government has convinced the networks to spare me from viewing any video clips issued by the bad guys. Why, that recent broadcast of Osama bin Laden's nasty speech was so incendiary that I barely restrained myself from hurling both my slippers at the television set! I feel so much safer now that my government is actively protecting me from the locution of evil-doers.

I think its time to start a me-zine of my own.