> >
> > None of this is NEARLY as bizarre as what took place under EO 13233, and
> > those of us who were following the situation then clearly recall what
> THAT
> > EO did!
> >
>
> and what did that EO do?
>

No intention of turning this into a political argument or a witch hunt, I
know some here share my political views and others don't, but seeing as the
question was asked, I'll provide this much.  Anyone wants more, they can do
their own digging... decisions on the PRA are made far above my station in
life, but as a citizen, I think I have the right to see those that do not
deal with National Security or other issues that could be harmful to the
Nation. We elect Presidents, they are not appointed and they put their
skivvies on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.  They should NOT be
afforded special 'constitutional privileges".

The presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when
George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo
dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to
U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:

    Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald
Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to
delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current
President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days
(until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a
constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former
President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected
from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This
directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice
President George H.W. Bush.

This instruction was repeated on June 6, 2001, before the 90 days had
elapsed, giving a new deadline of August 31, 2001. On the day of this
deadline, Alberto Gonzales instructed the Archivist to wait a few additional
weeks. On November 1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, limiting the
access to the records of former U.S. Presidents:

    ...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets,
Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative
processes of the President and the President's advisers, and to do so in a
manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v.
Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases...


All of this was unnecessary.  The memo in March of 2001 was clearly intended
to place on hold the release of documents related to former VP GHW Bush,
which were never previously under the control of the PRA for a period of 90
days until further wranglings could be performed.

The second action in June 2001 was to extend the initial request another 90
because they had yet to develop anything conclusive that would support the
initial request and because of the uproar an d criticism from the SAA, ALA,
a number of staff at NARA and others. And after the SECOND 90 days expired,
a few more weeks were requested....

Then 9/11/2001 happened.  And in Nov 2001, the EO was issued. There still
was no legitimate grounds fort it though, because the assertion was it was
needed to protect records " ...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national
security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or
the deliberative processes of the President and the President's
advisers...".

Well, the "military, diplomatic, or national security secrets" were ALREADY
COVERED under the original PRA... the MAJOR change that occurred was the
addition of records of the "President's advisers" which cast abroad net that
could be broadened at any time it was deemed politically convenient... and
it added in the records of the VP (specifically GHW Bush) which were not
covered previously.

The action was HIGHLY politically motivated, it began more than 6 months
before 9/11/2001, so it couldn't be attributed to National Security and the
initial request didn't even CITE THAT as a reason, it only cited a "claim of
constitutionally based privilege" as the reason.

And the follow-on was the whole flap about VP Cheney initially refusing to
release any of his records and subsequently stating he had none... some may
not care for the writer of this piece (seeing as HE ALSO has a 'political
past') http://goo.gl/a1enC  but the facts represented in it are solid and
can be traced to many a document that supports all of the statements in the
article.

End of discussion for me... those who would like to can "discuss among
themselves" =)

Larry
-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]