More Secrecy from the "Most Open and Transparent WH in history"

Corona of the Sun During a Solar Eclipse 1900

On the White House website the Obama administration makes the following claim:

Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government.

But transparency is not what we are getting from the Obama administration. In fact, we are getting just the opposite. Just this week alone we found out that the administration argued that the WH visitors logs should be kept secret just like the Bush administration argued. We also found out that the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security is using the old standby excuse of national security to prevent government officials from telling the public the location of coal ash dumps.

There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she isn't allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected.

"There is a huge muzzle on me and my staff," she said."Homeland Security and the Army Corps [of Engineers] have decided in the interests of national security they can't make these sites known," she said.

and then yesterday they did this:

A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney's statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed surprise during a hearing here that the Justice Department, in asserting that Cheney's voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald were exempt from disclosure, relied on legal claims put forward last October by a Bush administration political appointee, Stephen Bradbury. The department asserted then that the disclosure would make presidents and vice presidents reluctant to cooperate voluntarily with future criminal investigations.

But career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, responding to Sullivan's questions, said Bradbury's arguments against the disclosure were supported by the department's current leadership. He told the judge that if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern "that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show' " or somehow be used as a political weapon

Sadly, the Obama administration has consistently been more secretive than transparent. Glenn Greenwald did an excellent blog post the other day, Here is secrecy creep in action, where he documented the long string of Obama administration decisions where they chose secrecy over transparency. It's a MUST READ.

Today the Obama administration is scheduled to release the 2004 CIA Inspector General Report about interrogation techniques (torture). However, it was reported in the Washington Post on Wednesday that some in the CIA were pressing the administration to keep most of this report classified. Once again President Obama has an opportunity to prove to the American people that his administration is truly interested in government transparency. Will the report be heavily redacted as the CIA wants or will the Obama administration let sunlight help disinfect this sorry chapter in our history? Stay tuned.

Upate: Greg Sargent writes that the 2004 CIA Inspector General Report will not be released today. Looks like we will have to wait until next Friday for release of this report - maybe.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President

 America in 100 days photostream - Day 4 in Philadelphia

President Obama gave an excellent speech in Cairo today but my ears perked up upon hearing a couple of specific passages where he talked about democracy.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Are these just words in a speech or will President Obama's actions back up his words? If President Obama believes what he says in this speech about democracy then how can he say we must look forward without first addressing the crimes committed by the Bush administration? How can he think ignoring war crimes will give anyone confidence in the rule of law and confidence that there is equal justice under law? How can his use of an overly broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits and his suppression of photos that document crimes be consistent with the idea of transparency that he rightfully says is important? 

I agree with President Obama's speech on the campaign trail where he said - words matter. But words matter only when they are backed up with actions and so far I haven't seen President Obama back up his eloquent words about democracy with actions.

The idea that our laws require that we hold officials accountable can't be suppressed for the sake of political expediency. The crimes of the Bush era were much too monstrous and widespread to ignore.  It's clearly in the interest of our country to investigate and where appropriate prosecute those who broke U.S. and international laws. It's in our interest because it will help restore confidence in the rule of law and because it's essential for our security to show the world that we apply the rule of law even to our own leaders.  It's also necessary in order to drive a stake through the heart of the vile idea, that continues to be argued today, that torture should be an option for the United States to use. It's also clearly in our interest to confront and thoroughly discredit the dangerous unitary executive theory that places the president above the law because we can't afford to have some future politician repeat the destructive actions our country barely survived under the Bush administration. 

Holding Bush administration officials accountable under law may not be convenient for the political parties but it is necessary in order to have a functioning democracy. 

I hope President Obama will stop listening to his political advisers, who are only concerned with party politics and will instead let his own words from this speech and his promises from the campaign trail guide him in doing what is right for the U.S. and what is necessary in order for us to truly move forward.

We need true transparency, Mr. President and we also need a president who's courageous enough to stand up to the political establishment and demand accountability for war crimes so that the world will know that America stands for the rule of law and that the words equal justice under law aren't just words used in a political speech but are words that describe a principle our country enthusiastically embraces.

Media Presents False Choice: Protecting Americans vs. Protecting American Values

Here is the video from today's Obama speech.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And Cheney's speech.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And of course, Liz Cheney's spin on both speeches

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On CNN, Kyra Phillips sets up the discussion of these two speeches as:

Protecting Americans vs. Protecting American Values.

This is a false choice and the establishment media has been relentless in pushing it. They should be totally ashamed of themselves for pushing Republican talking points instead of reporting facts.

I will post my thoughts on these two speeches and how the media covers them within the next day or two.