Taking Secrecy One Step Too Far
May 5, 2004
By Tab Julius
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/05/05_secrecy.htmlA quiet yet disturbing event happened recently in Washington. It has received precious little coverage, mainly a short report by NPR on Weekend Edition and an article by the Associated Press.
It may be that compared to all the horrific fighting in Iraq, prisoner treatment scandals, kidnappings and more, news about a newly appointed National Archivist seems boring by comparison. Even on a quiet news day, it might be seemingly too mundane to put anywhere near the front page. Most people don't know what a national archivist is, much less why this particular change is newsworthy.
On the face of it, the national archivist is the keeper of the nation's records - the archives. The National Archives control what information gets released to the public - and what does not. Normally the National Archivist is an honorable position held by honorable people, usually those who have earned the highest esteem of their peers.
It's entirely possible, though, that were an administration unusually preoccupied with secrecy to appoint an archivist of their own choosing, then the public's ability to know what goes on in their government would be severely limited.
It is for this reason that a National Archivist serves a ten-year term -
............
=============
kirby Thu Mar-29-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #29 =
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=534829&mesg_id=53815037. Presidential Records Act of 1978 violations...
Here is a link to the US Code for the definition of what are considered as 'Presidential records':
=====================
Google advanced search:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=presidential+records&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=KFE&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&as_rights=&safe=images