Nat Hentoff, writing in today's Washington Times, that builds upon an earlier article posted at Nieman Watchdog by Steven Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists--an indispensable resource for those interested in the lengths the government goes to in order to keep certain things secret.
Aftergood's article implores the press that is following the candidates to ask each whether they will uncork Bush related documents and other information once he or she is sworn in as president. The specific questions can be found at Nieman, but they range from disclosing the full scope of Bush's domestic surveillance program to apologizing to those individuals who have been rounded up via extraordinary rendition and later found to be innocent, such as Canadian citizen Maher Arar.
Hentoff uses his column to ditto that of Aftergood's, and even adds a few of his own--such as the legal opinions of Bush-era attorneys general, and I suspect those at the deputy level as well (particularly at the OLC). Hentoff writes:
But I haven't heard any of the frontrunners stress this need for a clean break with the Bush administration's use of a "unitary executive" doctrine to cloak these and other extrajudicial — and indeed extralegal — practices in deep secrecy. Will they publicly agree to Mr. Aftergood's challenge to "declassify and disclose" these and other Bush administration policies that — unless exposed to sunlight — could continue to be embedded in executive agencies in the new administration?
To Hentoff, I say the following:
Don't hold your breath about a flurry of openness once the next president takes office. That has not been the practice in the past and it is not likely to be one for the future. The next president will be all about leaving the past behind us while focusing on the future. Remember when Clinton took office he didn't blink at looking more carefully into the blanket pardons by Bush I for Iran-Contra figures, nor did he expose any of the activity of VP Quayle's Council on Competitiveness. And when Clinton left office, President Bush issued his first claim of executive privilege to stop an investigation by Representative Dan Burton (R-Looneyville) into the actions by AG Janet Reno. The next president has to be mindful of the things he or she would like to keep private once his or her term is up.
And second, even if a candidate eschewed the unitary executive, it wouldn't be true. The next president will take hold of the unitary executive, or more likely, the unitary executive will take hold of him or her. It is so much a part of the executive branch that to get rid of it would be as difficult as chopping off your own arm. Here is the real puzzler--the next president will likely act more in terms of those unitarians that directly preceded Bush II. Will reporters like Hentoff and others then praise that president for declaring the unitary executive dead simply because he or she is not behaving like Bush II? I think that is the more likely scenario.
