Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Most Secretive Government Ever?

(Inter Press Service) The administration of President George W. Bush continues to expand government secrecy across a broad array of agencies and actions—and at greatly...

(Inter Press Service)

The administration of President George W. Bush continues to expand government secrecy across a broad array of agencies and actions—and at greatly increased cost to taxpayers, according to a coalition of groups that promote greater transparency.

Patrice McDermott, director of Open the Government, a watchdog group, told the Inter Press Service, "The federal government under the Bush administration has shown its commitment to secrecy by where it has put its money—more no-bid contracts, fewer government employees processing FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests, less on training on classification issues, and almost $200 spent on keeping secrets to every dollar allocated to open them."

"Given our growing deficit, the next administration faces difficult choices in restoring accountable government," he added.

In its "Secrecy Report Card 2008," released September 9, the group concluded that the Bush administration "exercised unprecedented levels not only of restriction of access to information about federal government’s policies and decisions, but also of suppression of discussion of those policies and their underpinnings and sources."

Open the Government is a Washington-based coalition of consumer and good government groups, librarians, environmentalists, labor, journalists, and others.

The group says that classification activity remains significantly higher than before 2001. In 2006, the number of original classification decisions increased to 233,639, after decreasing in the two previous years.

At the same time, fewer pages were declassified in 2007 than in 2006. (The nation’s 16 intelligence agencies, which account for a large segment of the declassification numbers, are excluded from the total reported figures.)

Classified or "black" programs accounted for about $31.9 billion, or 18 percent, of the fiscal 2008 Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition funding requested last year. Classified acquisition funding has more than doubled in real terms since fiscal 1995, according to the report.

Almost 22 million requests were received under FOIA in 2007, an increase of almost 2 percent from 2006. But a 2008 study revealed that in 2007, FOIA spending at 25 key agencies fell by $7 million to $233.8 million, and the agencies put 209 fewer people to work processing FOIA requests.

While the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not reveal much about its activities, the Department of Justice reported that in 2007 the court approved 2,371 orders, rejecting only three and approving two left over from the previous year. Since 2000, federal surveillance activity under the jurisdiction of the court has risen for the ninth year in a row—more than doubling during the Bush administration.

The court was established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 after revelations of the widespread wiretapping by the administration of Richard M. Nixon to spy on political and activist groups. Recently, efforts to reform the act have been triggered by the Bush administration’s admission that it had conducted secret surveillance programs in the United States without warrants from the court.

In addition, more than 25 percent (worth $114.2 billion) of all contracts awarded by the federal government last year were not subject to open competition—a proportion that has remained largely unchanged for the last eight years.

Investigations by Congress and independent government agencies of the Iraq War have revealed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, covering everything from delivering food and water to U.S. troops to providing armed security for U.S. officials and visiting dignitaries. There have been widespread allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse by contractors. Several have been convicted, and prosecutions of others are pending.

During 2007, government-wide, 64 percent of meetings of the Federal Advisory Committee were closed to the public. Excluding groups advising three agencies that historically have accounted for the majority of closed meetings, 15 percent of the remainder were closed—a 24 percent increase over the number closed in 2006. These numbers do not reflect closed meetings of subcommittees and task forces.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act was passed in 1972 to ensure that advice by the various advisory committees formed over the years is objective and accessible to the public.

The report also found that in seven years, Bush has issued at least 156 "signing statements," challenging more than 1,000 provisions of laws passed by Congress.

The so-called "state secrets privilege"—invoked only six times between 1953 and 1976—has been used by the Bush administration a reported 45 times, an average of 6.4 times per year in seven years. This is more than double the average (2.46) in the previous 24 years.

The state secrets privilege is a legal doctrine that contends that admission of certain information into court proceedings would endanger U.S. national security. The Bush administration has frequently invoked the privilege to dismiss lawsuits that would be embarrassing to the government, and the courts have generally been deferential to the government’s claims.

Requests for national security letters (NSLs), a kind of administrative subpoena, continued to rise; from 2005 to 2006 requests rose 4.7 percent. Since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the number of NSLs issued has seen a large increase. The act’s NSL provision radically expanded the authority of the FBI to demand personal customer records from internet service providers, financial institutions, and credit companies without prior court approval.

Through NSLs, the FBI is authorized to compile dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the websites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website.

The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

William Fisher writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Analysis by William Fisher , "The Most Secretive Government Ever?” in Somalia" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
/rw/4954.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share