The constitutionality of the PRA has never been challenged in court. Do you expect it ever will be?
I don’t think it’s short-sighted at all. Maybe it’s just because I’m a newsie but the whole concept that a government must have secrets to function is a fallacy to me. In effect, you’re saying that the government must have secrets, the government gets to DECIDE what should be secret, and others can’t question that. That, my friend, is a recipe for disaster at the governmental level.
Also, it sets government as a protected class. Individuals can have their secrets forcibly exposed, corporations and non-profits can have their secrest forcibly exposed, why shouldn’t the same rule apply to governments? Should that entity, which in theory represents those same individuals and corporations and NPOs, have rights to which those they represent don’t? My answer is no. Either we all have privacy or no one has privacy.
As for the ‘candid advice’ it’s been my experience that when people want to hide something it tends to be something that they believe will either be seen as corrupt, against the will of the people, or that others will consider ‘playing politics’ instead of governing. This is why cover ups are viewed with such overwhelming negativity by the electorate: people don’t like their government to ACT guilty.
Could someone give me some examples of non-military, non-espianage related bits of information that the government would “need” to keep secret in order to function?
That’s entirely reasonable. I just happen to disagree, for the reasons I espoused above.
That’s not the point, although I’m certain that some non-military, non-espionage things need to be secret. The point is that once the President gives in for one reason, he will set a precedent and will have no defense when secrecy is important. Maintaining executive privilege is important for that reason.
We’ll find out if they take this to its logical conclusion. The PRA is like the War Powers Resolution: it’s there, but the implications of it are left unchallenged, and both sides like it that way because neither side wants to face the possibility that they will lose in court.
With all due awe, Dave, how can you be certain if you have no examples to offer?
What about the negotiating tactics and fallback positions our government will take when entering into trade, arms control or environmental protection negotiations with other countries?
These are not military, and are not espionage related. Yet their disclosure would be disastrous.
I think that’s a decent argument, but it should be reserved for cases where its relevant. Congress hasn’t asked for any documents concerning negotiations with other countries in the case mentioned by the OP.
Doesn’t matter. The question was about cases where the government needed to protect information that wasn’t military or espionage related. Clearly there are such - I was able to think of a case right off the bat. There are plenty more.
Also, since the executive branch is a coequal branch with the legislative, there are cases where deliberations and positions taken in dealing with them have to be kept secret as well. We are right now heading into a situation where Congress and the White House are going to be negotiating the parameters of war funding. Don’t both sides need to be able to consult with experts and advisers in confidence before talks?
I think it is obvious that this is so, and current case law tends to support this, as I have said. The scope and scale of it is in some dispute, but the general notion that executive privilege exists isn’t disputed at all.
That it exists isn’t in dispute, but this is an extremely poorly defined legal doctrine simply because it doesn’t get asserted that much. I mean we know that nuclear secrets are covered and hotel break-ins and affairs aren’t. But everything in-between is open to debate, and I still don’t see a reason that issues surrounding the hiring/firing of US attorneys needs to be confidential.
The negotiating tactics hardly matter. Treaties have to be approved by Congress, so their contents have to be made public before this happens.
But if those positions and tactics were known by the other country in the negotiation, the talks could be subverted or totally break down.
The meat of the treaty has to be made public, but the bones of how we got there do not have to be, nor should they be.
Let’s be serious. This is Karl Rove. He isn’t talking about troop positions or diplomatic negotiations. He’s sole purpose is to advise Bush on what can be done, legal or otherwise, to build and maintain a permanent Republican majority. If he wanted to dump a prosecutor because he was pursuing or not pursing a case with that goal in mind, that needs to come out. I’d much rather err on the side of too much disclosure rather than too little.
Is it germane that the subpoenas weren’t issued to Rove but to the people who received the emails? In order for executive privilege to be effective wouldn’t every single one of the recipients also need to be covered by properly asserted executive privilege?
Why wouldn’t he have a defense? Different situations require different levels of secrecy. We do this all the time. Why can’t we delineate that attorney hirings/firings are not secret info and that other things are?
Oh, and since I posted a law, do you agree that a criminal violation has been alleged, or would you like me to find more laws?
Yes. For the other side as well as my own. I’m not naive enough to think that all the assholes are in the opposition party and I’d prefer all of them to be kept honest by fears of discovery. Better that a few secrets be inadvertently disclosed than for ne’er-do-wells to use the fear of such disclosure to shield their misdeeds.