Bush administrion denies release of 1952 documents

[KafirChobee]

Yep, the Bushy's have decided that the release of documents from the Eisenhower administratation would be "subversive to our (who in the F' "our" is they don't say) war on terrorism. Say what? we had a war on terror 50 years ago? There was a 9/11 in 1952 (I guess), AND they forgot to tell us about it?


Now, we all know that Bush has brought the term "secrecy' to a new level that some excuse, no one really questions, and that when their actions prove to be against the law no one syas so ... but, sort of bring it to question. Sort of.

This is another of those - heard it once .... looking for the truth - can't find it. Need help with the link. If you will. It is real. they have also determined that most of Reagan's memos are highly secret, as are Bush41's, .... even some of Clinton's (*not much though).

[master of the puppets]

We can only hope that bush reads and learns from dear old Eisenhower. my one question is to why such articals were concealed for so long, mabey knoledge from the past would give a new and revolutionary view of the present.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Is it something that would be used as propaganda by al jazheerah or whoever? If that was the case leave it secret.

[Major Robert Dump]

One of the first executive orders GWB singed when he came into office was hold on the release of certain presidetnial records that would become public property after X amount of years....i forget the exact number and if it is years or presidiential terms they go by, but basically its why we didnt get to hear the Nixon tapes until the 90s despite them always existing

Anyway, Bush's executive order sealed those and Pre-emptively sealed those of Reagan, George H and Clinton. Not sure which prez the seal started with, Johnson or Carter, i need to hit up the exec order page and be refreshed

[Divinus Arma]

Freedom of information is freedom of criticism, which is essential to democracy. No information, no criticism, no public conciousness, no democracy.

Agreed. And welcome back Moe. I'm not sure if I could even support an extension. 50 years is a pretty long time. What, does he want us to wait 100 years? Wait for all who were alive then to die? Will it be the same for us when I am in my 70s and eighties? Must I too die before Bushy's papers are released?

[Xiahou]

The one truth about the presidency is that, without fail, the power of the executive winds up with a net gain. Yes, there's dips and spikes, but the trend is upwards.

I think future generations may have to deal with presidential records being sealed off entirely, forever, lest the office itself lose face.

I think executive orders have been long abused. There's little the president can't essentially get into law by just signing one- with no congressional input.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Maybe we need a little rebellion, ala Jefferson.

[Divinus Arma]

Sure. And that will turn into a little rebellion, ala Al Qaeda. Or Hillary. Same thing.

Oh and BTW, I agree. Th executive branch is growing far too powerful for either party.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I was referring to Jefferson's comment about the Whiskey Rebellion (I think). The one about refreshing democracy...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Looks like a few have been attributed to him...

From here:

A little rebellion now and then ... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

[Soulforged]

"The tree of democracy has to be refreshed with the blood of the patriots" Jefferson (I think that it said something in the lines of "from time to time").

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Census records take 70 years to get released. I guess that's what he's shooting for.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sorry to bump an old topic but I've been looking for a link about this and cant find it on any exec order lists, and considering the importance of that year to a certain Bush relative I would really like to know more about this or even if it it really happened

[Vladimir]

Wasn't a thread like this which was recently created by Tribesman, spammed and locked because he didn't provide a reference? Does this refer to information on the development of nuclear weapons? This type of information has been banned from the '40's. Too many questions and accusations and no answers.

[Ser Clegane]

Wasn't a thread like this which was recently created by Tribesman, spammed and locked because he didn't provide a reference

Correction - it was locked only due to spam not because of the lack of reference (the lack of reference just seemed to be the reason that there was only spam instead of a real discussion)

[KafirChobee]

Dump, with the present attention span of the "media' (about a day and a half unless michael jackson is involved) - and the adeptness of Carl Rove's connections, it is surprising any of us ever heard about this new paranoia they have acquired. Amazing, being afraid of the near distant past - I mean Bush was like 5 yrs old (I'm almost certain he had nothing to do with the Korean "police action" - then again, he is the spawn of satan ... j/k btw).

[Vladimir]

Bumpity bump. New info.

Independent historian Matthew M. Aid uncovered the reclassification program last summer when his requests for documents formerly available at the Archives were delayed or denied. In February, the Archives acknowledged that about 9,500 records totaling more than 55,000 pages had been withdrawn and reclassified since 1999. The memo released yesterday says some records "may have been improperly marked as declassified" and their release "would harm the national security interests of the United States by revealing sensitive sources and methods of intelligence collection."

But historians who previously obtained copies of records have said many date to the 1940s and 1950s and pose no conceivable security risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101475.html

[Idaho]

1952... hmm..

Maybe plans to overthrow the fledgling democratic government in Iran and replace it with the pro US shah?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've voted for him twice (maybe someday the Dems will run a candidate), but I do have to admit that the Bush 43 administration loves to classify stuff. I suspect they slap a "classified" label on the lunch menu at the White House canteen -- and a "top secret (codeword)" on anything really important, such as the latest paperclip requisition forms.

[Vladimir]

It's the pendulum swinging back. The Clinton administration was falling all over itself trying to declassify stuff and reduce security. I do believe that policy was one of the contributing factors to the Los Alamos lab theft.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think 50 years later the public deserves to know. The funny thing about crying "national security!" is that no explanation is required, and the classifications could be just as much to save face, protect someone involved at the time, or even cover downright unsavory conduct. No matter how many times our leaders prove to us they are lying scum, people still seem to buy the national security scare. So it may make the country look bad......can't have that, humility was never an American thing, we never make mistakes

I was unaware Clinton was so darned committed to ruining our national security. He should be ashamed of himself for not blocking the release of the Nixon tapes or protecting Henry Kissingers good name

Lets see: things that happened in 1952.............

[Hurin_Rules]

It's really a shame. Historians need these records to help us understand the past. But as he has shown in his reference to the war in Afghanistan as a 'Crusade', and in his invasion of Iraq, Bush is not all that big on history, to our great detriment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I, humility was never an American thing, we never make mistakes

Nonsense! I am certain that we Americans are the MOST humble folks in the world.....

Well, what I meant to say is....

Okay, I'm sorry already...

[KafirChobee]

One thing reclassified: 1952< A CIA report stating that the Chinese would not get involved in Korea ..... two weeks later 350,000 screaming Chinese swormed over the border and began over-running our positions.
Maybe they don't want the incompetence of the CIA to be exposed.

Of course in all fairness, to the CIA, their successes are nearly always kept classified. Their failings are an open book.