2 ms·

Edit: From an Economist lexington column: "“How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendit

Edit: From an Economist lexington column: "“How Free?” not only details and condemns the administration's familiar sins, from Guantánamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping. It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005—a 60% increase over three years. Decade-old information has been reclassified. Researchers report that it is much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act." The Economist: Lexington: Land of the free? http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTPPNNQG http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cf... For 2001, about 8 million documents were classified. For 2004, there were 15,5 million documents classified. Just as an example of the trend I meant http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 That 'coincidentally' fits with Executive Order 13292, issued on March 25, increasing Vice President Cheney's classification authority, which he swiftly used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292 This is the graph from 2005 I originally remembered: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy_graphic.gif http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03se... NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html

GHFigs 17y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with all of this. You were still wrong in almost everything you said before, and everything you just linked to is in regards to things done by the previous administration. This is highly relevant when attempting to characterize a trend, as (for instance) your own link to the article on Executive Order 13292 states: "Both Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292 were revoked and replaced in full by President Barack Obama in the issuance of Executive Order 13526." This is why I linked to Executive Order 13526. I just don't see what your point is, aside from the uncontroversial point that the Bush administration was awful.
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  I'll try to make it as clear as possible: As history has shown, the executive branch has a lot more power when it comes to classification authority and FOIA practices than most people seem to believe and is able to extend that authority almost at will. This is one example of a growing number of executive authorities being virtually unchallenged by courts, and is not dependent on whose administration it is (look at Clinton's controversial use of his pardoning authority in his last weeks on the job). Society underestimates the executive's powers.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Society underestimates the executive's powers. This is not helped by your use of misinformation. Again, you were factually wrong in your prior assessment, and made at least one glaring oversight in your last comment. Only now have you changed the subject from X to "what society thinks about X", as if to say facts don't matter if somebody out there doesn't know them. I can't think of a more abhorrent attitude towards truth than that.

GHFigs 17y ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with all of this. You were still wrong in almost everything you said before, and everything you just linked to is in regards to things done by the previous administration. This is highly relevant when attempting to characterize a trend, as (for instance) your own link to the article on Executive Order 13292 states: "Both Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292 were revoked and replaced in full by President Barack Obama in the issuance of Executive Order 13526." This is why I linked to Executive Order 13526. I just don't see what your point is, aside from the uncontroversial point that the Bush administration was awful.

dsplittgerber 17y ago
I'll try to make it as clear as possible: As history has shown, the executive branch has a lot more power when it comes to classification authority and FOIA practices than most people seem to believe and is able to extend that authority almost at will. This is one example of a growing number of executive authorities being virtually unchallenged by courts, and is not dependent on whose administration it is (look at Clinton's controversial use of his pardoning authority in his last weeks on the job). Society underestimates the executive's powers.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Society underestimates the executive's powers. This is not helped by your use of misinformation. Again, you were factually wrong in your prior assessment, and made at least one glaring oversight in your last comment. Only now have you changed the subject from X to "what society thinks about X", as if to say facts don't matter if somebody out there doesn't know them. I can't think of a more abhorrent attitude towards truth than that.