FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Bush Administration’s Shroud of Secrecy

by Sen. RUSS FEINGOLD

More than any other Administration in recent history, this Administration has a penchant for secrecy.  To an unprecedented degree, it has invoked executive privilege to thwart congressional oversight and the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits.  It has relied increasingly on secret evidence and closed tribunals, not only in Guantanamo but here in the United States.  And it has initiated secret programs involving surveillance, detention, and interrogation, some of the details of which remain unavailable today, even to Congress.

These examples are the topic of much discussion and concern, and appropriately so.  But there is a particularly sinister trend that has gone relatively unnoticed – the increasing prevalence in our country of secret law.

“The notion of ‘secret law’ has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ‘repugnant’ and ‘an abomination.’  It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law.  In keeping with this principle, the laws passed by Congress and the case law of our courts have historically been matters of public record.  And when it became apparent in the middle of the 20th century that federal agencies were increasingly creating a body of non-public administrative law, Congress passed several statutes requiring this law to be made public, for the express purpose of preventing a regime of ‘secret law.’

That purpose today is being thwarted.  Congressional enactments and agency regulations are for the most part still public.  But the law that applies in this country is determined not only by statutes and regulations, but also by the controlling interpretations of courts and, in some cases, the executive branch.  More and more, this body of executive and judicial law is being kept secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well.

The recent release of the March 2003 John Yoo torture memorandum has shone a sobering light on this practice.  A legal interpretation by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, binds the entire executive branch, just like a regulation or the ruling of a court.  In the words of former OLC head Jack Goldsmith, ‘These executive branch precedents are “law” for the executive branch.’  The Yoo memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003 until it was withdrawn by Mr. Goldsmith, the law that this Administration followed when it came to matters of torture.  And of course, that law was essentially a declaration that few if any laws applied.

This entire memorandum was classified and withheld from Congress and the public for years on the claim that it contained information that could not be disclosed without harming national security.  Now it may be appropriate, prior to public disclosure of an OLC memorandum, to redact information about, for example, specific intelligence sources or methods.  But as we now know, this 81-page document contains no information about sources, methods, or any other operational information that could compromise national security.  What it contains is a shocking glimpse of the ‘law’ that governed the Administration’s conduct during the period this memo was in effect.  And the many, many footnoted references to other OLC memos we’ve never seen suggests that there is an entire regime of secret law that may be just as shocking.

Another body of secret law is the controlling interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that are issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  FISA, of course, is the law that governs the government’s ability in intelligence investigations to conduct wiretaps and search the homes of people in the United States.  Under that statute, the FISA Court is directed to evaluate wiretap and search warrant applications and decide whether the standard for issuing a warrant has been met – a largely factual evaluation that is properly done behind closed doors.  But with the evolution of technology and with this Administration’s efforts to get the Court’s blessing for its illegal wiretapping activities, we now know that the Court’s role is broader, and that it is very much engaged in substantive interpretations of the governing statute.

These interpretations are as much a part of this country’s surveillance law as the statute itself.  Without access to them, it is impossible for Congress or the public to have an informed debate on matters that deeply affect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.  While some aspects of the FISA Court’s work involve operational details and should not be publicly disclosed, I do not believe that same presumption must apply to the Court’s purely legal interpretations of what the statute means.  Yet the Administration has fought tooth and nail against public disclosure of how the Court interprets the law, and has strictly limited even congressional access to some of those decisions.

The Administration’s shroud of secrecy extends to agency rules and executive pronouncements, such as Executive Orders, that carry the force of law. Through the diligent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we have learned that OLC has taken the position that a President can ‘waive’ or ‘modify’ a published Executive Order without any notice to the public or Congress – simply by not following it.

Now, none of us disputes that a President can withdraw or revise an Executive Order at any time; that’s every President’s prerogative.   But abrogating an Executive Order without any public notice works a secret change in the law.  Worse, because the published Order stays on the books, it actively misleads Congress and the public as to what the law is.  That has the effect – presumably, the intended effect – of derailing any accountability or oversight that could otherwise occur.

And that gets us to the heart of the problem.  In a democracy, the government must be accountable to the people, and that means the people must know what their government is doing.  Through the classification system and the common law, we’ve carved out limited exceptions for highly sensitive factual information about military operations, intelligence sources and methods, nuclear programs, and the like.  That is entirely appropriate and important to protecting our national security.  But even in these areas, Congress and the courts must maintain some access to the information to ensure that the President is acting in accordance with the law and the Constitution.  And when it comes to the law that governs the executive branch’s actions, Congress, the courts, and the public have the right and the need to know what law is in effect.  An executive branch that operates pursuant to secret law makes a mockery of the democratic principles and freedoms on which this country was based.

These are Senator Russ Feingold’s prepared remarks delivered at the Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government.”

Russ Feingold represents Wisconsin in the US Senate.

 

 

 

 

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
January 19, 2017
Melvin Goodman
America’s Russian Problem
Dave Lindorff
Right a Terrible Wrong: Why Obama Should Reverse Himself and Pardon Leonard Peltier
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail