Monday, July 03, 2006
Jimmy Carter: Problem Solver
Former President Jimmy Carter has a “hard-hitting” op-ed in today’s Washington Post in which he courageously calls for more access to government information. Entitled We Need Fewer Secrets, you can almost hear his familiar monotone drone on concerning the government’s need to be more transparent esp. since everyone (i.e. countries that work with the Carter Center) is doing it. Towards this, he ominously notes:
“Policies that favor secrecy, implementation that does not satisfy the law, lack of a mandated oversight body and inaccessible enforcement mechanisms have put the United States behind much of the world in the right to information.”
Is he freakin’ kidding me!?!?! Does he not read the NY Times? Our problem is that we can’t keep a secret. And his claim that the US is now “behind much of the world in the right to information” is simply laughable. Is he talking about the EU?
“Proposals to make debates when Ministers discuss draft European laws open to public view have been tabled by Austria, current holder of the EU Presidency. But Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett this week justified negotiations behind closed doors as essential for efficient and effective law-making.” London MEP challenges Blair on EU secrecy (Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP)
Maybe he is referring to that noted bastion of openness – Venezuela:
“None of this would matter if the auditing process had been open to scrutiny by the Carter observers. But as the economists point out: "After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition.” OpinionJournal - Conned in Caracas
He concludes thusly:
“In the United States, we must seek amendments to FOIA to be more in line with emerging international standards, such as covering all branches of government; providing an oversight body to monitor compliance; including sanctions for failure to adhere to the law; and establishing an appeal mechanism that is easy to access, speedy and affordable.”
I’m with the former president in calling for more transparency. If he is willing to face up to the Washington bureaucracy and shine some light on the activities of the countless agencies that make up the senseless rules that guide so much of our lives, I’m ready to stand with him. If he is calling for increased disclosures of the participation in the rule-making process of special interest groups – including unions, NGOs and various advocacy groups such as NARAL and Common Cause - okay, where do I sign up? For many of us, increased access to information includes identifying the source of that information. We need to know that for us to adequately assess its reliability and indirectly the competence of the provider. So if making known the name of the individuals releasing info to the NY Times (and thus our enemies) is part of the former President’s plan, well, count me in!
But who can tell? His bland call for “amendments to FOIA to be more in line with emerging international standards” is a detail that tells us nothing. What secrets are at the Congressional level that he feels we’re denied access to? (Besides, if it’s truly worthy of disclosure, I’m sure Senator Leahy will make sure we hear about it 'Leaky Leahy' Revisited ). The Supreme Court regularly issues opinions complete with footnotes and citations – does he think there is something else they’re not telling us?? An oversight monitoring body? Answering to whom? That would be another piece of bureaucracy intended to combat the problems of bureaucracy.
This piece is so emblematic of his performance as President – full of sage-sounding platitudes that do nothing to address the problem at hand.
“Policies that favor secrecy, implementation that does not satisfy the law, lack of a mandated oversight body and inaccessible enforcement mechanisms have put the United States behind much of the world in the right to information.”
Is he freakin’ kidding me!?!?! Does he not read the NY Times? Our problem is that we can’t keep a secret. And his claim that the US is now “behind much of the world in the right to information” is simply laughable. Is he talking about the EU?
“Proposals to make debates when Ministers discuss draft European laws open to public view have been tabled by Austria, current holder of the EU Presidency. But Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett this week justified negotiations behind closed doors as essential for efficient and effective law-making.” London MEP challenges Blair on EU secrecy (Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP)
Maybe he is referring to that noted bastion of openness – Venezuela:
“None of this would matter if the auditing process had been open to scrutiny by the Carter observers. But as the economists point out: "After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition.” OpinionJournal - Conned in Caracas
He concludes thusly:
“In the United States, we must seek amendments to FOIA to be more in line with emerging international standards, such as covering all branches of government; providing an oversight body to monitor compliance; including sanctions for failure to adhere to the law; and establishing an appeal mechanism that is easy to access, speedy and affordable.”
I’m with the former president in calling for more transparency. If he is willing to face up to the Washington bureaucracy and shine some light on the activities of the countless agencies that make up the senseless rules that guide so much of our lives, I’m ready to stand with him. If he is calling for increased disclosures of the participation in the rule-making process of special interest groups – including unions, NGOs and various advocacy groups such as NARAL and Common Cause - okay, where do I sign up? For many of us, increased access to information includes identifying the source of that information. We need to know that for us to adequately assess its reliability and indirectly the competence of the provider. So if making known the name of the individuals releasing info to the NY Times (and thus our enemies) is part of the former President’s plan, well, count me in!
But who can tell? His bland call for “amendments to FOIA to be more in line with emerging international standards” is a detail that tells us nothing. What secrets are at the Congressional level that he feels we’re denied access to? (Besides, if it’s truly worthy of disclosure, I’m sure Senator Leahy will make sure we hear about it 'Leaky Leahy' Revisited ). The Supreme Court regularly issues opinions complete with footnotes and citations – does he think there is something else they’re not telling us?? An oversight monitoring body? Answering to whom? That would be another piece of bureaucracy intended to combat the problems of bureaucracy.
This piece is so emblematic of his performance as President – full of sage-sounding platitudes that do nothing to address the problem at hand.
