Balancing Government Secrecy and Accountability – What Should the Next President Do?

In attempting to increase national security, has the Bush administration gone too far in sacrificing accountability for secrecy? What does this mean for the next president?

The American Constitution Society (ACS) has recently published a new issue1. The disputed point between parties in a lawsuit; 2. To send out officially, as in a court issuing an order. brief by Geoff Stone, entitled, On Secrecy and Transparency: Thoughts for Congress and a New Administration, in which Stone argues that the Bush administration's insistence on national security at the expense of keeping citizens, or even Congress informed, has opened the door for torture, surveillance, and even threats to prosecute members of the press for getting too close to security issues.

In order to do so, Stone argues, the administration has relied on expansive definitions of executive immunityA legal status accorded to a person or entity (.e.g., a government) which places them beyond the reach of the law. and the state secrets doctrine. Is it an understandable response to threats of future terrorist attacks or a fundamental shift in the way the nation works?

Stone's document is about 12 pages long, but well worth checking out.

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Geoff%20Stone%20Issue%20Brief.pdf