Editorial: Disappearing e-mails

White House officials' fondness for secrecy is bad for nation

5 Sep 2007 // The Bush administration persists in its attempts to close off portions of the executive branch to public scrutiny.

The latest example is an assertion that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department takes this position in a lawsuit in federal court, even though the Office of Administration has its own FOIA officer and has complied with numerous requests for release of information.

Compliance with the act is the third listing on the Web site of the Office of Administration, which manages tech support, human resources, maintenance, security, research, mail and other duties at the executive mansion.

An activist group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to obtain information about White House e-mails. The estimated 5 million missing messages from computers might shed light on motivations for the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Bush's critics contend that the U.S. attorneys were fired for refusing to use their offices to help Republicans defeat Democrats in elections. They believe the Office of Administration could recover the e-mails and explain how they turned up missing.

The administration argues that allegations stemming from the firings are a political witch hunt. But if there is no smoking gun in the e-mails, why not release them to show that the firings weren't orchestrated for partisan purposes?

The Justice Department contends that the Office of Administration has no authority independent of President Bush and, thus, isn't subject to the FOIA law. If White House officials believe that the e-mails are shielded by executive privilege, then they should oppose the release on those grounds and make this case in court. But to declare an entire White House office off limits to the Freedom of Information Act requests is an overreach that the federal courts should reject.

Not long ago, Vice President Dick Cheney argued that his office is part of the legislative, not executive, branch and, therefore, is not required to supply the Information Security Oversight Office with reports on how his office handles classified government records.

The legal hairsplitting in these and other cases is aimed at killing or postponing legitimate attempts to monitor the executive branch.

The federal judiciary should fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government by putting a stop to efforts to shield the executive branch from scrutiny.