Setec Astronomy


A New York Times op-ed today points to an interesting sounding report released back in September: "Secrecy in the Bush Administration." It's released by House Democrats, so caveat lector, but at 90 pages it looks apt to be a pretty thorough survey. Though, of course, since the issue is secrecy, it's hard to say just how thorough.

NEXT: Balls

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A bit fed up of reading the same old same old partisan tripe that just seems to get thicker as the election gets closer, I figured I’d head over to Reason to find something interesting to read and/or discuss.

    And look here, Sanchez is linking to reports about the administration from Congressional Democrats. Enlightening indeed.

  2. Having survived one heart attack, I now listen to my Doctor, who advises only the tiniest, most infrequent reading of anything to do with Henry Waxman — pro or con, it doesn’t matter. I can eat nuts, though (Thank You, Lord!).

  3. Interesting that the first two posts on a libertarian board would be of the “If it’s published by a liberal it must be wrong even if it accords with libertarian philosophies”

    At the risk of pissing those folks (and others) off, while I have no love for liberals or Democrats or even Henry Waxman, it makes no logical sense to reject out of hand a report that should be of interest to a group of folks who claim to be suspicious of any curtailment to our civil rights.

    An overly secretive president (like…Oh, I don’t know…Bush?) deserves some suspicion and I’m perfectly happy to see what the Dems may know that I don’t.

    Unfortunately, I’m also suspicious of ANY group with an agenda (like…Oh, I don’t know…Democrats & Republicans?) so who do you trust anymore? JeezLoueez.

    I hate politics…it’s just no damn fun anymore.

  4. An interesting sentence from The Economist‘s review of Hersh’s book (October 23):

    Soon after September 11th, Mr Bush issued a secret presidential order setting up covert teams of commandos to scour the globe to capture, interrogate and kill terrorists. Such teams were authorised to operate outside the law.”

    Giving new meaning to the “executive branch”.

  5. It doesn’t matter anyway. After the election, even the few people that care about it now will have forget it.

    The only time since Watergate it looked like someone might do something about secrecy abuse was Patrick Moynahan. Alas, he retired before making any headway.

  6. madpad, you generalize. Doc said Waxman, not liberals. Doc knew there is a difference. So do I.

  7. Interesting that the first two posts on a libertarian board would be of the “If it’s published by a liberal it must be wrong even if it accords with libertarian philosophies”

    That’s not what I said at all.

  8. OK, looking for some enlightenment here.
    Could someone explain what “Setec Astronomy” means with respect to this topic?

    Also looking for a clearer interpretation of what the Bush Admin has done, i.e., are civil rights necessarily curtailed by an increase in certain types of government secrecy? Certainly a reason to be suspicious, I admit.

  9. Slainte:
    It’s from the rather awful movie Sneakers, a front corporation founded by the anarchic character Ben Kingsley plays. It’s an anagram for “Too Many Secrets” And whether or not it suggests the hiding of civil rights violations, it’s certainly not terribly good for accountability.

  10. Well, neither the remarks of Curtis or Josh spoke substantively to the issue at hand; so I think that madpad’s criticism is appropriate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.