Maarja's reaction to the article at http://shrinkster.com/dwq    
In my numerous postings here and in other forums about my experiences as a 
Nixon tapes archivist. I've tried to explain that NARA does not exist in a 
mythical fourth branch of government.  And that it has no firewall around it to 
protect it from external pressure.  One can expect that NARA's officials will 
face pressure; how they react depends on a number of factors.  Seymour Hersh 
noted in his 1992 New Yorker article ("Nixon's Last Coverup") that some outside 
observers expressed dismay that NARA did not reach out for help when it received 
a controversial order from the Reagan Department of Justice during the 1980s. 
 The matter centered on Nixon's ability to block release of his records and 
was settled (properly in my view)  when a judge threw out the DOJ order in 
Public Citizen v. Burke, 843 F.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
What about NARA's natural constituents, historians?  Historians, as a group, 
do not seem to understand the severity of the difficult environment in which 
archivists may operate at times at NARA. Or the challenges NARA faces in doing 
the right thing with the nation's recorded memory.  Perhaps these types of 
news articles will lead to more attention being paid to NARA and more questions 
being asked by stakeholders.  Since my late sister once worked in NARA's 
declassification division, I've been following this issue closely.  I await with 
interest any response from NARA and any follow up news stories.
Maarja
In a message dated 4/11/2006 6:08:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:
Historians expressed concern about the secrecy in the reclassification 
agreement.
"This whole activity was effectively concealed," said Steven Aftergood, 
director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project. 
"It's baffling. It's basically a covert action taking place at the National 
Archives."
Aftergood also said he found it odd that the agreement named two of the 
agencies involved in the reclassification program — the U.S. Air Force and Central 
Intelligence Agency — but redacted the name of a third, arguing it would 
compromise national security, reveal internal government deliberations and violate 
statutes against disclosure of specific information.
In congressional testimony last month, a historian said the third agency was 
the Defense Intelligence Agency, but archivists refused to address his 
assertions.
Meredith Fuchs, general counsel for the National Security Archive, a private 
governmental research group in Washington, said it was unusual that archivists 
would be involved in hiding valuable history.
"It seems odd that they would be so willing to accept this," she said. "But 
NARA was completely complicit in trying to cover it up." 

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>