As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are "strikingly similar" to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward "a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen."

That same vision is apparent in many other actions. Just to mention one: we learn from Bob Woodward that the administration diverted funds earmarked for Afghanistan to preparations for an invasion of Iraq without asking or even notifying Congress.

What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn't obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public.

- Paul Krugman

A Vision of Power: This is the title of Krugman's editorial today that examines the broader themes of the Cheney Energy Task Force Case that was heard in the Supreme Court today. The case in its particulars is somewhat complex, including the reach of the relevant statute and the inside baseball nature of the mandamus (right to get court relief, including accelerated appeal by the government) arguments, which can lead one to ignore the big picture. It is useful first off to read some background on the case itself and the disputing arguments of privilege. All the same, it is also important to know the possible limited reach (exaggerated by many on the other side) and the fact that the Government Accounting Office also has been stonewalled. John Dean, including in his new book, has also written a lot about this last item.

Thus, an open society at its core requires critical debate, respect for differing views, and a realization that you can be wrong. Likewise, it requires a free flow of information, especially information that affects public policy. The problem is that this administration rejects all of these criteria. They are true believers, are suspicious of views that call said truth in question, and are very secretive.
[more]

I discuss in the above excerpted post the true reach of this case. It is but one example of the extreme secrecy this administration desires, one that might be arguable if it they showed some sense of scale (see, e.g., here for how absolutist their stance on "enemy combatants" truly is). As I discuss in the excerpted post, this particular case involves openness in making public policy. Nothing to sneeze at. This, as one reply noted, requires some secrecy and freedom of action. As does each branch of government. The operative word is some, and this administration wants too much. At some point, they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Their overall principle seems all too clear, as is the importance of figuring out some middle path. It is not too unfair for the other side to not want to give an inch and mistrust the government, if their opposite numbers again gives us no reason to trust them.