Subject: Re: 'Most Transparent Administration EverT'-Obama Administration
Makes Mockery of Open Government
Unlike our last president, Barak Obama sounds very intelligent when he
speaks. Still, does it matter if the words are bumbled or if they are
brilliant? If they smell Brown, look brown, and taste brown, it's still
Bullshit!
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: "'Blind Democracy Discussion List'" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:59 PM
Subject: 'Most Transparent Administration EverT'-Obama Administration Makes
Mockery of Open Government
Published on Monday, March 17, 2014 by FireDogLake
'Most Transparent Administration EverT'-Obama Administration Makes Mockery
of Open Government
by Kevin Gosztola
Days after President Barack Obama's inauguration, he pledged to have his
administration create an "unprecedented level of openness in government."
Then-chief of staff, Jack Lew, later contended the administration was the
"most transparent administration ever." At a rally in 2010, Obama told the
public, "We have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest
transparency rules of any administration in history." But this slogan
suggesting the Obama administration is the "most transparent" ever has been
nothing but a marketing ploy, the product of an administration that
Advertising Age recognized as "marketer of the year" in 2008.
The Associated Press conducted its annual review of government data related
to the Freedom of Information Act. It found that the "government's efforts
to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since
President Barack Obama took office."
While the AP could not tell if the public was simply requesting more
sensitive information than the previous year, the administration claimed a
record number of "national security" exemptions. A record number of times
the administration also withheld information and cited a "deliberative
process" exemption, claiming it dealt with "decision-making behind the
scenes" so could not be released.
"[T]he government more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully
denied access to them, in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. On
196,034 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a
person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to
be unreasonable or improper," according to the AP.
Plus, "Journalists and others who need information quickly to report
breaking news fared worse than ever last year."
.Blocking news organizations from urgently obtaining records about a
government scandal or crisis - such as the NSA's phone-records collection,
Boston bombings, trouble with its health care website, the deadly shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard or the attack on the diplomatic mission in
Benghazi - can delay uncovering significant developments until after
decisions are made and the public's interest has waned.
A request AP submitted for information on "contracts with public relations
companies to promote Obama's health care law" has been pending for over an
year. The AP has also been waiting for over ten months to receive emails
"between the IRS and outside Democratic super PACs about Tea Party groups."
Agencies are taking longer to respond to requests too. The AP noted, "The
Pentagon reported at least two requests still pending after 10 years and the
CIA was still working on at least four requests from more than eight years
ago." (But, the White House, for some reason, claimed it was responding
"more quickly" to FOIA requests. AP mentioned the White House did not
elaborate on how it arrived at this conclusion.)
Some of the more stunning episodes in the administration's efforts to be the
"most transparent"-which in effect is more secretive-administration in
history include conduct in the midst of disclosures from former National
Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had been fighting the administration for the
release of information that would detail secret legal interpretations of a
section of the PATRIOT Act. Once Snowden began to reveal details related to
what the administration had kept secret, Director for National Intelligence
James Clapper had the agency put up an "IC on the Record" Tumblr where
documents could be posted. The administration disingenuously made it seem
like it was voluntarily posting the documents, however, after Snowden's
disclosures began, a court ordered the administration to begin declassifying
documents that EFF had requested.
The Justice Department fought the release of a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court opinion, which underpinned the PRISM program that Snowden
revealed.
This year, in January, a case brought by EFF ended with a federal appeals
court in Washington, DC, ruling that the Justice Department could keep
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions secret. EFF had sought the release of
an opinion because it "purportedly allows the FBI to access the private call
records of phone company subscribers without providing any legal process."
The New York Times reacted, "The office's advice often serves as the final
word on what the executive branch may legally do, and those who follow that
advice are virtually assured that they will not face prosecution."
Secret legal opinions have often been drafted to authorize illegal activity,
such as torture, warrantless wiretapping and the killing of American
citizens with drones. The Obama administration has succeeded in keeping
legal opinions secret-essentially expanding a growing body of secret law
(that was much growing even more vast before Snowden blew the whistle on top
secret surveillance by the NSA).
However, the department did lose a lawsuit filed by Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). A federal appeals court
ruled the department had tried to pervert freedom of information law with
its preferred legal interpretation that government agencies were only
required to communicate a "determination" on whether they would comply
within 20 working days.
By law, as the court ruling described, "A FOIA requester must exhaust
administrative appeal remedies before seeking judicial redress. But if an
agency does not adhere to certain statutory timelines in responding to a
FOIA request, the requester is deemed by statute to have fulfilled the
exhaustion requirement." That means the requester can appeal or sue the
agency for the release of documents.
The administration effectively would have created a Catch-22 that further
limited citizens' ability to challenge government when agencies refused to
release information.
The AP reported in June of last year, "The nation's top special operations
commander ordered military files about the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin
Laden's hideout to be purged from Defense Department computers and sent to
the CIA, where they could be more easily shielded from ever being made
public." This clearly appears to be a circumvention of freedom of
information law.
The administration also refused requests for photos of bin Laden possibly
because, according to a member of SEAL Team Six who was part of the raid,
"Operator after operator took turns dumping magazines-worth of ammunition
into Bin Laden's body," and, "When all was said and done, UBL had over a
hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate."
The release of White House visitor logs was fought by the Obama
administration, and the administration won in an appeals court last August.
According to the National Security Archive, "Nearly half (50 out of 101) of
all federal agencies have still not updated their Freedom of Information Act
regulations to comply with Congress's 2007 FOIA amendments, and even more
agencies (55 of 101) have FOIA regulations that predate and ignore President
Obama's and Attorney General Holder's 2009 guidance for a 'presumption of
disclosure.'"
The administration seems to expend resources and energy trying to develop
strategies to block the release of information to the public more than it
spends working to fulfill its pledge to be transparent.
It would not release GPS location tracking memos that would have showed how
the Justice Department interpreted the law in the aftermath of a major
Supreme Court decision. (A court ruled in favor of this secrecy last week.)
For years now, the ACLU has been fighting the government in court as it
maintains it should be able to conceal information on the "targeted
killings" of three US citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, his
16-year-old son, and Samir Khan.
The ACLU also has two other FOIA lawsuits the Obama administration has
fought-one for the "legal and factual basis for its use of predator drones"
and a lawsuit for information on a December 2009 missile strike the
administration launched on al Majalah in Yemen, which killed dozens of
civilians including 21 children.
As ProPublica outlined in November, even though Obama made some kind of a
promise that his administration would share more information on drones, the
groups considered to be "associated forces" of al Qaeda remain classified.
Whether any compensation has been paid to drone victims is unknown.
Sometimes it is hard to figure out if strikes are, in fact, US drone strikes
because officials will not confirm them.
The administration has largely avoided confronting government secrecy,
especially the culture in Washington, which reinforces such secrecy. That
has made leaks of government information even more critical to enhancing the
public's understanding (but if Obama has his way, this flow of information
will be stopped entirely too).
Gannett News noted recently, "A study by researchers at Penn State
University found that government denials of the public's requests for
information increased during the first three years of the Obama
administration compared to the last three years of the George W. Bush
administration."
Each year the Obama administration has become progressively worse at
openness in government and yet it still promotes this illusion that it has
this sterling record when it comes to transparency.
In the CIA's fight against the Senate's torture report, the administration
has sought to invoke executive privilege to an alarming extent in order to
cover up abuses.
Not only is the Obama administration not the "most transparent
administration ever," it has become the inverse of the "most transparent
administration ever." It is now one of the most secretive administrations
ever, outpacing Bush in his commitment to keep government actions concealed
from the public.
C 2014 FireDogLake
Kevin Gosztola is a writer and documentary filmmaker whose blog, The
Dissenter, is posted at FireDogLake.
more Kevin Gosztola
. E-mail
. Print
. Share
Twitter Facebook Digg Google Google Buzz
StumbleUpon Delicous Newsvine Yahoo
More...
________________________________________
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/17-9
Return
. /forward?path=node%2F103547
. /view/2014/03/17-9?print
. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Published on Monday, March 17, 2014 by FireDogLake
'Most Transparent Administration EverT'-Obama Administration Makes Mockery
of Open Government
by Kevin Gosztola
Days after President Barack Obama's inauguration, he pledged to have his
administration create an "unprecedented level of openness in government."
Then-chief of staff, Jack Lew, later contended the administration was the
"most transparent administration ever." At a rally in 2010, Obama told the
public, "We have put in place the toughest ethics laws and toughest
transparency rules of any administration in history." But this slogan
suggesting the Obama administration is the "most transparent" ever has been
nothing but a marketing ploy, the product of an administration that
Advertising Age recognized as "marketer of the year" in 2008.
The Associated Press conducted its annual review of government data related
to the Freedom of Information Act. It found that the "government's efforts
to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since
President Barack Obama took office."
While the AP could not tell if the public was simply requesting more
sensitive information than the previous year, the administration claimed a
record number of "national security" exemptions. A record number of times
the administration also withheld information and cited a "deliberative
process" exemption, claiming it dealt with "decision-making behind the
scenes" so could not be released.
"[T]he government more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully
denied access to them, in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. On
196,034 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a
person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to
be unreasonable or improper," according to the AP.
Plus, "Journalists and others who need information quickly to report
breaking news fared worse than ever last year."
.Blocking news organizations from urgently obtaining records about a
government scandal or crisis - such as the NSA's phone-records collection,
Boston bombings, trouble with its health care website, the deadly shootings
at the Washington Navy Yard or the attack on the diplomatic mission in
Benghazi - can delay uncovering significant developments until after
decisions are made and the public's interest has waned.
A request AP submitted for information on "contracts with public relations
companies to promote Obama's health care law" has been pending for over an
year. The AP has also been waiting for over ten months to receive emails
"between the IRS and outside Democratic super PACs about Tea Party groups."
Agencies are taking longer to respond to requests too. The AP noted, "The
Pentagon reported at least two requests still pending after 10 years and the
CIA was still working on at least four requests from more than eight years
ago." (But, the White House, for some reason, claimed it was responding
"more quickly" to FOIA requests. AP mentioned the White House did not
elaborate on how it arrived at this conclusion.)
Some of the more stunning episodes in the administration's efforts to be the
"most transparent"-which in effect is more secretive-administration in
history include conduct in the midst of disclosures from former National
Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had been fighting the administration for the
release of information that would detail secret legal interpretations of a
section of the PATRIOT Act. Once Snowden began to reveal details related to
what the administration had kept secret, Director for National Intelligence
James Clapper had the agency put up an "IC on the Record" Tumblr where
documents could be posted. The administration disingenuously made it seem
like it was voluntarily posting the documents, however, after Snowden's
disclosures began, a court ordered the administration to begin declassifying
documents that EFF had requested.
The Justice Department fought the release of a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court opinion, which underpinned the PRISM program that Snowden
revealed.
This year, in January, a case brought by EFF ended with a federal appeals
court in Washington, DC, ruling that the Justice Department could keep
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions secret. EFF had sought the release of
an opinion because it "purportedly allows the FBI to access the private call
records of phone company subscribers without providing any legal process."
The New York Times reacted, "The office's advice often serves as the final
word on what the executive branch may legally do, and those who follow that
advice are virtually assured that they will not face prosecution."
Secret legal opinions have often been drafted to authorize illegal activity,
such as torture, warrantless wiretapping and the killing of American
citizens with drones. The Obama administration has succeeded in keeping
legal opinions secret-essentially expanding a growing body of secret law
(that was much growing even more vast before Snowden blew the whistle on top
secret surveillance by the NSA).
However, the department did lose a lawsuit filed by Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). A federal appeals court
ruled the department had tried to pervert freedom of information law with
its preferred legal interpretation that government agencies were only
required to communicate a "determination" on whether they would comply
within 20 working days.
By law, as the court ruling described, "A FOIA requester must exhaust
administrative appeal remedies before seeking judicial redress. But if an
agency does not adhere to certain statutory timelines in responding to a
FOIA request, the requester is deemed by statute to have fulfilled the
exhaustion requirement." That means the requester can appeal or sue the
agency for the release of documents.
The administration effectively would have created a Catch-22 that further
limited citizens' ability to challenge government when agencies refused to
release information.
The AP reported in June of last year, "The nation's top special operations
commander ordered military files about the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin
Laden's hideout to be purged from Defense Department computers and sent to
the CIA, where they could be more easily shielded from ever being made
public." This clearly appears to be a circumvention of freedom of
information law.
The administration also refused requests for photos of bin Laden possibly
because, according to a member of SEAL Team Six who was part of the raid,
"Operator after operator took turns dumping magazines-worth of ammunition
into Bin Laden's body," and, "When all was said and done, UBL had over a
hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate."
The release of White House visitor logs was fought by the Obama
administration, and the administration won in an appeals court last August.
According to the National Security Archive, "Nearly half (50 out of 101) of
all federal agencies have still not updated their Freedom of Information Act
regulations to comply with Congress's 2007 FOIA amendments, and even more
agencies (55 of 101) have FOIA regulations that predate and ignore President
Obama's and Attorney General Holder's 2009 guidance for a 'presumption of
disclosure.'"
The administration seems to expend resources and energy trying to develop
strategies to block the release of information to the public more than it
spends working to fulfill its pledge to be transparent.
It would not release GPS location tracking memos that would have showed how
the Justice Department interpreted the law in the aftermath of a major
Supreme Court decision. (A court ruled in favor of this secrecy last week.)
For years now, the ACLU has been fighting the government in court as it
maintains it should be able to conceal information on the "targeted
killings" of three US citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, his
16-year-old son, and Samir Khan.
The ACLU also has two other FOIA lawsuits the Obama administration has
fought-one for the "legal and factual basis for its use of predator drones"
and a lawsuit for information on a December 2009 missile strike the
administration launched on al Majalah in Yemen, which killed dozens of
civilians including 21 children.
As ProPublica outlined in November, even though Obama made some kind of a
promise that his administration would share more information on drones, the
groups considered to be "associated forces" of al Qaeda remain classified.
Whether any compensation has been paid to drone victims is unknown.
Sometimes it is hard to figure out if strikes are, in fact, US drone strikes
because officials will not confirm them.
The administration has largely avoided confronting government secrecy,
especially the culture in Washington, which reinforces such secrecy. That
has made leaks of government information even more critical to enhancing the
public's understanding (but if Obama has his way, this flow of information
will be stopped entirely too).
Gannett News noted recently, "A study by researchers at Penn State
University found that government denials of the public's requests for
information increased during the first three years of the Obama
administration compared to the last three years of the George W. Bush
administration."
Each year the Obama administration has become progressively worse at
openness in government and yet it still promotes this illusion that it has
this sterling record when it comes to transparency.
In the CIA's fight against the Senate's torture report, the administration
has sought to invoke executive privilege to an alarming extent in order to
cover up abuses.
Not only is the Obama administration not the "most transparent
administration ever," it has become the inverse of the "most transparent
administration ever." It is now one of the most secretive administrations
ever, outpacing Bush in his commitment to keep government actions concealed
from the public.
C 2014 FireDogLake
/author/kevin-gosztola /author/kevin-gosztola
Kevin Gosztola is a writer and documentary filmmaker whose blog, The
Dissenter, is posted at FireDogLake.
more Kevin Gosztola
. /forward?path=node%2F103547
. /view/2014/03/17-9?print
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/17-9
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment