Blogs 106 - 125 of 213
Justice Department Caves on Retroactively Classified Information
A hearing scheduled for the morning of Feb. 22 before U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington was abruptly cancelled after the Justice Department gave up and admitted that the information it had retroactively classified could be released to the public.
Last June, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) sued then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) for retroactively classifying information related to whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' allegations of wrongdoing in an FBI translation unit. The suit alleged that the retroactive classification was unlawful and violated POGO's First Amendment right to free speech.
The information about Edmonds had already presented by the FBI to the Senate Judiciary Committee during two unclassified briefings in 2002. The information was referenced in letters from U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to DOJ officials. The senators' letters were posted on their Web sites but were removed after the FBI notified the Senate in May 2004 that the information had been retroactively classified
According to a Feb. 23 Washington Post article, a report by the Justice Department Inspector General found that the FBI "was lax in investigating [Edmonds’] complaints and fired her partly because she made them." Critics of the FBI have charged that the real reason for trying to classify the information about the whistle-blower is not that national security secrets are at stake, but rather to cover up sloppy work by the FBI.
During a June 2004 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Ashcroft defended the decision to retroactively classify the information, claiming that its further dissemination could seriously impair the national security interests of the United States, even though for more than two years the information was widely available to the public.
"The fact that the Justice Department gave up on the eve of the hearing shows that this information was classified for an improper purpose," said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director. "If this information could ever have harmed national security, the Justice Department would never have caved in."
Throughout the litigation, POGO had offered to dismiss the suit if the DOJ stated that POGO could discuss and disseminate the letters without fear of prosecution, but the agency refused and instead claimed that POGO lacked standing to maintain the suit because the threat of criminal sanctions did not injure POGO. The DOJ backed down when faced with the prospect of tough questions at the hearing by a federal judge.
POGO was represented in the case by lawyers from the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center.
Visit POGO’s Web site to look at the Department of Justice's letter reversing the retroactive classification and other legal documents from POGO vs. Ashcroft, or to examine the background of the case, including press coverage.
Posted 02-23-2005 1:05 PM EDT
CIA Won't Disclose Files on Nazi War Criminals
Sixty years after the fall of Nazi Germany, the CIA is refusing to disclose to a government working group hundreds of thousands of pages that document how the U.S. government tried to recruit Nazi war criminals after World War II. The dispute was made public in a Jan. 30 New York Times article.
According to the 1998 Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, a specially appointed working group is supposed to make public "all classified Nazi war criminal records of the United States." But members of the working group have complained that the CIA has been interpreting the law so narrowly that hundreds of records are still secret. According to The Times, the CIA has been dragging its feet for about three years - that would make it shortly after the start of the Bush administration, wouldn’t it? Makes you wonder, who still has skeletons in that closet, and what can they be afraid of?
Records already made public show that the U.S. intelligence and military agencies worked closely with Nazi war criminals after the war, allowing dozens to live safely in the United States.
According to working group member Thomas H. Baer, a former federal prosecutor, "Too much has been secret for too long. The CIA has not complied with the statute." The working group includes representatives of several government agencies, as well as three non-governmental public members.
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), one of the sponsors of the 1998 law, has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a public hearing on the matter, at which CIA officials and members of the working group will testify.
The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that combats anti-Semitism, urged the CIA Feb. 2 to release the documents.
Posted 02-03-2005 5:04 PM EDT
Don’t Silence That Whistle-Blower!
The case of FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds keeps getting more and more interesting. Edmonds, who was a contract translator for the FBI in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani, was fired by the bureau when she raised questions about the competence of the FBI translation service and also accused a fellow translator of espionage.
Edmonds challenged her dismissal in court - saying it was a retaliatory firing because she was a whistle-blower who is protected by law from such retaliation. But Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked a seldom-used “state secrets privilege” to throw her case out of court because talking about it would allegedly endanger national security.
On Jan. 15, the inspector general of the Department of Justice issued a highly critical report on the Edmonds affair, finding the FBI had in fact fired Edmonds for whistle-blowing and had failed to take seriously the espionage accusation.
Edmonds is appealing her case in federal court, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Public Citizen recently filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Edmonds, along with several other anti-secrecy organizations. For more details on the case of the multi-lingual whistle-blower, see Public Citizen’s press release, read the text of the amicus brief, or read the New York Times coverage of the inspector general’s report.
Posted 01-21-2005 5:42 PM EDT
Secrecy Policy Still Goes Too Far
The Department of Homeland Security discontinued its requirement that workers at the department sign a secrecy pledge prohibiting them from sharing sensitive but unclassified information with the public. According to the agreement, any information that could compromise the privacy of individuals or "adversely affect the national interest or conduct of federal programs" was considered sensitive, according to The New York Times.
Violators risked administrative, disciplinary, criminal and civil penalties. One provision required signers to consent to government inspections "at any time or place" to ensure compliance.
Within the next month, the department will begin computer-based training sessions for employees on handling sensitive information.
The secrecy pledge was met with wide criticism by civil liberties groups and two unions, all charging the pledge as overly broad, unworkable and an unconstitutional restriction of privacy and free speech.
The unions applauded the department's decision to change its policy, but said its revised plan for safeguarding sensitive information covered "a broad and vaguely defined universe of information." The unions also said the department's approach in managing employees may "undermine national security and the public interest by suppressing whistle-blowing and discouraging dissent."
Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said department employees are still at risk of unfair disciplinary action.
"A government agency should never threaten its employees or contractors with criminal prosecution for disclosing information that is available under the Freedom of Information Act," Amey said in a written statement.
Posted 01-18-2005 4:13 PM EDT
Auto Defects? What Auto Defects?
Four years ago, after the spate of Ford-Firestone rollover crashes that resulted from defective tires, Congress passed a law that required certain safety data to be gathered by the government and made available to the public. The purpose of the law was to give the public access to information collected about the vehicles they drive.
But to the delight of the auto industry, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has decided to conceal much of this critical information from the public. NHTSA is withholding warranty claims, production numbers, field reports and even consumer complaints.
Auto manufacturers too often hide safety defects to avoid the costs of recalling vehicles and say they are against making the information public because they would suffer competitive harm. This situation puts the public at risk, according to a statement released by Public Citizen. In a legal brief filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the group contended NHTSA's secrecy is a perversion of the Freedom of Information Act.
Said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, "Consumers have a right to know if the vehicle they are driving has potential safety flaws that could injure or kill them."
Posted 01-14-2005 5:21 PM EDT
The Department of Secret Propaganda
The Bush administration, apparently not satisfied with the usual methods of manipulating news coverage, has been caught paying a prominent journalist to support its views and sending out fake video news segments posing as real news.
On Jan. 8, The Washington Post described how the U.S. Department of Education paid prominent black conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to promote the administration’s No Child Left Behind law. The contract called for Armstrong to comment favorably on the law in his broadcasts and to use his contacts with African-American news producers to get favorable coverage of the law.
Armstrong has his own radio show, "The Right Side," appears frequently on CNN and other TV outlets, and has (until recently) had a syndicated column carried by Chicago-based Tribune Media Services. But that company dropped his column when it learned that Armstrong had been paid by a federal agency to promote its agenda.
And on Jan. 7, The Post also revealed that the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy has been sending out video news releases that look like television news segments and which at least 300 local TV stations have used. The segments have an announcer posing as a journalist, and many stations are believed to have used them without ever identifying them as coming from the government.
The Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog agency, said the news releases were illegal "covert propaganda." This latest abuse comes after many similar incidents. Last spring, the GAO criticized the Department of Health and Human Services for putting out similar fake news reports promoting the government’s new Medicare drug benefit.
"What is objectionable about these is the fact the viewer has no idea their tax dollars are being used to write and produce this video segment," explained GAO official Susan Poling.
Posted 01-10-2005 2:21 PM EDT
Let's Not Talk About Missile Defense
Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan promised the nation a high-tech shield against missile attacks. The White House called the plan the Strategic Defense Initiative; critics called it Star Wars and said it was an impossible dream.
Twenty-two years later, America still has no missile shield and the U.S. Department of Defense is doing its best to keep the truth about it from the public. In 2000, the Pentagon’s Department of Operational Testing and Evaluation put out a report that was highly critical of U.S. efforts to assemble a national missile defense system. The report was discussed in public hearings and reported on in the media.
Three years later, the DoD classified the document, without offering any justification - even though the substance of it was well known. The Washington watchdog organization, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), is doing its best to fight the Pentagon’s retroactive classification. It is asking people to write Rumsfeld protesting the classification, and has posted details on how to do that. POGO states that the secrecy move is most likely an attempt to stifle debate on the expensive missile defense program, which had another test failure Dec. 15.
Posted 12-27-2004 5:39 PM EDT
A Ray of Sunshine on Classified Documents?
The National Intelligence Reform Act passed by Congress on Dec. 8 does create a new "director of national intelligence" position - and that’s what has gotten most of the media attention. But it does other things as well.
From the perspective of Americans worried about too much government secrecy, the law also contains a bit of good news: It creates a Public Interest Declassification Board, a body members of Congress can appeal to when they feel federal agencies are classifying too much information in the name of national security.
Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) pushed for the new board, partly as a response to a controversy over how much of a scathing congressional report on CIA assessments of Iraq could be made public. The CIA wanted to classify more than half of the report, but members of Congress got that down to 20 percent.
Last year alone, the U.S. government spent $6.5 billion creating 14.3 million new classified documents, according to a statement from Wyden’s office
The board will have nine members - five appointed by the president and four appointed by Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. The Associated Press report on creation of the board is based on Wyden’s statement.
The intelligence act also tries to inject a bit of civil liberties awareness into the Department of Homeland Security. It adds the protection of civil liberties and civil rights to the department’s mission statement, and creates a new position to protect civil liberties and civil rights in the DHS office of the inspector general.
Posted 12-13-2004 12:22 PM EDT
How to Say "No to Secrecy" in Indonesian
Fred Burks, a valued State Department interpreter for 18 years, has quit his job rather than sign a secrecy agreement. Burks, who has interpreted for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, told The Washington Post he had quit in protest over growing government secrecy demands.
A contract interpreter, Burks had never been required to sign a secrecy agreement until last month. When the State Department told him he would have to sign a new contract in which he would promise not to reveal any information he learned in his government service, he just refused. And since he never did sign such an agreement, he has been able to tell his story to any media that will listen.
Burks was valued by the State Department because he was qualified in two difficult languages, Mandarin and Indonesian. He says he is one of three American interpreters qualified at the highest level in Indonesian.
An interesting side note: When Burks interpreted for Bush at a 2001 meeting with Indonesian President Megawati Sukarno, he told The Post, "Bush displayed such a detailed grasp of Indonesian issues at the meeting that he came away thinking the president must have been fed information through a hidden earpiece." Reminds us of a presidential debate we watched not long ago . . . .
Posted 12-09-2004 6:24 PM EDT
Compromise Proposed on Cheney Energy Task Force
Open-government advocates launched a new initiative Nov. 30 in the long-running battle legal battle over Vice President Cheney’s energy task force. The nonprofit National Security Archive, along with several library, journalist and public interest organizations, filed a brief that points to a compromise solution that would reveal some information about the task force but allow the task force records to remain confidential.
The task force was one of the earliest, and most hotly contested, secrecy moves of the Bush administration. Assembled shortly after Bush and Cheney took office in 2001, the task force met secretly with industry lobbyists and executives to formulate a national energy strategy that was very friendly to business and ignored environmental concerns.
For more than two years, the conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club have been trying to gain access to the task force records. They believe that keeping the records secret violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Critics also believe that the task force met with energy industry lobbyists while excluding environmental, consumer and public interest input - which biased the task force’s recommendations.
While the Bush administration has lost several rounds in the courts, it has kept filing appeals. One result: The records were still locked up during the fall presidential campaign. The case is now awaiting a second hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The controversy has been covered extensively in this blog.
The National Security Archive, a Washington-based nonprofit that makes public previously secret government materials, and its allies have filed an amicus curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They recommend that the parties work out a compromise that would accommodate the competing interests in the case. The compromise would set up a "Cheney log" providing enough information so that outsiders could tell whether non-government persons participated in the task force. That in turn determines whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act applies.
Posted 12-03-2004 11:16 AM EDT
Don't say a word
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken government secrecy under the Bush administration to a whole new level - requiring each of its 180,000 employees and contractors to sign a pledge prohibiting them from divulging sensitive information to the public. The agreements apply to more than just classified information - they include any information that could “adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of federal programs” or violate a person’s privacy, according to The Washington Post.
The department went so far as to ask congressional aides to also sign nondisclosure agreements as a condition of getting information - an affront that was rejected by both GOP and Democratic aides. “They’re forgetting who’s overseeing who,” said one official of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Violators of the pledge risk disciplinary, civil or criminal penalties. Signers must consent to government inspections “at any time or place.”
Critics say the secrecy pledges are overly broad, unworkable and maybe even unconstitutional. “Its likely consequence will be to chill even the most mundane interactions between department employees and reporters or the general public,” said Steven Aftergood, editor of the Federation of American Scientists’ newsletter. “Employees will naturally fear that even the most trivial conversation could mean a violation of this draconian agreement, and so the result will be a new wall between the government and the public.”
While the DHS says the new policy will not affect information available under the Freedom of Information Act, one likely result is that the department will be able to operate with much less accountability to the public.
Posted 11-16-2004 12:26 PM EDT
Why Isn't Bush Secrecy a Campaign Issue?
Why hasn’t the Bush administration’s drastic expansion of government secrecy become an issue in the 2004 campaign? asks Dorothy Samuels on the editorial page of the Nov. 1 New York Times - even though she knows the answer. A member of the Times editorial board, Samuels herself recites the list of higher-profile issues that have captured the attention of the media and the public: "the Red Sox, Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulge visible under the back of Mr. Bush’s suit jacket in the first debate."
Drawing largely on a September report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and blogged here, Samuels cites the numerous instances of unnecessary, unwise and anti-democratic secretiveness that this blog has covered extensively. Examples: the administration’s balking at turning over key documents to the 9/11 Commission, establishment of the new secrecy category "sensitive but unclassified," and hiding detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo.
Samuels asks why the Kerry campaign has not raised these issues, and admits they’ve garnered "just a trivial level of attention." But, she says, "the implications for a second term are ominous."
Posted 11-02-2004 1:18 PM EDT
NRC Closes Web Library to Terrorists
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced Oct. 25 that it has closed off public access to its Web library of documents to do a new security review of the site and make sure it does not contain information that could be useful to terrorists. The agency said it would probably be several weeks until the library is back online.
The NRC library never has contained classified information, but this new review is "intended to ensure that documents which might provide assistance to terrorists will be inaccessible," the NRC said. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the NRC took down its Web site and removed more than 1,000 documents that contained "sensitive information." Since then, the agency has enforced stricter guidelines on what materials may be revealed to the public.
According to the Associated Press, the review came after NBC News reported that the agency’s Web site included detailed information about the location of radioactive substances used in medicine and industry that could be used to make a "dirty bomb."
The agency said the shutdown also would cut off access to NRC staff documents about the controversial Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository and documents in the NRC hearings docket.
Posted 10-28-2004 11:51 AM EDT
377 Tons of Missing Iraqi High Explosives? Shhhhh!
The theft of 377 tons of high explosives in Iraq, recently revealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is just the most recent example of the Bush administration’s "culture of cover-ups," writes Paul Krugman on the op-ed page of the Oct. 26 New York Times.
Krugman reports that the administration knew about the theft at Al QaQaa for over six months but did its best to keep it secret. Not only didn’t they say a word about it, they didn’t let the IAEA inspect the site, plus they pressured the Iraqis not to tell the agency about the theft. No wonder - U.S. forces had failed to secure the site, even though the IAEA had warned the occupying coalition that it should do so. The story of the missing explosives surfaced in the Times and other media Oct. 25.
Krugman quotes "the influential Nelson Report" as saying that the missing explosives from Al QaQaa are the "primary source" of the roadside and car bombs that have been killing and wounding U.S. and allied soldiers in recent months.
And that’s not all. Another amazing cover-up was revealed this week by The Wall Street Journal and the NBC Nightly News. Turns out that before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration called off a planned attack that might have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist leader now regarded as America’s Public Enemy Number One in Iraq. Why didn’t the U.S. strike? Krugman cites convoluted reasoning about the U.S. preparing its case for war against Iraq.
Don’t expect the cover-up culture to improve if President Bush is re-elected, Krugman warns. Bush’s new CIA director, Porter Goss, is already suppressing evidence of CIA intelligence failures that might embarrass the administration - at least until after Nov. 2.
Posted 10-26-2004 5:33 PM EDT
Senate Votes to Disclose Intelligence Budget, But DOE goes the other way
The U.S. Senate voted Oct. 5 to break with long-standing precedent and direct the government to disclose the total U.S. intelligence budget. That budget figure has been kept secret for 50 years.
The 55-37 vote to release the numbers came when the senators rejected an amendment by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) that would have required the government to continue keeping the numbers secret.
The change in the law is part of a sweeping revision in the U.S. intelligence network, spurred by the report of the official 9/11 Commission. That body criticized over-classification of U.S. intelligence matters and recommended disclosing the overall intelligence budget.
The Senate bill, sponsored by Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, would create a new intelligence czar with broad authority over all 15 U.S. intelligence agencies. The bill would reveal only the overall size of the intelligence budget - not the dimensions of any particular agency or program. The nation’s intelligence spending is believed to be about $40 billion per year.
Stevens and other senators argued strongly against declassifying the budget number. "Listen to me," Stevens said in the Senate debate. "You have not lived with how we have financed the intelligence community. The money is not disclosed. It is put in parts of the budget and you don’t know where it is. It rests with Sen. [Daniel] Inouye and me, to be honest about it, and we make sure that it is what it is. Maybe four people in the House and Senate know where this is. You are telling us to disclose it."
But just as the Senate was making a small move toward transparency, the U.S. Department of Energy was moving in the opposite direction. The Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy revealed that the DOE - which until this year made its intelligence budget public - has now classified it and removed it from the public record. In addition, the department is trying to retroactively classify intelligence budget information that has already been published.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the DOE did reveal a heavily redacted version of its 2005 intelligence budget - but with an odd little twist. For decades, whenever the federal government kept information secret in responding to FOIA requests, such pages were filled with heavy black lines where information had been blacked out. Showing a new sensitivity to its public image, the DOE this time whited out the offending passages. Sure, the information is still withheld, but it looks much less stark . . . and presents a less inviting image for the media.
Posted 10-06-2004 7:25 PM EDT
The Patriot Act v. the Fourth Amendment
A federal judge in New York ruled Sept. 29 that a key provision of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to obtain Internet and other electronic records without any judicial review. The ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, came in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of an Internet service provider that had received a type of subpoena known as a "national security letter" from the FBI.
The judge ordered the Justice Department to stop using the letters, but because he also gave the department 90 days to appeal the decision, the ruling will not have an immediate practical effect.
The national security letters were difficult for the ACLU to challenge in court because the Patriot Act surrounds them in secrecy. The companies that receive the subpoenas are not allowed to reveal that the demand for their records was ever made. What’s more, the ACLU had to file its suit in secret to comply with the law, passed by Congress shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Even now, the name of the company that filed the complaint must be kept secret.
In his decision, Judge Marrero sharply criticized the U.S. government’s penchant for secrecy.
"Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction," he wrote.
The L.A. Times points out that ordinarily, the government is allowed to obtain stored electronic information only through a subpoena or court order. While a 1986 law carved out an exception in terrorism or counter-intelligence cases where the target was an agent of a foreign country, the Patriot Act greatly widened the exception and added secrecy requirements.
Posted 09-30-2004 6:50 PM EDT
NRC Backs Down on Rulemaking Secrecy
After being sued by Public Citizen and the California environmental group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reversed its position and said it would engage in a rulemaking process that allows public input on security regulations at nuclear power plants.
The agency backed down Sept. 10, just before it had to appear before the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia to defend its position, according to a Public Citizen press release.
The two groups sued the NRC earlier this year, accusing the agency of failing to comply with two federal laws when it revised rules in 2003 on how well nuclear power plants must be prepared to respond to terrorist threats. The laws require the agency to notify the public about an upcoming rulemaking and allow public comment. Before it changed its mind, the NRC had argued that it was not required to engage in a public rulemaking and that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the NRC to do so.
The appeals court on Sept. 17 effectively told the agency to provide the rulemaking proceeding sought in the public interest groups’ lawsuit, though officially it gives the NRC the chance to make good on its assurance that it will do so.
Said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, "We’ll be watching the NRC closely to make sure they follow through on the public’s right to know."
For more information on the NRC rule in question about evaluating threats to nuclear power plants, see the Sept. 9 Public Citizen press release. For more information about the court case, you can see Public Citizen's original "brief on the merits," the follow-up brief in reponse to NRC arguments, and the court's decision.
Posted 09-21-2004 6:23 PM EDT
Rep. Waxman Blasts Administration Secrecy
U.S. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, issued a scathing report Sept. 14 blasting the Bush administration for "conducting an unprecedented assault on the principle of open government."
In the report, titled "Secrecy in the Bush Administration," Waxman describes the many ways in which the administration has restricted the flow of information from the executive branch to both Congress and the public. The report, written by the committee’s minority staff, "finds that there has been a consistent pattern in the Administration’s actions: laws that are designed to promote public access to information have been undermined, while laws that authorize the government to withhold information or to operate in secret have repeatedly been expanded."
Waxman cites numerous abuses that have been documented here on bushsecrecy.org, including the shielding of information about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force, withholding from Congress cost estimates of the Medicare prescription drug legislation, and secret detentions and trials of people designated "enemy combatants."
The report also describes how the administration has whittled away at "sunshine laws" - such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act - that open the federal government to public scrutiny.
"Taken together," Waxman concludes, "the actions of the Bush administration have resulted in an extraordinary expansion of government secrecy."
Posted 09-14-2004 6:46 PM EDT
NRC Illegally Hid Changes in Security Regulations
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission revised its safety regulations for nuclear power plants earlier this year, but it violated the law by failing to allow the public to comment on the changes.
Public Citizen and the California environmental group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace have taken the NRC to court on the issue, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments on the case September 10. The two groups said in a September 9 press release that the NRC violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which would allow the public and the states in which the reactors are located to comment on the new rules and would require the NRC to take those comments into account.
The new rules focus on a security exercise called the "design basis threat," in which the NRC evaluates scenarios for attacks on nuclear power plants. A key ingredient is "force-on-force" tests, simulations in which a group of mock attackers attempt to gain access to restricted plant areas.
"After taking almost a year and a half following the 9/11 attacks to even consider upgrading the force-on-force security requirements, the NRC rushed the process by bypassing the public altogether," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.
The new regulations have been criticized for, among other things, failing to require plants to take measures against possible aircraft attacks by terrorists, even though the 9/11 Commission stated that al Qaeda had strongly considered such attacks.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office in congressional testimony in May 2004 also noted that the NRC’s new design basis threat does not take into account the full range of threats identified by the U.S. intelligence community.
Posted 09-13-2004 1:11 PM EDT
Secretive Medicare Chief Should Have His Pay Docked
Thomas Scully, the Medicare official who kept Congress from finding out the real cost of the Medicare drug benefit, should have had his pay withheld as a penalty for his misdeeds. That was the legal opinion of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which said that Scully fell under a law that states that a federal official who stops another government employee from communicating with Congress should not be paid.
Scully, former administrator of the Medicare program, became the center of a fierce controversy last March, when longtime Medicare actuary Richard Foster said that Scully had threatened to fire him if Foster told Congress his estimates of the real costs of a Medicare drug benefit program. The Bush administration was successful in getting Congress - by the narrowest of margins - to pass its Medicare drug bill in 2003, but only by underestimating the cost of the program by more than $100 billion.
According to the Washington Post, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., called on Scully to return his $145,600 salary. "This was corruption of the process at the highest levels," Lautenberg said. "What is still unclear is who in the Bush White House ordered Mr. Scully not to reveal this information."
Scully told the Associated Press that he did not believe the GAO’s opinion was relevant. Several government agencies have investigated the muzzling of Foster and have arrived at different assessments of whether Scully’s actions were illegal or just unfortunate.
Posted 09-08-2004 3:49 PM EDT
|home | secrecy blog | about us | join us | other secrecy sites|
Powered by Public Citizen - www.citizen.org
Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. All rights reserved.