Blogs 21 - 40 of 213
Despite its promises, the Republican National Committee (RNC) no longer will try to restore missing e-mails sent by White House officials on RNC accounts, according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during a Feb. 26 hearing.
White House officials - including former presidential adviser Karl Rove - had used RNC accounts for government business, even though rules stated that they had to use official channels to conduct government business, according to the Feb. 27 Washington Post. (Administration officials have acknowledged such practices.)
The RNC had told the committee previously that it was trying to restore e-mails from 2001 to 2003, when the RNC’s policy was to purge all e-mails after 30 days.
Somehow, the RNC had a change of heart.
“The result is a potentially enormous gap in the historical record,” Waxman said, including the prelude to the
Posted 02-27-2008 12:44 PM EDT
Army Restricts Access to Unclassified Information
The Army has closed public access to a digital library that contains unclassified field and technical information, according to The Washington Post.
On Feb. 6, the Reimer Digital Library was moved behind a firewall, protected by a password.
The Army says it is limiting access to comply with Defense Department policies for tightening the security of military Web sites and to keep better track of who is accessing these sites.
However, the Project on Government Secrecy, a program within the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists, is hoping to restore access to the documents. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on Feb. 13 for all of the unclassified, publicly releasable documents in the library’s collection so it can post the material on the group’s Web site.
“They can configure Army Web sites however they like,” the Project on Government Secrecy's director, Steven Aftergood, is quoted in the Post as saying. “What they cannot do is to withhold information from the public that is subject to release under the FOIA. … What we really want to do is to persuade them to adopt a reasonable policy of openness, not to provide an alternative - unless we have to.”
Posted 02-21-2008 12:49 PM EDT
Public Health Agency Suppresses Hazardous Substances Report
Same story, different cast: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is blocking the release of a report that studies environmental hazards in the eight
The study, originally set for release last July, warns that more than nine million people living in more than two dozen “areas of concern” - including those living in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee - could face increased health risks from exposure to contaminants such as pesticides, lead, mercury or other pollutants, according to The Center for Public Integrity.
The government has said the report’s quality was below expectations and was still being reviewed. (Dozens of experts have reviewed drafts of the report since 2004.) And the individual who oversaw the study has been demoted after pushing to release the
“It’s not good because it’s inconvenient,” said Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a Canadian biologist who was a peer reviewer for the report. “The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word ‘injury.’ If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the worst amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there.”
Posted 02-18-2008 1:17 PM EDT
House Issues Contempt Citations Against White House Aides
On Feb. 14, the House of Representatives approved contempt citations against White House aides for refusing to cooperate with an inquiry into allegations that political motives were behind the firing of
The citations were issued against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers. Bolten’s contempt resolution notes that he has refused to turn over subpoenaed documents and e-mails sought by the House Judiciary Committee in the investigation, according to The Washington Post.
Miers is cited because she refused to testify after she was subpoenaed to come before the committee last summer.
For almost a year, Bush has not allowed any current or former member of his West Wing staff to testify in the investigation. Bush, citing executive privilege, has offered to allow staffers to testify only if the testimony is taken without transcripts and under oath.
“This is beyond arrogance. This is hubris taken to the ultimate degree,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Posted 02-18-2008 1:14 PM EDT
Three's a charm
Three’s a charm, unless you’re the Internal Revenue Service, that is. The agency is flouting three court orders requiring it to provide a nationally recognized researcher with statistical data on how the agency enforces the nation’s tax laws.
On Feb. 11, Public Citizen, along with the Seattle, Wash. law firm Davis Wright Tremaine filed a lawsuit on behalf of the researcher, Susan B. Long and her organization, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
Posted 02-15-2008 5:36 PM EDT
Senators Introduce Bill for Oversight of State Secrets Privilege
It’s no surprise that the Bush administration wants to invoke the state secrets privilege in court when it can. Plainly speaking, this White House loves its secrets.
But a couple of influential senators are trying to provide some oversight for the use of the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to prevent sensitive national security information from being publicly disclosed as evidence in court.
Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced on Jan. 22 the State Secrets Protection Act (S. 2533). The bill would require courts in civil lawsuits to look at the evidence for which the administration is trying to use the privilege and assess whether the administration’s assertions are valid, according to a statement from Kennedy. Currently, there is no law giving courts guidelines for the use of the states secret privilege in civil cases.
“When federal courts accept the executive branch’s state secrets claims as absolute, our system of checks and balances breaks down,” Kennedy said in his statement. “By refusing to consider key pieces of evidence, or by dismissing lawsuits outright without considering any evidence at all, courts give the executive branch the ability to violate American laws and constitutional rights without any accountability or oversight, and innocent victims are left unable to obtain justice.”
Posted 01-30-2008 6:25 PM EDT
White House E-mails Go Missing
Missing: 473 days’ worth of White House e-mails.
Yes, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, the White House has no archives of e-mail messages for one or more of its offices, according to the summary of an internal White House study released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that was covered in The Washington Post.
Early in the Bush administration, the White House threw out the custom archiving system the
According to the Post, no presidential office e-mails were archived on Dec. 17, 20 or 21 in 2003, which was the week after Saddam Hussein’s capture. And no e-mails were archived in the vice president’s office for four days in early October 2003 - dates that match up with the beginning of the Justice Department probe into the leak of a CIA officer’s identity, according to a summary of the White House study.
Of course, the White House is disputing the credibility of its own study. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said there was no evidence that e-mails are missing.
Guess the White House study doesn’t count as evidence …
Posted 01-22-2008 5:46 PM EDT
Bush Secrecy Efforts Crumbling
At long last, the pillars of the administration’s secrecy are beginning to crumble somewhat.
According to a Jan. 13 Washington Post story:
On Jan. 8, a federal magistrate ordered the administration to reveal whether it had backup copies of missing White House e-mails;
“The administration has brought these challenges on itself,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. She favored disclosing the intelligence budget. “By trying to keep secret information that doesn’t need to be secret, it invites skepticism of all of its secrecy claims.”
The Post story does note that the administration has been victorious in its quest for secrecy. For instance, the
Such losses are terrible and contribute to the atmosphere of secrecy. But the victories - which are increasing in number - are encouraging.
Posted 01-22-2008 5:32 PM EDT
Senior Bush Lawyers Discussed CIA Videotapes
Top White House lawyers were involved in discussions with the CIA about whether to destroy videotapes showing secret interrogations of two Al Qaeda operatives, according to a Dec. 19 New York Times story.
Unnamed officials are saying these lawyers were involved in the discussions to a much greater degree than the administration had said. Those who took part, according to the officials, included Alberto R. Gonzales (White House counsel until early 2005), David S. Addington (former counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and now his chief of staff), John B. Bellinger III (senior lawyer at the National Security Council until January 2005) and Harriet E. Miers (successor to Gonzales as White House counsel).
And while previous reports said some administration officials advised against destroying the tapes, which occurred in November 2005, the Times story notes some conflicting recollections of what actually happened.
“One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there was ‘vigorous sentiment’ to destroy the tapes among some top White House officials,” according to the newspaper.
But other officials said no one at the White House wanted to destroy the tapes. “Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes of advised that destroying them would be illegal,” according to the Times.
The plot thickens …
Posted 12-19-2007 11:53 AM EDT
Congress Passes Bill to Strengthen Freedom of Information Act
Finally, government transparency wins a battle!
On Dec. 18, Congress gave its OK to a bill that would speed up the sometimes years-long process of obtaining public documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The law already says that agencies must respond within 20 days of a FOIA request. But in reality, the process can drag out for months, or even years. This bill would require public tracking numbers to be assigned to requests. And if an agency exceeds the 20-day deadline, the agency could not charge FOIA requesters for research or copying costs, according to The Washington Post.
“In an era of increased government secrecy, we cannot postpone reforming the very act that keeps our government open to the people whose government this is,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “FOIA helps make government accountable and responsive to the people.”
If you’re keeping score, today it’s Transparency: 1. Secrecy: 0.
Posted 12-19-2007 11:51 AM EDT
Court Keeps Decisions About Warrantless Wiretapping Program Under Wraps
A federal court that generally operates in secrecy is, not surprisingly, keeping secret the details of the courts decisions on the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program, according to a Dec. 12 New York Times story.
Two recent decisions by the
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the court to release the opinions that detail the two rulings because the public had a right to know the information during a recent congressional debate on the issue. A federal court’s interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret, contends Jameel Jaffer, director of the National Security Project at the ACLU.
In his Dec. 11 ruling, Judge John D. Bates, who sits on the surveillance court and the
But that does not outweigh the need or right of the government to keep the material classified, Bates said.
Posted 12-12-2007 12:20 PM EDT
CIA Destroys Videotapes Showing ‘Severe Interrogation Techniques’
In 2005, the CIA destroyed at least two videotapes showing the agency’s interrogation of two al-Qaeda operatives, according to a Dec. 7 New York Times story.
Why destroy the tapes? Because the agency was concerned about the legal risks of the video, which showed CIA operatives using “severe interrogation techniques” on terrorism suspects.
“The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the [agency’s secret detention] program,” according to the Times.
After the Times told the CIA that it was preparing to publish an article on the tapes’ destruction, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director, told employees that the agency had acted “in line with the law.”
According to Hayden’s statement, the tapes were a “serious security risk,” and if they got out to the public, they would have exposed agency officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”
Hayden also said leaders of congressional oversight committees were informed about the tapes and told about the decision to destroy them. But Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who was the House Intelligence Committee chairman between 2004 and 2006, and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat between 2002 and 2006, said they were not told about the decision to destroy the tapes.
In fact, Harman said that she told CIA officials years ago that destroying interrogation tapes would be a “bad idea,” according to the Times.
“How in the world could the CIA claim that these tapes were not relevant to a legislative inquiry?” she said. “This episode reinforces my view that the CIA should not be conducting a separate interrogations program.”
Posted 12-07-2007 5:43 PM EDT
White House Secrets: The Abramoff Edition
The Secret Service is living up to its name: The agency has identified some highly sensitive documents related to White House visits by imprisoned former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff that, it says, cannot be released to the public, according to a Dec. 2 Associated Press story.
The Secret Service’s concerns would prevent the production of the documents in a civil lawsuit, even though the Bush administration agreed last year to produce all relevant records about Abramoff’s visits to the White House.
“This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter that there were additional contacts with President Bush or other high White House officials that have yet to be disclosed,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group that filed the suit. “We’ve alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation, and frankly this is more fuel for that fire.”
Extraordinary development, indeed.
Posted 12-04-2007 1:03 PM EDT
'Early Warning' Data Kept Out of Public's Reach
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Oct. 19 released a final rule thwarting public access to early warning information about motor vehicle safety hazards.
Despite losing in the courts, the administration insists on trying again to produce a rule that will keep the public in the dark about potential defects and other safety hazards in the cars they drive.
The final rule released Oct. 19 restricts public access to much of the "early warning data" submitted by the auto and tire industry under the 2000 Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act (TREAD Act) to assist in the early identification of motor vehicle safety defects.
Posted 10-22-2007 10:16 AM EDT
Court to Bush: Secretive Tactics Are Illegal
President Bush’s executive order to limit public access to presidential records violates the Presidential Records Act, a federal court ruled Monday in a suit filed by Public Citizen. In an attempt to keep secret records of former presidents and vice presidents, Bush’s order had wrested away control from the National Archives and essentially given office holders veto power over release of their papers.
Read the opinion.
Posted 10-02-2007 3:22 PM EDT
Bush Secrecy Reaches the Senate
Oh, what a tangled web of secrecy Republicans are weaving: On Sept. 20, The Dallas Morning News reported that a Republican senator is secretly blocking a bill reversing a presidential executive order that allows former presidents to seal their records for an indefinite period of time.
“We need to smoke out whoever it is,” said Lee White, executive director of the National Coalition for History, one of the legislation’s leading advocates, in the newspaper. “Maybe somebody at the White House called a Republican senator and said put a hold on it.”
Bush’s executive order allows former presidents, vice presidents or their representatives (if they are incapacitated or deceased) to block the release of their records, potentially shielding important information from the public.
Public Citizen and other groups filed a lawsuit in 2001 challenging the executive order. The lawsuit is still pending.
Posted 09-21-2007 4:34 PM EDT
Outing the Energy Insiders Given Access to Cheney, Staff
The Washington Post landed a big scoop on July 18: A former White House official gave the newspaper the Bush administration’s confidential list showing how many energy industry insiders Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides met with before writing up the administration’s energy task force report.
In total, about 300 groups and individuals, many from the energy industry, met with task force staff members, according to the list compiled in 2001. Some of the groups and individuals met with Cheney.
The attempt to obtain the list of meeting attendees has been ongoing for years. In 2004, in response to a lawsuit filed to shake loose the list, the Supreme Court agreed with the administration’s belief that its internal deliberations should not be released to public scrutiny, according to the Post.
“I never knew why they fought so hard to keep it secret,” Charles A. Samuels, outside counsel to the Association of Home Appliances Manufacturers (which participated in a meeting on tax credits for “super-efficient” appliances), told the Post. “I am sure the vast majority of the meetings were very policy-oriented meetings - exactly what should take place.”
Posted 07-18-2007 1:46 PM EDT
Former Surgeon General Says Administration Silenced Him
More evidence has surfaced that the Bush administration is silencing officials and other representatives whose views, while scientifically correct, do not mesh with its political agenda.
This time, former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona, who served under Bush from 2002 to 2006, said he was silenced on issues such as the debate over whether the government should fund embryonic stem cell research, something Bush opposes, according to a story published July 11 in The Washington Post.
“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Carmona said. “The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds.”
Carmona made the statement when testifying July 10 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee’s chairman, said Congress needs to protect the surgeon general’s office from such politicization.
Congress should find ways to prevent the administration from silencing those who just want to get facts about anything - from public health to the environment - out to the public.
Posted 07-11-2007 4:52 PM EDT
FDA Officials Kept Blank Calendars
If you have been wanting to know who two top officials at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been meeting with in recent years, you would be out of luck.
Despite the fact that their jobs involve regular sit-downs with drug company executives, lobbyists and others, the public calendars of Dr. Janet Woodcock and Dr. Steven Galson have been almost completely blank, according to The Associated Press.
Woodcock’s calendar had only three listings between January 1999 and December 2006. That’s strange, because during that time, she was the director of the center for drug evaluation and research and then deputy commissioner for operations. Both positions required her meetings to be listed.
Galson, who took over the drug chief position from Woodcock full-time in July 2005, had no listings.
The FDA says it simply was an administrative oversight (and began to fill in the calendar, after being contacted by congressional staff).
But Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations subcommittee, said this is an example of the FDA’s lack of accountability.
Posted 07-02-2007 3:59 PM EDT
Cheney Battles Executive Branch Agency Trying to Collect Classified Data
Vice President Dick Cheney must love his secrets. He doesn’t even like to share with his own team.
Check out the latest: Apparently, Cheney has exempted himself from the PRESIDENTIAL order setting up procedures for protecting classified information, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
For the past four years, Cheney’s office has refused to cooperate with a National Archives and Records Administration office charged with monitoring classification in the executive branch, according to stories in the June 22 Washington Post and New York Times.
Not only did the vice president’s office not comply with a routine annual request for data on staff classification of internal documents, but in 2004, it also blocked an on-site inspection of records that other executive branch agencies go through, according to a letter to the vice president sent by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
And after the Archives office continued to complain about the matter, Cheney’s staff proposed eliminating the office.
“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Waxman told The New York Times. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”
Posted 06-22-2007 12:44 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.