Obama Edicts Boost FOIA and .gov Websites 400
Ian Lamont writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the National Security Archive are praising President Obama's executive orders to make the federal government more open. Yesterday, Obama issued two memos and one executive order instructing government agencies to err on the side of making information public and not to look for reasons to legally withhold it. The moves are expected to make it easier for people to file Freedom of Information Act requests, and should also boost the amount of information that agencies place on their websites. The general counsel for the National Security Archive (an NGO that publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) even predicts that agencies will use blogs to share information. Obama's directives reverse a 2001 memo from former US Attorney General John Ashcroft instructing federal agencies to generally withhold information from citizens filing FOIA requests."
links to the memos and order (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the linked article provides links directly to the memos, but propublica [propublica.org] did, so here they are:
Memo on Transparency and Open Government [amazonaws.com]
Memo on the Freedom of Information Act [amazonaws.com]
And here's the Executive Order on Presidential Records [whitehouse.gov], which makes clear that claims of secrecy by the former president and his subordinates will be evaluated, and accepted or rejected, by the current president.
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:5, Informative)
The courts had ordered the Pentagon to release additional prison torture pics and vids, stuff Congress had viewed in private and turned a lot of stomachs. Currently the Pentagon is illegally sitting on these pics. Can we get all the ugly in the open so we can start to earn our respect back?
You can find the DoD's FOIA request information here [dod.mil]. I'm not entirely sure which sub department that would fall under but you could try with the military first [army.mil].
They should help you:
Please note that this office is not a repository for documents maintained or released by the Department of the Army. Requests received in this office will be forwarded to the activity that has the responsibility for the subject matter requested. For a more timely response, please refer to the POC listing to ensure your request is submitted to the proper office.
After reviewing the POC listing, if you are still unsure which agency to contact, you may submit a request to the Department of the Army Freedom of Information Office, 7701 Telegraph Road, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22315-3905 and we will attempt to assist you. Requests to this office can also be sent electronically by emailing: DAFOIA@conus.army.mil, or Facsimile (703) 428-6522.
Address: Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Office 7701 Telegraph Road, Suite 144 Alexandria, VA 22315-3905
E-mail: DAFOIA@conus.army.mil Telephone: COMM (703) 428-6504 or DSN 328-6504 Facsimile: COMM (703) 428-6522 or DSN 328-6522
FOIA requesters who have any questions concerning the processing of their requests at the US Army Freedom of Information Act Office, should contact this center at (703) 428-6504. If you are not satisfied with the response from the center, you may contact the FOIA Public Liaisons, Mr. Robert Dickerson or Mr. Steven A. Raho, at (703)428-6504, Army_FOIA_Liaison@conus.army.mil.
There's a handbook online [dod.mil] if you have questions. If you want something from the State department or FCC, they have pretty easy request forms online. I'm thinking you'll just get a big fat rejection but who knows?
Re:I am not a lawyer, but... (Score:5, Informative)
This is different from Bush's Executive Order 13233 which states:
In Bush's Order, a former President can keep his records from being disclosed indefinitely simply by objecting to the release. No claim of privilege is required and no provision is made to override the objection. Under Obama, only executive privilege can keep records from being release and even then that claimed is reviewed. IANAL but that's how I interpreted it. Any lawyers care to comment.
Re:FOIA change: excellent... (Score:2, Informative)
Flautists, dude. Flautists.
Re:Nice Move by Obama (Score:3, Informative)
taking steps to close camp X-Ray
Wow, you really like keeping up with current events, huh? Camp X-Ray was shut down almost 7 years ago. Those images of orange jump suited inmates walking around behind a chain link fence with tents in the background that the media keep playing are 7+ year old footage of the temporary Camp X-Ray. Camp Delta is the permanent facility used since Camp X-Ray shut down in April 2002.
Re:Obama's Staff Trims robots.txt (Score:5, Informative)
The main page is also perfect XHTML code according to w3.org's validator. I don't know whether this was true for the previous administration's website or not. The code's also very readable, not sure what tool they used to create it though.
Re:Obama's Staff Trims robots.txt (Score:5, Informative)
This has been debunked on reddit and probably other places.
1) Bush's robots.txt began very similarly to Obama's, it grew later. Obama's robots.txt file starting small proves nothing. Look again in a year and see what it looks like then.
2) The pages disallowed by Bush's robots.txt file were (almost?) all printer-friendly versions of pages which were not excluded. The information was still there and accessible to spiders.
I'm no Bush fan, but let's limit the bashing to things that are actually true and meaningful, shall we?
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with your first point, but IMHO soldiers who committed torture do not deserve protection. They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
Actually, soldiers are generally not any more privvy to information than you are. They're just told "this guy has information that will prevent <X-Deadly-Action>, and I need you to get it out of him." Of course, the soldier is trained to A) follow orders B) not worry about the ramifications (don't believe everything the army tells you about wanting brains) and C) is usually an 18-24 year old who wants to do the right thing.
Executive Orders 13233 & 12667 (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html [fas.org]
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233
FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this order:
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(c) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
Sec. 2. Constitutional and Legal Background.
(a) For a period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency, the Archivist administers records in accordance with the limitations on access imposed by section 2204 of title 44. After expiration of that period, section 2204(c) of title 44 directs that the Archivist administer Presidential records in accordance with section 552 of title 5, the Freedom of Information Act, including by withholding, as appropriate, records subject to exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section 552. Section 2204(c)(1) of title 44 provides that exemption (b)(5) of section 552 is not available to the Archivist as a basis for withholding records, but section 2204(c)(2) recognizes that the former President or the incumbent President may assert any constitutionally based privileges, including those ordinarily encompassed within exemption (b)(5) of section 552. The President's constitutionally based privileges subsume privileges for records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege).
(b) In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court set forth the constitutional basis for the President's privileges for confidential communications: "Unless [the President] can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends." 433 U.S. at 448-49. The Court cited the precedent of the Constitutional Convention, the records of which were "sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention." Id. at 447 n.11. Based on those precedents and principles, the Court ruled that constitutionally based privileges available to a President "survive[] the individual President's tenure." Id. at 449. The Court also held that a former President, although no longer a Government official, may assert constitutionally based privileges with respect to his Administration's Presidential records, and expressly rejected the argument that "only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the Presidency." Id. at 448.
(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records must establish at least a "demonstrated, speci
Re:That shows amazing ignorance of the military (Score:5, Informative)
When I was in the Marine Corps, assigned to a raid unit, we were informed that during a wartime assignment, any failure to obey a direct order is a crime whose maximum penalty is summary execution.
Essentially, if you disobey the lieutenant or a sergeant, the guy can technically shoot you dead and give the order to someone else.
It's a motivator...
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think that the soldiers should get legal protection for their acts, and it doesn't sound like the GP does either:
I think his point was to keep them from being the target of vigilante retribution, which I agree with. The soldiers are not above the law, and should be held responsible for their actions. But those who would condemn them are not above the law either.
Re:That shows amazing ignorance of the military (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying you can't criticize the military's actions or that the people in charge shouldn't be held accountable. I'm saying that the people who were simply obeying orders can't. All logic aside
ARTICLE 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT [www.ucmj.us]
Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."
And when I was in the Army... (Score:5, Informative)
We were told we had to obey all lawful orders. We were instructed that we were duty bound to disobey any order which violated the UCMJ. IOW, we didn't have to obey an order to torture someone, because it was against the Army's policy at the time.
Well, that was before the Bush White House.
The way I always thought of it was simply, "Could an officer make a case against me for refusing to obey this order?" In almost every case of torture or improper treatment, the answer would be no. In almost any other case, the answer would be yes. I'm not aware of any officer who would even attempt to justify an order to torture or kill prisoners to his superior. In fact, it just so happens that in the Marines, the case of Lt Col Chessani shows just the opposite. Some of his Marines ended up killing civilians in Haditha [onenewsnow.com], and he's now on trial for it. Had any of his subordinates admitted to ordering the killing of civilians, he most certainly would have had them court-martialled for doing so.