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."
can we request the torture vids? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Score for current slashdot poll (Score:3, Interesting)
So, one point for "Technology Policy" ? The rest are still 0?
US Use of Drug Traffickers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Does this mean that the use of drug trafficking by the Bushes and Clinton will get a decent airing? ... probably not.
Re:Score for current slashdot poll (Score:1, Interesting)
But really, the bailout/infrastructure stuff is the big thing that's coming in the very near future.
FOIA change: excellent... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now maybe I'll file a FOIA request with the BATFE to reveal the NFA registry contents (with personal names & addresses redacted, of course) to demonstrate errors and abuses, especially involving 922(o). Don't see how, under this EO, they could say "no". Results could be VERY interesting...
(If you don't grok that, Google is your friend.)
I am not a lawyer, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this executive order [whitehouse.gov] seem a little contradictory to anyone else (boost the "executive privilege" stonewall)?
Admittedly, I may be misreading or misunderstanding it. My question is sincere.
Re:Alien Technology? (Score:3, Interesting)
The dirty little secret behind Area 51: that command consists entirely of a captain, a couple of lieutenants, several dozen enlisted men and a whole freakin' lot of printing presses. Their sole brief is to insure a constant stream of leaks to the media, mistakes and suspicious behavior centered around all the exotic alien technology stored there, so that all the effort of breaking the government's veil of secrecy concentrates where there's absolutely nothing to find. This'll make it much easier to conceal the real work elsewhere, since most of the people who might investigate will be occupied out in Nevada.
Re:Alien Technology? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I think that Occam's razor applies to alien technology and Area 51:
I would think it would be #2. I remember reading about people spotting "triangular-shaped" UFOs in the 80s in that area. Of course UFO conspiracists declared it had to be alien vehicles. Then in 1988, the military acknowledged the existence of the F-117 Stealth Fighter developed by the Skunk Works division of Lockheed Martin.
Interestingly, I think the military allows the UFO enthusiasts to espouse their theories unchecked. Even if their observations are correct (and they were about the F-117), most people would dismiss them due to their theories.
Obama's Staff Trims robots.txt (Score:4, Interesting)
I found this very interesting:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt [whitehouse.gov]
The WhiteHouse.gov website's robots.txt file has been trimmed to:
User-agent: * /includes/
Disallow:
Under previous administrations it was pages long. I suppose this may bode well for openness.
-CR
Re:FOIA change: excellent... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Won't happen unless you own the firearm because the records are considered tax-payer information.
2. Some politicians might be slipping past the 1986 automatic weapons ban to register addition weapons and sell them for campaign money
3. The exemption on paying the $200 tax stamp has been extended to members of law enforcement agencies purchasing them for duty use, while formally it applied only to orders made by the department proper.
4. It also might just be weapons that were registered being re-registered as the BATF admits to loosing roughly 50% of the pre-1968 records.
I personally don't care how many of those are true. If you have $10,000 to buy a full-auto M16 (and just keep those prices going up if you wanted a M60 or an import MP5 etc etc) manufactured before 1986 you probably have enough money to find a way to obtain one illegally outside of BATF regulation. Once again gun control laws only keep those who play by the rules from getting what they want.
I am kinda curious though which one OP was interested in.
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
>> Can we get all the ugly in the open so we can start to earn our respect back?
Yeah. That worked so well with Abu Ghraib.
Help the victims. Heal them physically and mentally. Pay them. Acknowledge wrongdoing. Admit guilt. State the facts. Do this all extremely publicly.
But burn those goddamn pictures. All they will do is piss people off, no matter how hard you try to make things right.
Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I've always felt it is the right for a citizen (or consumer) to aquire data from any agency which collects data about him/her self in unfiltered form, regardless of the risk(s).
Re:I am not a lawyer, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
This executive order is basically the same one that was created post-Watergate to try and ensure Presidential records were published and archived for posterity. Bush revoked it in a widely criticised move, Obamas EO revokes the revocation and is otherwise identically worded, except that it also now covers the Vice President, which can only be an improvement. So basically on day 1 of his new Presidency Obama is already undoing some of the damage Bush caused :)
Re:Alien Technology? (Score:5, Interesting)
The frustrating part is that the successes of Area 51 are a matter of public record. The U-2 flew out of Area 51, the SR-71 flew out of Area 51, the F-117 was developed out of Area 51. With all these planes known to come out of Area 51, you'd think that people would give up on the whole "aliens from Roswell" thing. There are no flying saucers coming out of that area. Merely highly classified projects throughout the Cold War. There's even evidence to suggest that Area 51 operations have wound down in today's post cold-war culture. (See the government's official admission of Area 51's existence in 2003 for an example.)
Re:"Open" (Score:5, Interesting)
It took about 6 hours before it showed up on the site.
Hate to break it to you, but that's damn quick *especially* when you consider that it was the first day and they were still having issues with some of the staffers even being able to access the White House.
Grow up and use some common sense. Reporting takes a little bit of time. It doesn't just happen the moment the event occurs.
In particular (Score:3, Interesting)
I am kinda curious though which one OP was interested in.
Aside from general curiosity and expectation that a peek in the registry would reveal some surprising facts...
Per your comments:
1. I'm wondering if "taxpayer information" could, under the new FOIA rules, be revealed so long as personally identifying info (name, address, etc.) was redacted. I don't care so much about who has registered, I'm wondering if certain obscure loopholes have been used to register otherwise prohibited items at all.
2. That's the loophole [ab]use I'm primarily interested in: whether obtuse wording in 922(o) has resulted in backroom deals to legally (letter of law, decidedly not spirit thereof) register otherwise prohibited new items. I can't find any above-board use of the exception at all, despite the usefulness & desirability of the banned products to many. Methinks some are pulling strings to quietly get new stuff that the rest of us would have to pay a 2000% markup for just to get old/used versions, if available at all.
3. Police are specifically exempted. I'm also curious how far that exemption is being stretched ("you are hereby an honorary deputy - now where's your $1400 for that new M4 you wanted? Yes it's legal, just don't tell anybody.").
4. Can't re-register those (not to be confused with "I've got the paperwork to prove it, even if the BATFE lost their copy"). No amnesties have been granted for a _long_ time.
Many of us DO care if any of these are true. Obtaining a real M16 illegally is not an option, even if you've got the $20,000 for one (20+ years old and well used, as opposed to recent-manufactured listing for $1400 for those who can get 'em legally), as the penalty is $250,000 and 10 years in federal prison. Some of us DO want to play by the rules.
What this OP really wants is his own M4.
Iran-Contra (Score:2, Interesting)
This last one is a biggie. GWB's very FIRST executive order was to seal, forever, the records of his dad and Reagan. It appears that is now undone. Maybe we will now get the truth about Iran-Contra, finally.
Janet Daley, you suck (Score:3, Interesting)
Barack Obama has a remarkable gift for oratory, but does it mask a fatal indecisiveness, asks Janet Daley. [telegraph.co.uk], "what I sense in Obama's love for abstract concepts and diffuse rhetorical devices is not so much the use of language as a facilitator of action, but as a way of disguising lack of decision."
Well, Janet, it would appear that you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried with both hands.
I would have read more of the article, but the sheer amount of EPIC BITTER in the comments crashed my browser.
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:5, Interesting)
They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
How do you know they didn't? Very possible such a refusal would have resulted in one of the following scenarios; jail, very dangerous front line assignment, or placement beside the prisoner.
Refusal to execute an order in the military is a life altering decision in the best of places. During wartime, it can be a life ending decision.
Bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)
Eisenhower had it right when after liberating a concentration camp he told the troops to pick up every scrap of film, every picture because someday some idiots would claim that it never happened.
People should have their noses rubbed in it. Faces can be obscured to protect the participants but the American public needs to know what these people it elected did.
Re:Alien Technology? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, they did? The high-altitude weather balloon experiment is also a matter of public record after Project Mogul [wikipedia.org] was declassified in the 90's. The news stories at the time even managed to dig up a few witnesses and show them reproductions of the weather balloon. The witnesses confirmed that the space-age materials shown to them (which were very foreign in the 1940s) were in fact what they saw back at Roswell.
As you said, it hasn't stopped people from believing.
Re:Executive Orders 13233 & 12667 (Score:5, Interesting)
Holy shit...
Sec. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.
Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President in response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1). When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the former President to request withholding of records within the scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent President will support that privilege claim in any forum in which the privilege claim is challenged.
Have I gone batty, or did Redneck Nero actually presume to dictate the actions of subsequent presidents there???
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice if that was the way it works.
It's a matter of public record if a person has been arrested.
It's a matter of public record to who is having a hearing when about what.
It's even frequently leaked or released that an individual is a "person of interest" or a "suspect". That, in the public eye, is damning.
Consider the Elizabeth Smart case. Richard Ricci died in prison, because he refused to confess. He was innocent. Bret Edmunds almost died. He was innocent.
It's not only things as serious as this, that can ruin a life.
What would happen if it became known that you were a "person of interest" or that the "authorities wanted to talk to you" about a drug or sex crime? If your employer found that out, you'd likely be without a job.
I had an investigator come into my office once. He wasn't sure who he was looking for, he just knew he had the correct suite. It was regarding an electronic trespass (someone broke into some government servers). In many respectable offices, that would sign the end of my employment. My office was fairly casual, and it became clear what was going on. I helped the investigator get to where he needed. Sure, they "wanted to talk to me", because I was simply a link between two leads. I was nobody, and had nothing to do with the case.
Sometimes people say and do stupid things. What if an angry ex-girlfriend said that you raped her? What if she got her underage daughter to say it? You'd be screwed in more ways than one. And when the angry ex-girlfriend stops being angry, and apologizes for everything? That doesn't matter. You'll be remembered as the pedophile rapist, even though you're innocent, and the charges were dropped.
If no information on a case is ever released, it does make the investigation a little harder. There are no spontaneous sources of information. People don't know to look for anything. In the case of a legitimate suspect running, there would be no anonymous or random tips to their locations.
Re:can we request the torture vids? (Score:2, Interesting)
At the risk of being called a troll or something
I should have been slightly more clear here. "At the risk of being modded down for playing the devil's advocate."
Your post thoroughly endorses moral relativism and then closes by saying "be wary of moral relativism".
Do you mean "be aware of" or are you just confused?
I never said it completely absolves the soldier. However, a repentant soldier who was commanded to fire is probably far less culpable for his actions than the officer who ordered him. Torture is slightly more clear cut, but still fits here. Another exempli gratia: Would you blame a small child for doing something his parents told him to do? He likely didn't know any better, and was told that it was right to do.
There are different levels of culpability. The peon soldier perhaps doesn't know any better. The officers are more responsible in this sense. Punishing the peon soldier for his part probably isn't going to have much effect, since the rest of the peon soldiers don't know any better.
Would you blame the hand holding the gun, the arm the hand is attached to, the torso the arm is on, or the mind controlling it all? Do you blame the employees for the mistakes of the executives of a company? How about the foremen? Or the lower managers? They're all following orders to some degree, but the workers are just following policy, they're not expected to evaluate it. That's what managers and officers do.
Re:That shows amazing ignorance of the military (Score:2, Interesting)
All of which is well and good. Of course, "just following orders" has been rejected as a defense in war crimes trials in the past. So where exactly do you draw the line? Or, do you argue that the Nurenburg trials came to the wrong concluion?
Re:That shows amazing ignorance of the military (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why the American military is useless ... (Score:1, Interesting)
... it encourages strict, micro-managing rules all the way to the bottom. It's done this because it's afraid of complete chaos, so it must control the only thing it can control: themselves. Might be good for 18th C riflemen and parade drill, but it doesn't work for highly complex, irregular modern warfare. Especially in the age of the "strategic corporal" where not only your actions are strategic, but the consequences can be far reaching as well.
Also, go read your military history. The Germans encouraged the same thing. There was strict rules and an authoritarian atmosphere, but there was also free thinking and dissent, which encouraged initiative on the battlefield.
God forbid we have soldier-scholars again with an ethical and free thinking backbone. We might eventually give rise to another Sun Tzu or Clausewitz. Hmmmmm ... I wonder why we don't have any equivalent today? Oh, that's right, cause the American military is a mindless, unethical automaton that squashes dissent and any ounce of thought.
Re:I'm a vet (Score:2, Interesting)
And how did that work out for you? I *finally* talked to my family about my agnosticism and my mother-in-law was outraged, virtually to the point of tears. She said to me "You don't know what it is like to be in war... you've never had to experience being in a foxhole praying to God for your life".
Anyway, your comment just reminded me of that experience (just this weekend).
Re:That shows amazing ignorance of the military (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, Thompson did the right thing in that situation, but he also had friends with guns covering him when he confronted his commanding officer. Things may not have gone so well for him if that wasn't the case, sad to say.