Slashdot Mirror
EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case
Brad Eleven writes "The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit — but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
... the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.
You people work for us, We the People. Any analyses you perform should be a matter of public record. Get over yourselves.
Furthermore, what is with "executive privilege" being used as a cover for bureaucratic malfeasance? We aren't talking nuclear secrets here, but matters of public policy.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I bet there were a some American Auto makers (well, they now mainly produce cars in Mexico, but that makes them still American, right?) And Oil Companies listed on those 16 pages.
They are supposed to provide "frank and honest opinions". It's their job. That's why we pay them. If they are afraid to tell the truth, then something is seriously amiss, and we must suspect some meddling (possibly corporate) in the process.
Sitting here and complaining about how all of this is BS isn't gonna change things. What can we actually do to make our collective disapproval known?
EPA political appointee #1: "Ford is offering 0.5 billion in campaign contributions if we say no to California..."
EPA political appointee #2: "I'll check with GM to see it they'll raise their offer."
In a pre-emptive reply to the inevitable comments claiming this is evidence of imperial hubris, or corporate-fascistic tendencies, I say poppycock. The US is and always will be a REPUBLIC. The only difference is the recent addition of the adjective BANANA.
And by house, I mean WHITE HOUSE. This crap has gone on WAY too long. People aren't just looking away because they can't. When there's a pile of shit in the corner, you tend to point your nose in another direction; look away. But when we have this situation; there's shit in every corner, there's no place to look away to! That's when it's time to clean up.
It is a fiction created by the presidency so they can cover things up. I challenge *anyone* to find out where in the constitution this right is spelled out.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
How does anything anti-Bush get mod'ed as a troll? With all the lying, incompetence, turning the Justice Dept. into a stooge fest, exempting themselves from the law, wiretapping Americans, trampling on the Constitution, and plundering the nation's treasure who here still supports those asshats?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As with previous examples, it's not that they fear a chilling effect on candid advice, it's that the advice they gave wasn't for the good of the country. They advised the EPA to do what was good for their industries, and that's bad press.
In an interview on the Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/schorr_5-29.html in 2001, Daniel Schorr was asked what he'd learned about government after years of covering it, and he answered:
If people knew that their malfeasance was going to go public some day, and be exposed to the light, they would be less comfortable tell all the lies they tell in the dark.
There is no such thing as a citizen. You are a consumer. It is your patriotic duty to consume.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Absolutely. Regardless of whether you agree with these guys, you know they aren't bullshitting you. The rest of the candidates ask you what you want to hear (polls) and then tell you exactly that. It has absolutely no bearing on what they're going to do during their administration (Bush against nation building, Bush for an amendment banning gay marriage, Bush [insert just about any campaign promise here]).
But we're too dumb to vote for the guy who tells us what he's going to do. We'd rather vote for the guy who tells us what we want to hear.
California needs to start banning all old and out of tune automobiles, period. There's so many junker antiques running around that it's absolutely insane.
A very good point. I've seen some studies showing that many older vehicles will literally pollute 100-1000X as much as a modern vehicle.
And, to an extent, California has made this problem worse by driving up the costs of a new vehicle - meaning people hang onto their junkers for as long as possible.
I don't read AC A human right
This administration has hidden behind EP or a flat out refusal to comply for almost 8 years. Cheney came up with an energy policy years ago behind closed doors with execs from the oil and energy companies. When Congress called for details and names, Cheney told Congress to go suck an egg. This administration doesn't care about the founders' desire for 3 branches of government. The Executive branch is the only one that "rules" right now. Thank you all the Bush voters. We haven't had a democratic process for 8 years. Bush dictates what the important bills will contain and how they'll be written. If you waver, you're called un-American and the bill is vetoed. When the Executive branch dictates to the Congressional branch what to do, that's not really a "checks and balances" system. Get used to it or get off your butt and VOTE!!
"Hillarycare" would represent a right wing alternative to their existing health care system. Most advanced countries would have to reduce the scope of government involvement (including subtantial privitization) in their health care systems to match what Hillary has proposed. Since almost all of these countries have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, etc. than the USA, they are unlikely to adopt a health care plan as right-wing as Hillary's
And "it takes a village" would represent common sense consensus among most societies (apart from the US). Someone who proposed the common US view of "I'm looking out for number one everyone else can go die for all I care" would be thought a dangerous sociopath. A country based on "looking out for number one" would be viewed as a threat to world stability.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
On NPR today, a commentator (forgot what he was) said that Iraq was going to be Bush's legacy, and that he'd be remembered depending on how that turns out.
This will be his legacy. Iraq, the wiretaps and erosin of civil liberties, guantanamo,etc, are pretty big deals, but are tiny compared to the crap we'll be getting from climate change soon. His avoiding of the issue, his going out of the way to sabotage attempts at fighting it, and then his half-assed attempts to tackle it, will, hopefully, be what's remembered. Little consolation, of course, for those for those who'll suffer from his amazing ability to ignore the world around him.
Not all his fault, of course. The only serious Republican candidate that realizes the seriousness of the situation is McCain. The others, who have more of the traditional conservative base behind them, don't; rather, they would actually, like Bush, undo much of the hard work that had been done so far to keep environmental degradation under control.
It has never been so important for a Democrat to win, in my opinion. Our kids futures probably depend on it, and not just to ensure that they can collect a social security check.