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.'"

Comments

Oh, spare me.

[ScrewMaster]

... 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.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[flyingsquid]

And why the hell is the Environmental Protection Agency trying to prevent states from protecting the environment? It's like we're living in 1984, where the Ministry of Peace wages war, the Ministry of Truth promotes propaganda, and the Ministry of Plenty produces shortages... nah. That comparison is probably going too far.

On the plus side, I hear Dick Cheney increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams.

Seriously, November 1 can't come soon enough. The way things are going we're looking for a showdown between Clinton and McCain. For a change, we may have a win-win choice this fall. Neither's perfect, but I think either will result in a return to sanity and pragmatism, and result in a massive improvement over the current administration.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[ivan256]

Stop voting for the guy who tells you what you want to hear instead of the guy who tells the truth, and then maybe we can start to reverse the decades of this kind of crap.

It'll never happen though.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[BeanThere]

In this age of climate change hysteria, if you did research that ended up suggested otherwise would you like to have it out there with your name on it?

If the research is solid, then yes, of course, why not? If fear over climate change is just 'hysteria', then the scientific process will over time eventually push the truth to the service, and what scientific researcher wouldn't want his/her name associated with pioneering good research that revealed the truth? You think scientists would rather lie and be buried anonymously than reveal a truth that puts them ahead of everyone else?

It will be effectively impossible for anyone to debunk the research if it is genuinely good, because that's how science works.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[morgan_greywolf]

"Executive privilege" -- yeah, that's exactly what they're doing.

Executive privilege is designed to protect matters of national security. Not political blunders or malfeasance. We're talking about automobile emissions standards, not plans for building an F-117 for crying out loud.

And California has a direct need to have higher standards than the rest of the freakin' country. Have you been to Los Angeles? *cough* *cough* The smog is horrible. And most of it is due to the rather large number of automobiles that operate on the roads there. Traffic sucks bad -- the streets are in constant gridlock.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[ScrewMaster]

instead of the guy who tells the truth

Just out of curiosity, who is that guy? I'd really like to know, so I can vote for him (or her, and no Hillary is not the one.) All the candidates I see out there at the moment are liars and/or hypocrites, to one degree or another.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[Tom]

I've become too cynical to believe that the people ever win anything in any election.

Someone said it very well recently: The economy is all about money, and politics is all about power. Nowhere does the good of the people figure in or matter.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[rucs_hack]

You people work for us, We the People. Any analyses you perform should be a matter of public record. Get over yourselves.

Why should they? If all you do is mutter on slashdot they've got nothing to worry about. Outside of the techie world how many people even know what a news discussion site is?

The problem about just saying you should have your rights under the constitution is that the people who got the opportunity to create it and then wrote it actually did fight, and many suffered and came over all dead. You don't compare well to them, except in the 'gathering to discuss their grievances' bit.

You need to do something about it aside from talk is the point I'm making.

I can't, I'm not American, but I would if I had to in my own country.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[MrCopilot]

Just out of curiosity, who is that guy? I'd really like to know, so I can vote for him

Dennis Kucinich, if you are a Dem and Ron Paul if you are a Republican (poor soul).

Consequently, their tendency to tell the truth has all but eliminated either from serious consideration or even inclusion in later debates.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[ScrewMaster]

You apparently don't understand the point.

Nobody's saying that all such things should be performed in public, but the record of their dealings damn well should be. Period! If their actions are not justifiable, then we need and have every right to know that, so we can get rid of these assholes and put in people that are more trustworthy. The issue here is that an important matter of public record, one that affects many millions of people, is being hidden from us using a flimsy excuse and a misuse of "executive privilege." If that doesn't at least smell like malfeasance in office to you, you must have a problem with your olfactory organs.

Re:Oh, spare me.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Seriously, November 1 can't come soon enough. The way things are going we're looking for a showdown between Clinton and McCain. For a change, we may have a win-win choice this fall. Neither's perfect, but I think either will result in a return to sanity and pragmatism, and result in a massive improvement over the current administration.

No.

I couldn't disagree more. Both are corporate shills who will keep the USA mired in Iraq for at least the next 8 years. They both are on their knees to the machine that is destroying not only the USA as a country, but the biosphere itself. They are both really really lame. Neither of them have a plan to deal with the impending energy crisis, nor do either of them have any idea how to deal with the ecocide that is part and parcel of the (according to Cheney) non-negotiable "American Way of Life" which is basically a practice of pillage and destruction. With a nice smiley face from Hollywood to make it all seem OK.

:-)

RS

Re:Oh, spare me.

[tarogue]

between Clinton and McCain. For a change, we may have a win-win choice

Sorry, that's wrong. Hilliary Clinton is an ambitious dictator in a dress. Bush may be driving the bus down the road to corporate fascism, but if you hand the wheel over to Hillary, she'll happily take all the power given to Bush and use it to go full speed to corporate socialism.

Did you know her health care plan will fine *you* if you don't get health insurance? This is not an aid to the people, it's an aid to the insurance companies. Wake up!

It's their job

[DMCBOSTON]

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.

Re:It's their job

[ivan256]

If they are afraid to tell the truth, then something is seriously amiss

In Michigan we recently had an election where two candidates stood up and talked about how they were going to help the state's economy. One said he would train the workers to do economically sustainable jobs, and the other lied out his ass about how he was going to bring back jobs that our economy can't possibly support when competing with cheap labor from China. The liar won the election.

So yes. Things are seriously amiss. But make sure you point that finger in the right direction.

Unvarnished:

[mdsolar]

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."

Liars and Thieves Hate The Light Of Inquiry

[dprovine]

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:

What I learned about that was, first of all, that power exercised in secret is frequently exercised in the stupid... most stupid possible way.

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.

Re:You think LA is bad??

[Firethorn]

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.