Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case

Posted by Zonk on from the interesting-use-of-term-executive dept.

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.'"

7 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, spare me. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.
    1. Re:Oh, spare me. by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Oh, spare me. by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oh, spare me. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      My blog
    4. Re:Oh, spare me. by rucs_hack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh, spare me. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Re:It's their job by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.