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.'"

8 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Que? by ScouseMouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Surely, the executive privilege thing is to protect state secrets, not to protect state officals? If Something someone says wouldn't hold up to scrutiny, they shouldn't be saying it for an official document?, particularly one that goes against what the local politicians have decided?

  2. Then why not just redact the names? by jon787 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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."


    So why not just redact the names and leave the statements intact? Oh yeah, that would actually make sense.
    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  3. Typical Bureaucrats by rossz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They hide information for the sake of hiding information. You're reducing pollution, asshole, not hunting down terrorists so there should NEVER be any reason to withhold any information from the public, let alone a court of law.

    The law should be: By default all information is public. The government must PROVE there is an overriding security reason to keep something a secret. And not wanting to be embarrassed isn't good enough. Hiding information to save someone's political career is an argument FOR releasing the data.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  4. Sickening... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I'm a business owner and that makes it hard for me to be a Demo. Furthermore, I'm a California citizen and I'm generally opposed to "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown and his environmental soapbox posing. So you see, I'm not a screeming liberal by any means.

    That said, this just really sucks. The Freedom of Information act was possibly the most effective means to hold the government accountable in my lifetime. Bush and company have no respect for it and think that they can arbitrarily ignore it. In the words of Emo Philips, "They need to be tought a lesson". Run their asses back to Texas along with all their followers, cronies and hacks. I'm greatly sick of all of this.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  5. You think LA is bad?? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Head a little further east, into Riverside and Redlands. LA's exposure to the sea breeze drives their smog right into the inland empire, where it settles. LA may generate most of it, but the majority ends up settling in the valley. When we're lucky, we can see the mountains arund us at night. Usually it's just a haze and only the lights are visible.

    California doesn't need higher standards. 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. Also, they need cleaner factories. They might as well start their own EPA while they're at it, because the one we already have isn't doing a goddamned thing. How do we get a vote to pull all of the EPA's funding into Congress?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  6. Re:Pakistan model... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

    There is a mailing list, mostly populated by folk who post on Little Green Footballs. They told folk to register for Slashdot several years back. Whenever there is a political story they send out a begging letter asking anyone with mod points to mod down the most threatening posts.

    They found out who I was and booted me off it a while back. I don't see why they would have stopped though.

    If you think something has been modded down unfairly repost it. They have rather fewer mod points than they need to supress all the negative comments on the administration.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  7. Re:Oh, spare me. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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 ...

    Obviously an over-simplification, but chances are, if you don't like what they're saying, that's the truth. For example, does anyone really think lowering taxes will help pay off the 650+ billion dollars spent on Iraq? (Please save the "stimulates the economy" speech, I know it's more complex than either point of view.)

    Now since each politician distorts different things, the choice isn't always clear and simple. Pick your poison and stick with it.

    I want a President and Congress that will tackle the big issues, *then* the smaller ones. Here in Virginia, our legislators have wasted time trying to pick a new state song, and a bill to ban hanging anything that looks like testicles from trailor hitches. I can't even *imagine* what crap goes on at the federal level.

    For example, for me, a candidate that is anti- (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning) etc... is missing the point. While these topics are important, they are individual matters and the US has serious community problems like the debt, healthcare, immigration, employment, etc... Get these solved (for which, I don't know the answers), then work on the others.

    I know I will get shit-stormed by *someone* for using the above examples, so, not to inflame anyone's passions, but for the record, I am, and my wife was (she died two years ago):

    • pro-abortion: I'm a guy and (even if I disapproved, which I don't) I don't think it's my place to tell a woman what she can/can't do with her body. Husbands and wives may have difficult discussions about this, but it's her body,
    • pro-gay marraige: I would split what we call "marriage" it into civil and religious components - for everyone. A civil-union for the legal/tax/estate stuff, and marriage for the religious stuff - if your religion supports you. Everyone, gay or straight gets one, the other or both.
    • pro-flag burning: Seriously, what's the argument here? You can buy US flag underwear. People die protecting our rights, including free-expression. You don't like someone buring a flag, too bad - move to N Korea - bet you can't burn a flag there. I argue that the US is great *because* we can burn our flag.
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Just About Time to Vote California by fast+turtle · · Score: 4, Interesting
    out of the damn Union. Remember folks, California is the only state that can do so because of how we joined. California actually voted to amend the states constitution so it was secondary to the United States Constitution. Because of this, it's simply a matter of revoking that amendment and make California's Constitution the supreme document of the land once again.

    Another interesting fact is that California's state budget is 1/5 of the federal budget without the current spending on the "W.o.T" (war on terror) that's being pushed by Bush and his cronies. So overall, I think the combination of the Real ID act, the EPA trying to tell us we don't have they right to set tougher standards then the nation, along with all the other flak and shit from Washington is finally giving us the needed push to leave the nest.

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown