Slashdot Mirror
Obama Edicts Boost FOIA and .gov Websites
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."
Transparency of government is not a technology issue, it's an administrative issue.
Technology is just what is used to distribute information.
so +1 for "Administration policies"
also he gets +1 for taking the neutrality captain on board, that is a technology point
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Is this on the same website yesterday that said "President Obama has not issued any executive orders" when in fact he had already done several?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'm going to disagree with Obama more than I will agree with him but one should give credit where it is due... Open information is *critical* to nurture an informed populace and an informed populace is needed to care for a representative government.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
There might be a real reason not to release the raw info on this to the public.
1) Protect the folks who may have given up information under torture from retaliation
2) Protect Soldiers who under orders committed torture from retaliation
While some of this stuff needs to be released the equivalent of a words being blacked out is appropriate. For the victims and for the soldiers (who should be tried in court (military or civil) before their identities are relaeased.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I agree with your first point, but IMHO soldiers who committed torture do not deserve protection. They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
Anyone who commits murder is entitled to protection from the lynch mobs. Why not soldiers who commit torture?
This space intentionally left blank
Let's play Situation Replacement, shall we?
----
Location: Germany
When: December 1945
>> Can we get all the ugly from the Holocaust in the open so we can start to earn our respect back?
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.
----
Sometimes the ugly needs to be seen.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
good point, but lynch mob protection is not achieved by obscuring the identity of the perpetrator if the charge is murder. Criminal charges are a matter of public record.
Good point, and not only that, but if the ugly isn't out in the open, eventually people will forget.
If we didn't have all those awful photos and films of holocaust victims and emaciated survivors, in 20 years once all the people are dead who lived through that time period revisionist historians could argue that the holocaust really wasn't all that bad, and people would believe them.
First-hand sources -- diaries, pictures, films, videos -- keep us all honest.
None of this explains how this absolves them of guilt. The same could be said of Nazi prison camp guards. They were told the jews and other political prisoners were dangerous and were destroying German society.
It's not sufficient to be willing to die following orders. You must also be willing to die for disobeying immoral orders. Otherwise you're just a mercenary.
And if true they should be tried in a court of law not the court of public opinion. Protecting their identities allows prosecution at a later date. Predisposing the entirety of the populace to their assumed guilt does a disservice to the innocent as well as making prosecuting the guilty more difficult.
None of this explains how this absolves them of guilt. The same could be said of Nazi prison camp guards. They were told the jews and other political prisoners were dangerous and were destroying German society.
It's not sufficient to be willing to die following orders. You must also be willing to die for disobeying immoral orders. Otherwise you're just a mercenary.
Immoral orders? By whose morality? The victor's. If the Germans had won, a completely different measure of morality would have been applied.
At the risk of being called a troll or something, the guards working the concentration camps probably thought they were protecting their homeland. I'm no expert, and assuming they were drawn from the ranks (one could technically make the leap and consider lower ranking SS to also be ignorant). They were told these people were dangerous to their society. Did they have any reason not to believe it (I'd wager that the guards had no way to disprove their superiors in this matter). It wasn't clear-cut as if the jews, gypsies, and others were taking up arms.
Be wary of moral relativism. You may consider your enemy immoral for wanting to kill you, but I'm entirely sure he considers it quite moral. The reverse is also true.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
The Nuremberg trials established in international law that it is not an acceptable defense. Justifiable, sure, it's a reasonable thing to say. But it doesn't get you off the hook, and it shouldn't, you should be mindful enough of your own actions to not TORTURE SOMEONE because someone else told you to.
Soldiers, at least non-officers, are trained through very intense programs to always obey orders without question. They are not taught to get in arguments over their orders. What's more, they can face charges for refusing an order.
The military isn't a big committee. It isn't something where you sit down and discuss what is going to be done until everyone is happy with it. It is a very rigid organization where you are told what to do by those above you and you do it. This is especially true at the enlisted "grunt" level. You are taught to do what your commander tells you, not ask why, and you are told that failure to do so may have serious consequences.
I get real tired of people who are willing to tell others in tough situations how they "should" act. Think it's that easy? Try it then. Enlist, go through basic, see the kind of mental and physical conditioning soldiers are subjected to. See what the culture and rules are like. Then see if you think it's so easy to just say "Nope, don't like that order, not going to do it."
Now please understand, I'm not saying you can't criticize the military's actions or that the people in charge shouldn't be held accountable. I'm saying that the people who were simply obeying orders can't. All logic aside, there's international law on the issue too. You can prosecute a low level soldier who was just doing what they were told to do.
Does anyone else think his executive order freezing the pay of those White House workers making more than $100,000/year is a frightening preview ...
No.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.