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."
The courts had ordered the Pentagon to release additional prison torture pics and vids, stuff Congress had viewed in private and turned a lot of stomachs. Currently the Pentagon is illegally sitting on these pics. Can we get all the ugly in the open so we can start to earn our respect back?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
So, one point for "Technology Policy" ? The rest are still 0?
Now we can get the information about the Roswell / Area 51 connection!
I don't think the linked article provides links directly to the memos, but propublica did, so here they are:
Memo on Transparency and Open Government
Memo on the Freedom of Information Act
And here's the Executive Order on Presidential Records, which makes clear that claims of secrecy by the former president and his subordinates will be evaluated, and accepted or rejected, by the current president.
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.
One idea to make their websites more transparent would be to use 32-bit PNGs.
Now maybe I'll file a FOIA request with the BATFE to reveal the NFA registry contents (with personal names & addresses redacted, of course) to demonstrate errors and abuses, especially involving 922(o). Don't see how, under this EO, they could say "no". Results could be VERY interesting...
(If you don't grok that, Google is your friend.)
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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
Does this executive order seem a little contradictory to anyone else (boost the "executive privilege" stonewall)?
Admittedly, I may be misreading or misunderstanding it. My question is sincere.
I found this very interesting:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
The WhiteHouse.gov website's robots.txt file has been trimmed to:
User-agent: * /includes/
Disallow:
Under previous administrations it was pages long. I suppose this may bode well for openness.
-CR
"So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
>> Can we get all the ugly in the open so we can start to earn our respect back?
Yeah. That worked so well with Abu Ghraib.
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.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
While this is not entirely related to freedom of information, it is related to transparency, shining light on government corruption and rapid changes storming the executive.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42299
This article reports what I heard over NPR on the drive home yesterday. The revolving door that has been a peeve to me and many others is being addressed in Obama's actions. A lot of people who set their lives up using te good ole boy system of mutual mack scratching will be very upset by this... and I hope they are! It is time these despicable practices come to an end.
Hmmm, I don't know - being allowed to just "know" what the government is doing seems a little fishy. How are they supposed to keep us terrified and docile if they can't pretend that they always, just barely, have the boogeyman on the point of a knife -- but it's too dangerous to let us see him? And if we are not terrified and docile, how can they maintain their lack of accountability? The lack of accountability that is the very hallmark of the modern United States political system.
Honestly - the ideas this guy comes up with...
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I just hope the government doesn't swing too far, and start exposing all that mountains of data programs produced under prgrams started by Bush; without first doing a real through check to see what kind of data is actually there. I'm only afraid the new cabinet will steamroll this EO to make Obama "look" effective without considering the true risk(s) associated with some of that information.
However, I've always felt it is the right for a citizen (or consumer) to aquire data from any agency which collects data about him/her self in unfiltered form, regardless of the risk(s).
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
I am kinda curious though which one OP was interested in.
Aside from general curiosity and expectation that a peek in the registry would reveal some surprising facts...
Per your comments:
1. I'm wondering if "taxpayer information" could, under the new FOIA rules, be revealed so long as personally identifying info (name, address, etc.) was redacted. I don't care so much about who has registered, I'm wondering if certain obscure loopholes have been used to register otherwise prohibited items at all.
2. That's the loophole [ab]use I'm primarily interested in: whether obtuse wording in 922(o) has resulted in backroom deals to legally (letter of law, decidedly not spirit thereof) register otherwise prohibited new items. I can't find any above-board use of the exception at all, despite the usefulness & desirability of the banned products to many. Methinks some are pulling strings to quietly get new stuff that the rest of us would have to pay a 2000% markup for just to get old/used versions, if available at all.
3. Police are specifically exempted. I'm also curious how far that exemption is being stretched ("you are hereby an honorary deputy - now where's your $1400 for that new M4 you wanted? Yes it's legal, just don't tell anybody.").
4. Can't re-register those (not to be confused with "I've got the paperwork to prove it, even if the BATFE lost their copy"). No amnesties have been granted for a _long_ time.
Many of us DO care if any of these are true. Obtaining a real M16 illegally is not an option, even if you've got the $20,000 for one (20+ years old and well used, as opposed to recent-manufactured listing for $1400 for those who can get 'em legally), as the penalty is $250,000 and 10 years in federal prison. Some of us DO want to play by the rules.
What this OP really wants is his own M4.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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.
This last one is a biggie. GWB's very FIRST executive order was to seal, forever, the records of his dad and Reagan. It appears that is now undone. Maybe we will now get the truth about Iran-Contra, finally.
Barack Obama has a remarkable gift for oratory, but does it mask a fatal indecisiveness, asks Janet Daley., "what I sense in Obama's love for abstract concepts and diffuse rhetorical devices is not so much the use of language as a facilitator of action, but as a way of disguising lack of decision."
Well, Janet, it would appear that you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried with both hands.
I would have read more of the article, but the sheer amount of EPIC BITTER in the comments crashed my browser.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Eisenhower had it right when after liberating a concentration camp he told the troops to pick up every scrap of film, every picture because someday some idiots would claim that it never happened.
People should have their noses rubbed in it. Faces can be obscured to protect the participants but the American public needs to know what these people it elected did.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
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.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233
FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this order:
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(c) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
Sec. 2. Constitutional and Legal Background.
(a) For a period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency, the Archivist administers records in accordance with the limitations on access imposed by section 2204 of title 44. After expiration of that period, section 2204(c) of title 44 directs that the Archivist administer Presidential records in accordance with section 552 of title 5, the Freedom of Information Act, including by withholding, as appropriate, records subject to exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section 552. Section 2204(c)(1) of title 44 provides that exemption (b)(5) of section 552 is not available to the Archivist as a basis for withholding records, but section 2204(c)(2) recognizes that the former President or the incumbent President may assert any constitutionally based privileges, including those ordinarily encompassed within exemption (b)(5) of section 552. The President's constitutionally based privileges subsume privileges for records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege).
(b) In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court set forth the constitutional basis for the President's privileges for confidential communications: "Unless [the President] can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends." 433 U.S. at 448-49. The Court cited the precedent of the Constitutional Convention, the records of which were "sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention." Id. at 447 n.11. Based on those precedents and principles, the Court ruled that constitutionally based privileges available to a President "survive[] the individual President's tenure." Id. at 449. The Court also held that a former President, although no longer a Government official, may assert constitutionally based privileges with respect to his Administration's Presidential records, and expressly rejected the argument that "only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the Presidency." Id. at 448.
(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records must establish at least a "demonstrated, speci
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.
People continue to talk about aliens at Area 51 for 2 reasons:
1. They are mentally incapable of stopping. (And need help.)
2. They enjoy it, and think it's entertaining.
3. They just don't know any better.
People continue to talk about aliens at Area 51 for 3! 3 reasons:
1. They are mentally incapable of stopping. (And need help.)
2. They enjoy it, and think it's entertaining.
3. They just don't know any better.
4. They have been abducted by aliens at Area 51
The 4 reasons people continue to talk about aliens at Area 51 are:
No, wait, start over...
Now can we find out:
Who killed JFK?
How the twin towers came down?
Test results for Project Silverbug?
Thanks in Advance!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The Obama administration will more easily (and rightly) be able to say "Don't blame us, the problem already existed when we arrived...see for yourself." Hopefully, lots of the closeted skeletons will see the light of day.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
We were told we had to obey all lawful orders. We were instructed that we were duty bound to disobey any order which violated the UCMJ. IOW, we didn't have to obey an order to torture someone, because it was against the Army's policy at the time.
Well, that was before the Bush White House.
The way I always thought of it was simply, "Could an officer make a case against me for refusing to obey this order?" In almost every case of torture or improper treatment, the answer would be no. In almost any other case, the answer would be yes. I'm not aware of any officer who would even attempt to justify an order to torture or kill prisoners to his superior. In fact, it just so happens that in the Marines, the case of Lt Col Chessani shows just the opposite. Some of his Marines ended up killing civilians in Haditha, and he's now on trial for it. Had any of his subordinates admitted to ordering the killing of civilians, he most certainly would have had them court-martialled for doing so.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
And how did that work out for you? I *finally* talked to my family about my agnosticism and my mother-in-law was outraged, virtually to the point of tears. She said to me "You don't know what it is like to be in war... you've never had to experience being in a foxhole praying to God for your life".
Anyway, your comment just reminded me of that experience (just this weekend).
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
First off, I agree with the principles and concepts in your comment, so this is not an attack on you or your comment.
Try this: insert the word 'lawful' before the word 'orders' in both your comment and all of the other comments here. See the difference and clarity?
I may seem like a pedantic nit-picker, but it does make a huge difference in this discussion.
For example, compare these two:
1.]"...wartime refusal to obey orders could result in summary execution..." == depends on the order given.
2.]...wartime refusal to obey lawful orders could result in summary execution...==yes!
An important distinction if you are the one being 'ordered', don't you think?
BTW, the 'lawful order' phrase is pounded into your head during training repeatedly. I was even issued a pocket sized version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in boot camp.
" If a given order is believed to be unconstitutional, the soldier has a duty to disobey it."
Most definitely, but as you said-it can be problematic.
For those interested, the oath enlisted troops take is different than the officer's oath:
oath for enlisted
oath for officers
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti