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."
Now we can get the information about the Roswell / Area 51 connection!
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
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?
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?
You can find the DoD's FOIA request information here. I'm not entirely sure which sub department that would fall under but you could try with the military first.
They should help you:
Please note that this office is not a repository for documents maintained or released by the Department of the Army. Requests received in this office will be forwarded to the activity that has the responsibility for the subject matter requested. For a more timely response, please refer to the POC listing to ensure your request is submitted to the proper office.
After reviewing the POC listing, if you are still unsure which agency to contact, you may submit a request to the Department of the Army Freedom of Information Office, 7701 Telegraph Road, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22315-3905 and we will attempt to assist you. Requests to this office can also be sent electronically by emailing: DAFOIA@conus.army.mil, or Facsimile (703) 428-6522.
Address: Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Office 7701 Telegraph Road, Suite 144 Alexandria, VA 22315-3905
E-mail: DAFOIA@conus.army.mil Telephone: COMM (703) 428-6504 or DSN 328-6504 Facsimile: COMM (703) 428-6522 or DSN 328-6522
FOIA requesters who have any questions concerning the processing of their requests at the US Army Freedom of Information Act Office, should contact this center at (703) 428-6504. If you are not satisfied with the response from the center, you may contact the FOIA Public Liaisons, Mr. Robert Dickerson or Mr. Steven A. Raho, at (703)428-6504, Army_FOIA_Liaison@conus.army.mil.
There's a handbook online if you have questions. If you want something from the State department or FCC, they have pretty easy request forms online. I'm thinking you'll just get a big fat rejection but who knows?
My work here is dung.
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 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)
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
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
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.
This is different from Bush's Executive Order 13233 which states:
In Bush's Order, a former President can keep his records from being disclosed indefinitely simply by objecting to the release. No claim of privilege is required and no provision is made to override the objection. Under Obama, only executive privilege can keep records from being release and even then that claimed is reviewed. IANAL but that's how I interpreted it. Any lawyers care to comment.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
How do you know they didn't? Very possible such a refusal would have resulted in one of the following scenarios; jail, very dangerous front line assignment, or placement beside the prisoner.
Refusal to execute an order in the military is a life altering decision in the best of places. During wartime, it can be a life ending decision.
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.
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.
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.