Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justice Dept. argues limits of FOIA law

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 03:05 PM
Original message
Justice Dept. argues limits of FOIA law
Source: Associated Press

Opening a new front in the Bush administration's battle to keep its records confidential, the Justice Department is contending that the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The department's argument is in response to a lawsuit trying to force the office to reveal what it knows about the disappearance of White House e-mails.

The Office of Administration provides administrative services, including information technology support, to the Executive Office of the President. Most of the White House is not subject to the FOIA, but certain components within it handle FOIA requests. Last year the Office of Administration processed 65 FOIA requests.

However, the Justice Department maintained in court papers filed Tuesday that the Office of Administration has no substantial authority independent of President Bush and therefore is not subject to the FOIA's disclosure requirements.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_secrecy&printer=1;_ylt=AnIkcEgxJEpOWhN7aV7jE_MGw_IE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. 2001-Ashcroft establishes the policy
The Bush Administration is no friend of the Freedom of Information Act. In October 2001, with few but hard-core right-to-know advocates paying attention, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued his required memorandum regarding FOIA policy. In preparation before September 11, the memo "reflects a movement back to the policy of the Reagan administration," commented Access Reports, an organization tracking access to government information for more than 25 years.

Ashcroft's new policy "supersedes the 1993 memo issued by then Attorney General Janet Reno, replaces Reno's 'foreseeable harm' test emphasizing disclosure, with a 'sound legal basis' test that emphasizes withholding records," reports Access' newsletter.

While these changes may seem like legalese blather -- more subtle than substantive -- it does represent a significant change in policy.
As columnist and political organizer Jim Hightower pointed out in a late July column posted at Alternet, "Secrecy… is now the prevailing ethos of the White House: There's the secret government that Bush established; the constant refusal to release public records…; Bush's attempts to hide his father's presidential records and his own gubernatorial papers from public view; the secret war on terrorism, complete with secret arrests and closed military tribunals; the decision to hide the results of the Pentagon's Star Wars missile tests; the refusal to make public the SEC investigative files on Bush's slippery stock deal with Harken Energy Inc."

http://foi.missouri.edu/federalfoia/foiactonropes.html

Here is the actual memorandum
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. translation:
"We can take your money, do whatever we want with no accountability, no oversight, and total impunity."

Gee I really miss the Magna Carta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I miss all the progress humanity has made since 1210, now being reversed
Edited on Wed Aug-22-07 06:09 PM by tom_paine
by Loyal BushPutinists throughout the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. A very wise bird who is legally very savvy said. . .
"It's truly unsustainable."

So take heart and perhaps sharpen your pitchfork my colonial friend. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Opening a new front...battle...Justice Department" OK then, hey TominTib, pass the ammo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Golly gee, bob, if you can put all of that together, why can't DoJ?
The fact that all of this crap is in the Public Domain coupled with the fact that we, as citizens of this country, haven't stormed the gates is a damning indictment of the American Nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. So, the Justice Department is now the White House Counsel's Office, right?
I get real confused about who these people work for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Only one way they will understand who is their employer.
Somebody needs to take em out to the woodshed and lay 200 lashes hard on em.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. The Just-Us Department has a very small constituency.
Edited on Thu Aug-23-07 06:43 AM by annabanana
I would say it's down to B*sh & Cheney now.

edit to recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC