Here's a little more information on today's ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.  The White House office of Administration is not required to turn over any records under the Freedom of Information Act regarding possibly thousands of missing emails, according to her ruling.

So, what does this mean?

Just a quickie, because this seems like news to me. [UPDATED below--with thanks to Magnifico]

From the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR):

"For the first time, the CIA has acknowledged that extensive records exist relating to its use of enforced disappearances and secret prisons," said Curt Goering, AIUSA senior deputy executive director. "Given what we already know about documents written by Bush administration officials trying to justify torture and other human rights crimes, one does not need a fertile imagination to conclude that  the real reason for refusing to disclose these documents has more to do with avoiding disclosure of criminal activity than national security."

Mr. Yoo’s 2001 legal opinion was revealed last week thanks to a 2003 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the ACLU. The full memo, to which this is literally a footnote, is 81 pages in length and provides information on the detention and interrogation of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas. This footnote references a separate and still secret memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." Read more about this little gem over at TPM and the Washington Post.

I didn't know much about these records that were being released, but it appears that this release must have been a response to a FOIA request.  In other words, the Clintons were not voluntarily giving up information.  They were being compelled by law to do so.

So, not knowing that, I took a quick look expecting to see documents showing Clinton clearing the air and allowing her to be "vetted."  I was wrong.  The documents are full of redactions based on FOIA exemptions.  My quick look showed a large number of (b)(6) redactions, meant to protect another person's privacy.  Sorry, to me that's a cop out.  Those that meet with the First Lady should not expect "privacy" in all but the most unique cases.  If they are meeting with her about policy discussions, trying to make their case for their special interests, or just "make the rounds" for the sake of influence, there is no personal privacy at stake.  The invasion of privacy must be "unwarranted" -- and I don't think there's much a privacy interest in the fact that someone had an audience with the First Lady, and it's certainly not unwarranted to release such not-that-private info.

Originally posted at the Watchdog Blog.

What does it mean to have an open government?  As a catch phrase, it is appealing, like apple pie.  It seems especially American and downright fundamental: "a government by and for the people."  It suggests that we are in power, and that through transparency we can avoid tyranny and oppression.

In truth, it is an ideal – one for which we are still reaching.  The Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, provides the principals, but it has taken the efforts of many over two centuries to create a legal and practical framework for some transparency in government.  We might prefer that our elected officials spend their time pondering how to make the government more accountable to the people (instead of fundraising), but unfortunately, this is rarely the case.  Often we have gained more access through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act, enacted in response to some crisis of trust in our public officials.

Now is such a time.

Yep this if from Raw Story and their sometimes writer Larisa Alexandrovna and it's about a factual release of new information on 9/11 so no real tinfoil hattery scheme here.  And Raw Story is a-ok in my book, maybe even the liberal answer to drudgery.... A FOIA request was requested and obtained by Kevin Fenton, a 26 year old translator from the Czech Republic that appears to have international repercussions, particularly with the Saudi government and one of their people that is still free after having very dubious connections to the 9/11 hijackers:

Wish the Presidential candidates would talk more about ending the War in Iraq.

The Pentagon officially reported 72,043 battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan through Jan. 5, 2008. In addition, VA hospitals and clinics have treated 263,909 unplanned patients from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. On top of that, VA reported 245,034 disability claims from veterans of the two wars. Those are some of the disturbing new statistics released by the group Veterans for Common Sense, which gathered that data through use of the Freedom of Information Act (typical of the rest of its secrecy, the Bush Administration doesn't just release this information to the public as a matter of course).

For more than 40 years, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been the pillar of the framework for transparent government – the primary advocacy instrument for deterring and exposing unchecked executive power.  However, since 9/11, FOIA has been hobbled by a doctrine of secrecy executed with administrative delays and ploys to keep government records "in the shadows."

The OPEN Government Act, signed into law on December 31, is the first legislative update to FOIA since 1996 and a reassertion of checks and balances.  Now it will be easier for people to get information from their government.  The law provides for an online tracking system for requesters, a government-wide office to deal with disputes and concerns, penalties for offices that take too long to respond, a limit to agency "search" and "duplication" fees, and reimbursement of attorney fees in some situations where requesters must go to court.

But it wasn’t easy.

Book Review

I just finished "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill. Scahill is an award-winning investigative journalist, who's reported from Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Nigeria. He writes a very compelling, very well researched book (the reference index is 45 pages long, citing articles and materials from all over the world.)

Folks, everyone here who's been reading this week about the gassing by Blackwater should read this book.  Check it out from the library (what I did) or buy it on Amazon (link: http://www.amazon.com/... or Powell's (link: http://www.powells.com/...

George Bush has signed into law S. 2488, a bill that strengthens the Freedom of Information Act. There are a lot of signs that Bush did not much like this Open Government Act, so it's significant that he didn't veto it.

What are the signs of Bush's displeasure? For one thing, the WH published a description of the new law that is terse and, rather glaringly, excludes most of its more important provisions. You'll find these spelled out in some detail in the CRS summary of the bill.

As a point of comparison, let's look at which elements the Associated Press chose to include in its summary of the legislation. According to AP, the new law:

• requires the release of requested documents unless their disclosure would do actual harm
• brings government contractors under FOIA
• compels the government to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days of their receipt
• creates a system by which citizens may track the progress of their requests
• establishes a hot-line service for all federal agencies to cope with problems
• establishes an ombudsman to help resolve disputes about non-disclosure

By contrast, the published WH summary mentions only that the law "amends (FOIA) by...":

(1) establishing a definition of "a representative of the news media;" (2) directing that required attorney fees be paid from an agency's own appropriation rather than from the Judgment Fund; (3) prohibiting an agency from assessing certain fees if it fails to comply with FOIA deadlines; and (4) establishing an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and Records Administration to review agency compliance with FOIA.

You'll note that there's barely any overlap between the elements that the AP and the White House highlight. Furthermore the four elements listed by the WH say virtually nothing about the need or the mechanisms for greater openness – the very goal of the legislation.

The "Open Government Act" will "help to reverse the troubling trends of excessive delays and lax FOIA compliance in our government and help to restore the public's trust in their government," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy

As the AP describes it:

The new law...amounts to a congressional pushback against the Bush administration's movement to greater secrecy since the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Bush signed the bill without comment in one of his final decisions of the year...

The legislation is aimed at reversing an order by former Attorney General John Ashcroft after the 9/11 attacks in which he instructed agencies to lean against releasing information when there was uncertainty about how doing so would affect national security.

Even if the Open Government Act is not a cure for all of FOIA's ills, it is a highly symbolic piece of legislation. And it's hard to ignore the symbolism of the manner in which Bush signed it into law – on New Year's Eve, without comment. It was almost as if Bush wanted to avoid drawing attention to a victory for government transparency.

Or at least so sayeth Judge Royce Lamberth today in DC:

White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which is fighting the release of records showing visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prominent religious conservatives.

I was going to do a quick writeup about the destroyed CIA Interrogation Tapes, earlier this week, after listening once again to ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou being interviewed, on NPR's All Things Considered {you can listen to the interview at the link} and his interviews sounding so much like they were memorized facts that really go no where.

Fact is I don't buy his story.

The reasons he's out in public giving this story are my suspicions, and not yet based on facts, may never be, but than again all it takes is total honesty, by someone, to get the real story.

The whole debate, to date, revolves around one form of Illegal Torture, Waterboarding.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was a member of the team that captured and questioned al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. The interrogation is one of two CIA interrogations at the heart of the current controversy surrounding destroyed videotapes.

Looks like another round of fudged science. This time regarding a sweet little bird from the Pacific Northwest, the marbled murrelet. This new discovery of political manipulation of science by political appointees is about Julie MacDonald who resigned her post at Interior in disgrace a few months back.

Environmentalists seek review of protection for bird
Environmentalists called on the Bush administration Wednesday to scrap a review of the threatened species status of a sea bird that nests in old growth timber, arguing they have documents showing a former Interior official meddled with the science.
AP

After my FOIA hell story of yesterday outlining yet another example of the US Administration's blatant disregard for our right to information, another one  has popped up this morning.

So, am I missing something? I just received a call from the General Counsel of the Office of the Administration that they are no longer subject to FOIA due to a "recent legal determination."

White House website says they are.

This is convenient. I'm sure Cheney and the gang are pretty happy.

The FOIA request related to the mothballing of a $120 million climate satellite called DSCOVR, which is a great story in and of itself, but has become somewhat of an aside with this revelation that yet another US government body is no longer subject to FOIA.

The OA still has a FOIA officer, doing God knows what?!
You can check here for the original documents, would be great to hear from any FOIA experts on DKOS.  

Experts long ago realized that the Bush administrative was highly secretive. But, new dangers are lurking on the horizon.

Recently, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it was creating a new program allowing domestic federal agencies greater access to information from "spy" satellites that will now focus on the U.S., not only foreign countries.  This effort, which will blur the lines between domestic and intelligence agencies will have the effect of forcing domestic agencies to create an infrastructure to protect the information, resulting in more reclassification of jobs in areas like sociology, science and disaster response to include requirements for security clearances. It is part of a larger trend, one among several trends that appear destined to transform the bulk of federal government into a highly restricted enclave of government officials walled off from the view of ordinary citizens, a "forbidden city."

Just in case you were wondering whether there might actually be something else going on this week besides the Petraeus Show, there is.

Nothing serious, though.

Just the latest in a series of deadlines set by Government Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, demanding the delivery by the "administration" of reports generated by the still-unknown private contractor who claims to have "lost" those 5 million White House e-mails.

Deadline: Today.

In a letter to Fielding, Rep. Henry Waxman set a Sept. 10 deadline for the White House to turn over information about the missing e-mail, a problem that apparently was discovered by administration officials in 2005.

The letter from Waxman, D-Calif., revealed new details about the issue that came from two White House lawyers who briefed Waxman's staff about problems archiving electronic messages. White House e-mail problems first came to light during a special prosecutor's investigation into whether someone on President Bush's staff illegally leaked a CIA agent's identity and again during congressional inquiries into the role of presidential aides in firings of U.S. attorneys.

Yes, we've known about this since 2005. And yes, it was discovered in the investigation of the Plame outing.

And yes, we're still waiting.

P.S. -- Also still pending: Contempt of Congress charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. Both still at large.

The abracadabra presidency is attempting to alter reality once again.  Raw Story is reporting that computer technicians at the White House have removed any references to FOIA compliance from their web site.

Where visitors once just found information about how to file public records requests or view annual reports on the Office of Administration's FOIA compliance, the White House has appended the following admonition:

"The Office of Administration, whose sole function is to advise and assist the President, and which has no substantial independent authority, is not subject to FOIA and related authorities. However, these pages have been maintained due to the Presidential Records Act."