The news was encouraging.
On the day after he was inaugurated, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum committing his administration to “an unprecedented level of openness in government.”
His memorandum directed the agencies of his administration to be proactive in disclosing government information to the public. “The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption,” he wrote. “In the face of doubt, openness prevails.” His memorandum explained, “At the heart of that commitment [to transparency] is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.”
What a great philosophy. This government, our government, belongs to us, not the people we elect to represent us, not the men and women who spend their careers in the departments of State, Justice, Agriculture, and even those who run Homeland Security or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Most of us recognize that some national security information is best not published until the danger is past and that justice might not be served if investigations are made public before they are complete. But few people believe the government keeps too few secrets.
A survey of 1,001 adult residents of the United States in 2010 found that 44 percent believe that the federal government is “very secretive” and 26 percent more believe that the government is “somewhat secretive.” The poll was conducted by the Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University for the American Society of News Editors.
The U.S. Department of Justice trumpets on its “ Justice Blog ” that the Obama administration has lived up to its promise. “In the years since that declaration more information has been released under Freedom of Information Act, and made available on government websites, than ever before. The federal government continues to use technology in innovative ways that harness government information to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.”
It’s difficult to reconcile that statement with a proposal of the Department of Justice to change the procedure of the Freedom of Information Act to actually sanction government lies to the public. Under the proposal, government agencies would be allowed to notify people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do.
Currently, if the agency believes acknowledging the existence of a record would compromise national security or an investigation, it enters a response that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the record. The record-seeker has the right under the Freedom of Information Act to appeal that response to a court, which then can judge whether the record exists and whether its release would endanger national security or law enforcement investigations.
Advocates of government openness argue that if the government were to deny the existence of a record that does, in fact, exist, the record-seeker would be less likely to take the issue to court.
But even before this fabrication regulation has been approved, the government has lied about the existence of records. After telling the court in 2009 the FBI had turned over all the relevant documents it found, the agency was forced to admit there were more documents it had not turned over. The agency said it had lied because of national security concerns, an argument the judge called untenable. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney told the FBI “the FOIA does not permit the government to mislead the court, as judicial review of an agency’s decision to withhold information would be meaningless if based on misinformation.”
In reviewing the FBI’s appeal of Judge Carney’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded, “Deception perverts justice. Truth always promotes it.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and OpenTheGovernment.org have submitted a letter opposing the proposed sanction of government lies, arguing it would obstruct the ability of the courts to review the government’s response to requests under the Freedom of Information and would “destroy integrity in government.”
While the Obama administration trumpets its record of openness, advocates for government information are less than impressed with its performance. In an editorial published in October, the Gannett newspaper Federal Times reported that the administration has approved less than half of the information requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, about the same rate as the George W. Bush administration (2001-09) compiled. That is a far cry from the record of the William J. Clinton administration (1993-2001). During that period, more than 70 percent of the records sought were released.
The Federal Times report included an example of the absurd contempt some agency officials in the Obama administration hold toward the idea of openness.
“A Federal Times staff writer, frustrated by a system that required all media queries to be funneled through a central, nameless email address — mediainquiry@dhs.gov — asked for the names and phone numbers of (Department of Homeland Security) spokespeople.
When DHS refused, he filed a request under FOIA, with the sound reasoning that the names and office phone numbers of a public agency’s public spokespeople could not possibly be seen as a government secret.
He was wrong.
In response, DHS sent a 58-page directory of its public affairs staff — with all work phone numbers and email addresses blacked out. Its explanation: The information would cause “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
If that is an example of how federal bureaucrats are interpreting what the president meant when he signed that memorandum on Jan. 21, 2009, then heaven help us if the order had said “Batten down the hatches and keep the public in the dark.”
To try to ensure that the public is not in the dark about its business, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 after long years of hearings and testimony. The law has been amended several times.
In explaining the purpose of the bill, the Senate report quoted James Madison, a member of the First Congress who insisted that a statement on individual liberties be added to the Constitution and so is known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” The same quotation is inscribed on an exterior wall of the James Madison Memorial Building, part of the Library of Congress.
In a letter in 1822 to Kentucky Lt. Gov. William T. Barry, then former President Madison wrote, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
Mike Farrell is an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Telecommunications and director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center at the University of Kentucky. He was a journalist for nearly 20 years at The Kentucky Post. His views are his own and not those of the university or of KyForward.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment