Freedom of information DIED! San Francisco Chronicle

[Guest guest]

Friends and colleagues:

On October 12th, Attorney General Ashcroft wrote a memo to all federal

agencies urging them to resist any more Freedom of Information Act

requests. Since it was not a press release and not an executive order, it

received no publicity. Given all the other restraints on civil liberties,

it has therefore escaped public notice and slipped beneath the public

radar. But it is vitally important and has not received the kind of front

page exposure or publicity that one might have expected. I stumbled upon

this event and the memo quite by accident, then researched it quite

thoroughly, and have written this editorial to expose what happened.

Please circulate as widely as possible.

With best wishes, Ruth Rosen

 

The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:

-

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/06

/ED125108.DTL -

 

Sunday, January 6, 2002 (SF Chronicle)

EDITORIALS/On the Public's Right to Know

The day Ashcroft censored Freedom of Information

 

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ask the networks for television time. The attorney

general didn't hold a press conference. The media didn't report any

dramatic change in governmental policy. As a result, most Americans had

no idea that one of their most precious freedoms disappeared on Oct. 12.

 

Yet it happened.

 

In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General

John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom

of Information Act requests made by American citizens.

 

Passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Freedom of

Information Act has been hailed as one of our greatest democratic

reforms. It allows ordinary citizens to hold the government accountable

by requesting and scrutinizing public documents and records. Without it,

journalists, newspapers, historians and watchdog groups would never be

able to keep the government honest.

 

It was our post-Watergate reward, the act that allows us to know what our

elected officials do, rather than what they say. It is our national

sunshine law, legislation that forces agencies to disclose their public

records and documents. Yet without fanfare, the attorney general simply

quashed the FOIA. The Department of Justice did not respond to numerous

calls from The Chronicle to comment on the memo.

 

So, rather than asking federal officials to pay special attention when

the public's right to know might collide with the government's need to

safeguard our security, Ashcroft instead asked them to consider whether

" institutional, commercial and personal privacy interests could be

implicated by disclosure of the information. "

 

 

Even more disturbing, he wrote: " When you carefully consider FOIA

requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can

be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless

they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse

impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important

records. " Somehow, this memo never surfaced. When coupled with President

Bush's Nov. 1 executive order that allows him to seal all presidential

records since 1980, the effect is positively chilling.

 

 

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, we have witnessed a flurry of federal

orders designed to beef up the nation's security. Many anti-terrorist

measures have carefully balanced the public's right to know with the

government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

 

Who, for example, would argue against taking detailed plans of nuclear

reactors, oil refineries or reservoirs off the Web? No one. Almost all

Americans agree that the nation's security is our highest priority. Yet

half the country is also worried that the government might use the fear

of terrorism as a pretext for protecting officials from public scrutiny.

 

Now we know that they have good reason to worry.

For more than a quarter of a century, the Freedom of Information Act has

ratified the public's right to know what the government, its agencies and

its officials have done. It has substituted transparency for secrecy and

we, as a democracy, have benefited from the truths that been extracted

from public records.

 

Consider, for example, just a few of the recent revelations -- obtained

through FOIA requests -- that newspapers and nonprofit watchdog groups

have been able to publicize during the last few months:

 

-- The Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit

organization, has been able to publish lists of recipients who have

received billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies. Their Web site,

- www.ewg.org - has not only embarrassed the agricultural industry, but

also allowed the public to realize that federal money -- intended to

support

small family farmers -- has mostly enhanced the profits of large

agricultural corporations.

 

The Charlotte Observer has been able to reveal how the Duke Power Co.,

an electric utility, cooked its books so that it avoided exceeding its

profit limits. This creative accounting scheme prevented the utility from

giving lower rates to 2 million customers in North Carolina and South

Carolina.

 

USA Today was able to uncover and publicize a widespread pattern of

misconduct among the National Guard's upper echelon that has continued

for more than a decade. Among the abuses documented in public records are

the inflation of troop strength, the misuse of taxpayer money,

 

Incidents of sexual harassment and the theft of life-insurance payments

intended

for the widows and children of Guardsmen.

 

The National Security Archive, a private Washington-based research

group, has been able to obtain records that document an unpublicized

event in our history. It turns out that in 1975, President Gerald Ford

and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave Indonesian strongman Suharto

the green light to invade East Timor, an incursion that left 200,000 people

dead.

 

By examining tens of thousands of public records, the Associated Press

has been able to substantiate the long-held African American allegation

that white people -- through threats of violence, even murder -- cheated

them out of their land. In many cases, government officials simply

approved the transfer of property deeds. Valued at tens of million of

dollars, some 24,000 acres of farm and timber lands, once the property

of 406 black families, are now owned by whites or corporations.

 

These are but a sample of the revelations made possible by recent FOIA

requests. None of them endanger the national security. It is important

to remember that all classified documents are protected from FOIA requests

and unavailable to the public. Yet these secrets have exposed all kinds

of official skullduggery, some of which even violated the law. True,

such

revelations may disgrace public officials or even result in criminal

charges, but that is the consequence -- or shall we say, the punishment

for violating the public trust.

No one disputes that we must safeguard our national security. All of us

want to protect our nation from further acts of terrorism. But we must

never allow the public's right to know, enshrined in the Freedom of

Information Act, to be suppressed for the sake of official convenience.

Copyright 2002 SF Chronicle

 

Ruth Rosen Editorial writer and columnist

San Francisco Chronicle

901 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Phone: 415-536-3093 Fax: 415-543-7708

rrosen

[Guest guest]

Elaine

It seems clear to me that the " public radar " machines have been turned off

before the information came to them.

-

" Elaine121 " <Elaine121

<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:26 PM

Freedom of information DIED! San Francisco Chronicle

 

 

> Friends and colleagues:

> On October 12th, Attorney General Ashcroft wrote a memo to all federal

> agencies urging them to resist any more Freedom of Information Act

> requests. Since it was not a press release and not an executive order, it

> received no publicity. Given all the other restraints on civil liberties,

> it has therefore escaped public notice and slipped beneath the public

> radar. But it is vitally important and has not received the kind of front

> page exposure or publicity that one might have expected. I stumbled upon

> this event and the memo quite by accident, then researched it quite

> thoroughly, and have written this editorial to expose what happened.

> Please circulate as widely as possible.

> With best wishes, Ruth Rosen

>

> The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:

> -

>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/06

> /ED125108.DTL -

>

> Sunday, January 6, 2002 (SF Chronicle)

> EDITORIALS/On the Public's Right to Know

> The day Ashcroft censored Freedom of Information

>

> THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ask the networks for television time. The attorney

> general didn't hold a press conference. The media didn't report any

> dramatic change in governmental policy. As a result, most Americans had

> no idea that one of their most precious freedoms disappeared on Oct. 12.

>

> Yet it happened.

>

> In a memo that slipped beneath the political radar, U.S. Attorney General

> John Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom

> of Information Act requests made by American citizens.

>

> Passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Freedom of

> Information Act has been hailed as one of our greatest democratic

> reforms. It allows ordinary citizens to hold the government accountable

> by requesting and scrutinizing public documents and records. Without it,

> journalists, newspapers, historians and watchdog groups would never be

> able to keep the government honest.

>

> It was our post-Watergate reward, the act that allows us to know what our

> elected officials do, rather than what they say. It is our national

> sunshine law, legislation that forces agencies to disclose their public

> records and documents. Yet without fanfare, the attorney general simply

> quashed the FOIA. The Department of Justice did not respond to numerous

> calls from The Chronicle to comment on the memo.

>

> So, rather than asking federal officials to pay special attention when

> the public's right to know might collide with the government's need to

> safeguard our security, Ashcroft instead asked them to consider whether

> " institutional, commercial and personal privacy interests could be

> implicated by disclosure of the information. "

>

>

> Even more disturbing, he wrote: " When you carefully consider FOIA

> requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can

> be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions

unless

> they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse

> impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important

> records. " Somehow, this memo never surfaced. When coupled with President

> Bush's Nov. 1 executive order that allows him to seal all presidential

> records since 1980, the effect is positively chilling.

>

>

> In the aftermath of Sept. 11, we have witnessed a flurry of federal

> orders designed to beef up the nation's security. Many anti-terrorist

> measures have carefully balanced the public's right to know with the

> government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

>

> Who, for example, would argue against taking detailed plans of nuclear

> reactors, oil refineries or reservoirs off the Web? No one. Almost all

> Americans agree that the nation's security is our highest priority. Yet

> half the country is also worried that the government might use the fear

> of terrorism as a pretext for protecting officials from public scrutiny.

>

> Now we know that they have good reason to worry.

> For more than a quarter of a century, the Freedom of Information Act has

> ratified the public's right to know what the government, its agencies and

> its officials have done. It has substituted transparency for secrecy and

> we, as a democracy, have benefited from the truths that been extracted

> from public records.

>

> Consider, for example, just a few of the recent revelations -- obtained

> through FOIA requests -- that newspapers and nonprofit watchdog groups

> have been able to publicize during the last few months:

>

> -- The Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit

> organization, has been able to publish lists of recipients who have

> received billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies. Their Web site,

> - www.ewg.org - has not only embarrassed the agricultural industry, but

> also allowed the public to realize that federal money -- intended to

> support

> small family farmers -- has mostly enhanced the profits of large

> agricultural corporations.

>

> The Charlotte Observer has been able to reveal how the Duke Power Co.,

> an electric utility, cooked its books so that it avoided exceeding its

> profit limits. This creative accounting scheme prevented the utility from

> giving lower rates to 2 million customers in North Carolina and South

> Carolina.

>

> USA Today was able to uncover and publicize a widespread pattern of

> misconduct among the National Guard's upper echelon that has continued

> for more than a decade. Among the abuses documented in public records are

> the inflation of troop strength, the misuse of taxpayer money,

>

> Incidents of sexual harassment and the theft of life-insurance payments

> intended

> for the widows and children of Guardsmen.

>

> The National Security Archive, a private Washington-based research

> group, has been able to obtain records that document an unpublicized

> event in our history. It turns out that in 1975, President Gerald Ford

> and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave Indonesian strongman Suharto

> the green light to invade East Timor, an incursion that left 200,000

people

> dead.

>

> By examining tens of thousands of public records, the Associated Press

> has been able to substantiate the long-held African American allegation

> that white people -- through threats of violence, even murder -- cheated

> them out of their land. In many cases, government officials simply

> approved the transfer of property deeds. Valued at tens of million of

> dollars, some 24,000 acres of farm and timber lands, once the property

> of 406 black families, are now owned by whites or corporations.

>

> These are but a sample of the revelations made possible by recent FOIA

> requests. None of them endanger the national security. It is important

> to remember that all classified documents are protected from FOIA requests

> and unavailable to the public. Yet these secrets have exposed all kinds

> of official skullduggery, some of which even violated the law. True,

> such

> revelations may disgrace public officials or even result in criminal

> charges, but that is the consequence -- or shall we say, the punishment

> for violating the public trust.

> No one disputes that we must safeguard our national security. All of us

> want to protect our nation from further acts of terrorism. But we must

> never allow the public's right to know, enshrined in the Freedom of

> Information Act, to be suppressed for the sake of official convenience.

> Copyright 2002 SF Chronicle

>

> Ruth Rosen Editorial writer and columnist

> San Francisco Chronicle

> 901 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103

> Phone: 415-536-3093 Fax: 415-543-7708

> rrosen

>

>

>

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

>