Outrage: House Sneakily Passes Bill Banning Release of Photos Showing Detainee Abuse
By Nick Baumann, MotherJones.com
Posted on October 16, 2009
President Obama has won his fight to ensure that the Defense Department can conceal evidence of its employees' wrongdoing. On Thursday, the House passed a measure allowing the DoD to withhold essentially any photos of detainee abuse that it doesn't want the public to see. The move is a huge defeat for the ACLU, which has been fighting a years-long legal battle to obtain such photos under the Freedom of Information Act. But now an amendment sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), makes all that moot and slashes a huge hole in FOIA. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) was a key figure in stopping Lieberman's photo suppression bill the first time around. In a floor speech Thursday, she explained that this time, the provision was slipped into the Homeland Security spending bill during the conference between House and Senate negotiators -- "apparently under direct orders from the Administration."
I've written before about how poorly President Obama's support for this photo suppression measure reflects on his promise of transparency. It would actually be a mistake to blame the sponsor, Joe Lieberman, for its passage. This would never have happened without the administration's support. And this latest move does not bode well for the prospects of achieving accountability for torture. If this administration can't even bring itself to release years-old photos of detainee abuse, how will it ever bring those responsible for torture to justice?
October 15th, 2009
Once Again, Government Moves to Delay Release of Telecom Lobbying Documents
News Update by Richard EsguerraThis evening, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice filed yet another emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit, asking for a stay of the deadline to release telecom immunity lobbying documents, less than 24 hours before the documents are due to be released to the public.
Almost simultaneously, a report appeared on Politico.com, claiming that the government will be releasing some documents, while fighting in court to hide the remainder. Despite this report, the government's motion seeks to delay disclosure of all the documents, and no new documents have been released just yet.
For those following this saga, this is deja vu all over again. Last week, when the documents were due to be turned over by Friday, October 9, the government asked the Court of Appeals for a stay, a motion that was denied by the Ninth Circuit in short order. Later that same afternoon, the government asked Federal District Court Judge Jeffrey White for an additional delay, a request that Judge White ultimately denied, giving the government a new deadline of Friday, October 16, by 4 p.m. Pacific time.
This has been a long fight -- since 2007, EFF has been working towards the release of these records after media reports revealed an extensive lobbying campaign seeking immunity for telecoms that participated in the government's unlawful surveillance program. As we've said before, we look forward to receiving the documents and making them public so that they can play a much-needed role in the active congressional debate over repealing telecom immunity.
Open Meetings, Open Records, and Transparency in Government
By Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman, March, 2006
These materials were prepared for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics program in Government Ethics by Senior Fellow Judy Nadler and Communications Director Miriam Schulman. The Center provides training in local government ethics for public officials. For more information, contact Judy Nadler.
What is the definition of transparency?
Of course, transparency means that something can be seen through. When we talk about transparency in government, we mean that citizens must be able to "see through" its workings, to know exactly what goes on when public officials transact public business. Government that is not transparent is more prone to corruption and undue influence because there is no public oversight of decision making.
What is an open meeting law?
To protect transparency in government, every state in the United States has some variety of law mandating that all government business be conducted in open meetings to which the public has access. These are sometimes referred to as "sunshine laws," open government laws, or, in California, the Brown Act. The Oklahoma Court's decision in Oklahoma Ass'n of Municipal Attorneys v. State (1978) gives a clear statement of why open meetings are important: "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed."
In addition, most states have laws ensuring public access to government documents and records. These are often versions of the federal Freedom of Information Act.
What do open meetings have to do with ethics?
Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring the common good. When citizens know what their government is up to, they have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone's welfare. As the Carter Center puts it:
Democracy depends on a knowledgeable citizenry whose access to a range of information enables them to participate more fully in public life, help determine priorities for public spending, receive equal access to justice, and to hold their public officials accountable. Inadequate public access to information allows corruption to flourish, and back-room deals to determine spending in the interests of the few rather than many.
What ethical dilemmas do open meetings present?
While the principle behind open meetings is straightforward, the application sometimes is not.
Exceptions to Open Meeting Rules:
There are issues, such as real property negotiations and matters pertaining to pending litigation, which can be handled in closed session. Personnel issues are another area, one where privacy concerns may legitimate closed meetings. California's sunshine law, the Brown Act, "provides for closed sessions regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline or dismissal of a public employee."
The rationale for this exception is protecting public employees from undue publicity or embarrassment, but not every embarrassing or sensitive situation should be handled behind closed doors. In fact, the California Attorney General's Office points out that these very characteristics may indicate the need for public scrutiny. Evidence of corruption in the awarding of city contracts may be very embarrassing to the city council, but it must still be dealt with in an open meeting.
What is a meeting?
Public officials may be unclear about or too loose in their interpretation of what constitutes a meeting. If, for example, a majority of council members go out for lunch together and discuss city business, despite the informal setting, they are having a meeting. The important thing for officials to keep in mind is the principle behind the law: the public's right to know how public decisions are made and to participate in making them.
Barriers to Access:
Open meetings should allow everyone access to the political process. This may mean breaking down the barriers that exclude some citizens, such as:
Technological Barriers:
Sometimes called the "digital divide," our society suffers from disparities in access to technology, usually because of income. One obvious example is that low-income individuals are less likely to own computers that would allow them to access government services that are available on line. Building permit forms, council minutes and agendas, utilities applications are all examples of forms that can often be filled out over the Internet. To reduce the effects of the digital divide on access, governments must support such services as public library access to the Internet and the continuing availability of in-person assistance.
Disabilities:
A disability may impede a person's ability to participate in the political process. For example, a person using a wheelchair cannot even enter City Hall if the only access is a long flight of marble stairs. A deaf citizen cannot follow government debate without assisted hearing devices. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires government entities to remove barriers to the full participation of people with disabilities. As always in regard to ethics, however, the law is the floor and not the ceiling. Government officials have a duty to ensure that people with disabilities are welcomed into the public arena.
Officials should also understand that their accessibility to the public should extend beyond meetings. They need to participate in public life, to attend community events, to make themselves available to the community outside of more formal governmental gatherings. They have the responsibility of taking phone calls from constituents, responding to e-mails, and generally listening to concerns and questions coming from their community.
Open Records:
Public records also must be publicly accessible, though here again there may be exceptions, such as classified information. A key issue facing governments is the proper balance between open records and security. For example, safety reports on nuclear or chemical plants may be public records, but should they be widely available? What information must be protected to keep citizens safe, and what records are classified simply because their publication would reflect badly on those in power?
Additionally, a great deal of information about individuals is available in government records, such as voter registration rolls. Databases make this information widely available, raising privacy concerns.
Resources on Open Meetings, Open Records, and Transparency
Articles About Government Ethics on This Web Site
Articles About Ethical Decision Making on This Web Site
Links to Other Sites About Transparency, Open Meetings, and Open Records
Introduction to Government Ethics Homepage
No comments:
Post a Comment