On Obama's first day in office he announced that his administration and the entire United States government would be committed to transparency.
"[My administration is] committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," he said. He issued a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" saying that the government would "ensure the public trust, and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration." Specifically, he urged the attorney general to disclose all public records unless the Justice Department felt such disclosure would endanger public safety. He reinstated the standard set by Ashcroft in 2001 which said that federal agencies should not exempt materials from the public record, and should "use modern technology to inform the public about what is known and done by their Government." The only exemption for such transparency would be if an agency anticipated "foreseeable harm" from a disclosure.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to every agency, including the FBI--including, in fact, the entire justice department. It requires that government entities tell all of us citizens what it's doing on every front, by opening up documents that reveal how investigations are conducted, how money is spent, and why their agents spend their time doing what they're doing, including why they raid and ruin some of us, like me, because they think they know something, whether they can substantiate it or not.
But what people say and what they do are two different things, as evidenced--on a large scale--by Obama's executive order instructing Eric Holder to withhold from the public information about all those guns the U.S. shipped to Mexico, and by the drones we Americans use to kill people (without charges, a trial, an opportunity for defense, or international agreement, and with significant collateral damage to innocent bystanders) all over the world.
And as evidenced--on a small scale--by my little case, the U.S. Government vs. Ona Colasante and Colasante Clinic case, which has remained "sealed" for going on three months, perhaps to safeguard "the public good." Who knows? I may be endangering public safety by attempting, via this blog, to uncover the truth about what's going on in my case. I might be arrested for endangering public safety.
Every three months the government is required to provide transparency about my case, and to return the funds it took unless it has a good reason for keeping them. What's a good reason? As it turns out, the standard isn't very high. Every three months, Corey Smith, the prosecutor litigating my case (if doing nothing can be called "litigating"), issues a copy of the same document, a "Status Report" which states the following:
COMES NOW, PLAINTIFF, BY AND THROUGH ITS UNDERSIGNED ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING STATUS OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CASE TO THE COURT:
1. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY INFORMS THE COURT THAT WHILE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONTINUES, IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE THE STAY IN THIS CIVIL CASE.
2. THE UNITED STATES WILL FILE A STATUS REPORT EVERY 90 DAYS UNTIL THE RESOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
PAMELA C. MARSH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
I can file a FOIA request, or even a lawsuit, requesting information on this case and claiming that opening the records will not endanger the "continuing criminal investigation" or the safety of my fellow Americans. But will such a lawsuit stand up to the powerful rhetoric in the above defense for keeping the affidavits in my case sealed? "WE'RE STILL INVESTIGATING," is the government's explanation for not providing the transparency Obama declared as the hallmark of his administration. I don't know if my FOIA lawsuit can stand up to such a powerful argument.
But I'm going to take a shot at it, by filing a FOIA lawsuit pro se, because I still believe our executive branch means what it says, that Americans, including me, have a right to know what their government is doing.
Call me crazy, or naive, but you and I, who live down here in the peaceable kingdom of ordinary Americans, don't assume--and insist--that our government act according to the laws of reason, and common sense, and not default to its old habits of hypocrisy, then we're all in deep, deep trouble.
"[My administration is] committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," he said. He issued a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" saying that the government would "ensure the public trust, and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration." Specifically, he urged the attorney general to disclose all public records unless the Justice Department felt such disclosure would endanger public safety. He reinstated the standard set by Ashcroft in 2001 which said that federal agencies should not exempt materials from the public record, and should "use modern technology to inform the public about what is known and done by their Government." The only exemption for such transparency would be if an agency anticipated "foreseeable harm" from a disclosure.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to every agency, including the FBI--including, in fact, the entire justice department. It requires that government entities tell all of us citizens what it's doing on every front, by opening up documents that reveal how investigations are conducted, how money is spent, and why their agents spend their time doing what they're doing, including why they raid and ruin some of us, like me, because they think they know something, whether they can substantiate it or not.
But what people say and what they do are two different things, as evidenced--on a large scale--by Obama's executive order instructing Eric Holder to withhold from the public information about all those guns the U.S. shipped to Mexico, and by the drones we Americans use to kill people (without charges, a trial, an opportunity for defense, or international agreement, and with significant collateral damage to innocent bystanders) all over the world.
And as evidenced--on a small scale--by my little case, the U.S. Government vs. Ona Colasante and Colasante Clinic case, which has remained "sealed" for going on three months, perhaps to safeguard "the public good." Who knows? I may be endangering public safety by attempting, via this blog, to uncover the truth about what's going on in my case. I might be arrested for endangering public safety.
Every three months the government is required to provide transparency about my case, and to return the funds it took unless it has a good reason for keeping them. What's a good reason? As it turns out, the standard isn't very high. Every three months, Corey Smith, the prosecutor litigating my case (if doing nothing can be called "litigating"), issues a copy of the same document, a "Status Report" which states the following:
COMES NOW, PLAINTIFF, BY AND THROUGH ITS UNDERSIGNED ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING STATUS OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CASE TO THE COURT:
1. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY INFORMS THE COURT THAT WHILE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONTINUES, IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE THE STAY IN THIS CIVIL CASE.
2. THE UNITED STATES WILL FILE A STATUS REPORT EVERY 90 DAYS UNTIL THE RESOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
PAMELA C. MARSH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
I can file a FOIA request, or even a lawsuit, requesting information on this case and claiming that opening the records will not endanger the "continuing criminal investigation" or the safety of my fellow Americans. But will such a lawsuit stand up to the powerful rhetoric in the above defense for keeping the affidavits in my case sealed? "WE'RE STILL INVESTIGATING," is the government's explanation for not providing the transparency Obama declared as the hallmark of his administration. I don't know if my FOIA lawsuit can stand up to such a powerful argument.
But I'm going to take a shot at it, by filing a FOIA lawsuit pro se, because I still believe our executive branch means what it says, that Americans, including me, have a right to know what their government is doing.
Call me crazy, or naive, but you and I, who live down here in the peaceable kingdom of ordinary Americans, don't assume--and insist--that our government act according to the laws of reason, and common sense, and not default to its old habits of hypocrisy, then we're all in deep, deep trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment