'Most Transparent' Administration Once Again Irritates A Federal Judge By Refusing To Cough Up A Requested Document
from the let-them-eat-redactions dept
The self-described "most transparent administration in history" is once again being chastised by the courts for burying documents demanded by the public. In November, the DOJ flat out refused a FISC court order to declassify a document pertaining to the government's interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The DOJ's response was basically, "Yeah, we heard you. But we're not doing it."
This time around it's a document that can't be tied to "national security" or the "war on terror" except in the most tenuous terms. Politico reports that a federal judge is once again going head-to-head with the DOJ over the release of a document.
Rejecting one of the Obama White House's most aggressive attempts to preserve executive branch secrecy, a federal judge Tuesday ordered the disclosure of a government-wide foreign-aid directive President Barack Obama signed in 2010 but refused to make public.Judge Ellen Huvelle ordered this document delivered to her under seal last month, but has been stonewalled every step of the way. As Huvelle's order notes, PPD-6 has already been "widely circulated" within the Executive branch.
The Justice Department asserted that the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development [PPD-6] was covered by executive privilege, even though it is unclassified and reflected standing guidance to agencies rather than advice given to the president.
As one example, lower-level staff members at State and USAID used the PPD-6 during their preparation of the First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. [...] The team responsible for that review... included QDDR senior leadership, a fourteen-member executive council, four drafters and editors, and a QDDR leadership team of at least twenty people from the Departments of State and Defense, the USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, including an “Office Management Specialist,” several “Staff Assistant[s],” and an advisor serving as a Presidential Management Fellow.Despite this being passed around to even low-level staffers, the DOJ continues to insist it is exempt from FOIA requests under Exemption 5, which pertains narrowly to "communications between the President and his advisors." Huvelle points out that this exemption has been deployed before, but never in the way the current administration is attempting to.
As noted, no case has addressed this privilege in terms of a presidential directive. Rather, courts have considered the application of the presidential communications privilege to audio recordings of confidential communications between the President and his advisers, deliberative documents created by White House advisers, but never viewed by the President, agency documents created to advise, but never reaching, the Office of the President, and advisory documents from an agency that were not solicited, but were received, by the President.Huvelle refers to the DOJ's claim of executive privilege as "amorphous" and that this assertion relies "solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of the document." According to Huvelle, the DOJ is simply making it up as it goes along. It says the document was distributed on a "need to know" basis, but evidence exists that any staffers' "need to know" was determined ad hoc by other staffers in the various offices the order was distributed to.
But never before has a court had to consider whether the privilege protects from disclosure under FOIA a final, non-classified, presidential directive that has been distributed widely within the Executive Branch and serves as guidance for several policy-making bodies, including twenty-two Executive Branch agencies, as well as the NSS and National Security Council (“NSC”) Deputies and Principals.
More damning (but less surprising), the judge had some harsh words for the administration itself.
The judge also suggested the administration had lost sight of the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and transparency itself.This administration has shown over the years that it can keep up with the previous regime in terms of secrecy and obfuscation. In some cases, it has even surpassed it. Despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary, the administration still attempts to portray itself as an ambassador of openness -- a new watershed in governance. But there's nothing going on here that distinguishes it from Bush's two terms, or Nixon's truncated stay in the White House for that matter.
"The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight ... to engage in what is in effect governance by 'secret law,'" Huvelle said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, doj, executive privilege, foia, foreign aid directive, global aid
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There is /one/ difference actually
As far as I know, neither Bush or Nixon had the gall to constantly go on and on about how 'transparent' they were while they were lying and obfuscating their actions, they just did them.
Claiming to be 'the most transparent administration in history' while striving for such secrecy that Bush and Nixon look like amateurs in the field of lying to and hiding things from the public, that's either a really nasty sense of humor at the public's expense, or a near legendary level of self-delusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA, DOJ, FBI, FISA and all of these other agencies are being set up to do just exactly that.
Special thank to every idiot who voted for Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reality is that even if a President wanted to do such a thing, it would be extraordinarily difficult. The first thing he'd have to do is actually get rid of the Constitution. The instant that happens will be the instant a full-fledged civil war begins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know that hasn't happened? Both parties seem to be doing exactly the same thing it is almost like they are both being controlled by something else. [/tinfoilcap]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that I'm a fan of Obama. The man is a spineless corporate shill who has forgotten that he used to be a Constitutional lawyer.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to attack him, attack him for that. Unless you're doing the same thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's insane. There is no indication of anything even remotely like that happening.
The TSA, DOJ, FBI, FISA and all of these other agencies are being set up to do just exactly that.
Special thank to every idiot who voted for Obama.
You don't think that the same situation would be happening if a Republican were voted in? This is not about Obama. This is about the nature of power in DC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ AC: Nice and concise retort: I could have skipped mine!
"New media" outlets are just like "old media" outlets except that aren't yet known to be Establishment outlets, but that's the way to bet. Don't trust anything you read.
10:45:08[l-026-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike "That's insane." Masnick.
Your objection and characterization there are wacky. Sure, it's true that it's the DC power grab (not a game, kid), but why are you at all defending the current dictator, Obama? Playing the DC power "game" yourself, or think that you are?
Mike's re-writing relies so heavily on "old mainstream media" that he's quite undistinguished.
10:41:26[l-682-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's already been distributed to over 40 people, probably well over. Has Judge Huvelle looked for this document on Google yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama Thinks He's The Pope!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was it the NSA defenders say so often? "If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".
I wonder what the US Government's fears are, because they're hiding an awful lot from the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]