FOIA Exemption B(5) Means Never Having To Let A Redaction Opportunity Slip By
from the government-as-parent:-because-I-said-so dept
We've seen our share of redacted pages here at Techdirt, covering everything from NSA rules violations to GPS tracking to transcripts of court proceedings. Redaction is a way of life for the government, making a mockery of both the Freedom of Information Act AND this administration's claim that the White House is the most transparent place on earth.This last claim in particular is ridiculous. The Unredacted blog (run by members of George Washington University's research library) has published the following chart, which shows exactly how much sunlight isn't making its way to requested government documents thanks to its favorite FOIA exemption, b(5).
This exemption theoretically covers only the following:
inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agencyIn reality, it covers all of the following, according to Unredacted's research.
The Department of Justice’s use of b(5) to censor dozens of pages of a candid history of Nazi-hunting (and Nazi-protecting) by the U.S. government to such a self-defeating extent that former officials leaked the entire document to the New York Times, instead of fulfilling a Freedom of Information request.Also included? Henry Kissinger's notes on telephone conversations, which were withheld for seven years under this exemption. DOJ legal counsel opinions, which by law must be released if the stated suggestions have been officially adopted. The State Dept. even argued that this exemption applied to Presidential Policy Directive addressing the Department's need to be more transparent about its aid plans.
The CIA, supported by the Department of Justice, is currently using the b(5) exemption to keep secret its history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, arguing that it’s release “could confuse the public.”
Muckrock’s Shawn Muscrave has reported that The Federal Elections Commission attempted to argue that it’s own guidance on when to apply b(5) is itself exempt from release under b(5) –even though it had already been posted on the FEC’s website.
This is the next FOIA battleground, according to Unredacted. The expansive reading of this exemption has lead to the government adopting this as the go-to redaction, applied haphazardly to withhold information from the public. The b is for "broad," or as Redacted puts it, "withhold it because you want to."
The blog points to one of the most ridiculous redactions in a sea of misuse -- the withholding of a State Department employee's hand-scrawled "commentary" on a proposed bill to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Sure enough, b(5) was cited when redacting the opinion ("What a bunch of crap!"), meaning that this penned commentary somehow was an inter/intra-agency "memorandum or letter" not meant for the public's eye. The fact that it was neither and was written on a copy of a publicly available piece of legislation didn't stop the agency from redacting it. Two years later, it was finally forced by the court to uncover the rogue commentary.
"Because you feel like it" sums it up completely. Someone hoped to head off a microscopic bit of embarrassment by abusing the FOIA exemptions and somehow we're expected to believe other b(5) redactions are done with a sense of purpose and restraint.
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: foia, redactions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only thing that seems to ring steady is the amount of information the government is holding from FOIA requests and the prosecution of whistle blowers.
Ever since the Snowden leaks, the government has decided no information is good information
[ link to this | view in thread ]
B5 exemptions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Well I'm afraid we're going to have to withhold the information you've requested. Why? Because F(U), that's why.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: B5 exemptions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"transparent"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bush's Black Hole, and Obama's [-censored-]
And as for Obama, he freely uses NGOs like the fully-taxpayer-funded-but-FOIA-exempt "National Endowment for Democracy" as spearheads of foreign policy for financing and inciting "regime change" throughout the world -- a role historically held by the CIA.
I would predict that, given time, the FIOA will become essentially useless as a tool for making governments more transparent, because every controversial program will simply be "outsourced" to a FOIA-sheltered private business or NGO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thanks for writing up!!
Couple quick comments:
1. The blog cited is Unredacted, not Redacted.
2. Its by the National Security Archive, which is actually independent from (but affiliated with) George Washington.
3. Finally, getting nitpicky, the last "bunch of crap" document was released due to an administrative appeal, not judicial review.
None-the-less good stuff! thx!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Redacted Blog is crap and you're bad for reposting it
But nothing - nothing - excuses them from publishing a graph whose y-axis doesn't start at 0.
Humans are visual creatures. Anyone looking at that graph gets the idea that exemptions have more than doubled from 2011 to 2012. Of course the actual numbers show only a 40% increase - still bad, but not quite as frothing-at-the-mouth-rage-inducing as implied.
I expect better from you, TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]