I was reading some stuff about the new bill President Bush signed at the end of 2007. The media touts it as a wonderful reform of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which makes the government more open and which restores the FOIA rights which were taken away by a memorandum from former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Perhaps those who believe all that should take a closer look at the whole picture. Turns out, the bill added some nice “bells and whistles” to the FOIA such as a tracking website — but did little or nothing to restore the rights taken away by Ashcroft.
The crux of the matter, as I understand it, is that Ashcroft’s policy set a standard which says something like this: If there is uncertainty about whether releasing information might harm national security, agencies are to lean against releasing it. Prior to 9/11 and Ashcroft’s directive, the policy was that information should be released absent any foreseeable harm.
The new measure contained wording which would have restored this “presumption of openness” as it has been called — but that was taken out before the bill passed Congress and went to the President for his signature.
So guess what? The paranoid folks in the Bush Administration “got us” again: They present the picture of openness without being open.
Should this be a surprise? It really doesn’t surprise me. In fact, when I heard the other day about the new law and heard media folks praising it — I immediately became suspicious. Any administration which thrives on secrecy and the public picture of openness with no reality behind it isn’t about to do something openly, honestly good for us regarding the FOIA.
Ah, well, what do I know? I’m just a guy who reads the papers.
Technorati Tags: FOIA, openness in government, misunderstood law, more secrecy in government, John Ashcroft, just a guy who reads the papers