Dep't of Energy Making It Harder to FOIA Bush-Era Docs

| Mon Dec. 15, 2008 10:10 AM PST

foia.jpg

As President Bush prepares to leave office, his appointees in the executive branch agencies seem to be doing their best to cover his tracks. With President-elect Barack Obama set to announce his choice of Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy later today, that department is trying to make it harder for the public to dig into its activities. Secrecy News reports that the Bush DOE wants to remove a guideline that encourages it to release information under the FOIA that it's not legally required to release if doing so would serve the "public interest." The likely result would be that the DOE would never release information unless under a legal mandate, echoing a policy former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft implemented at the Justice Department, which actually encouraged withholding information whenever there was a "sound legal basis" for doing so. Secrecy News, which is run by the Federation of American Scientists, has FAS' comments on the proposed regulation:

[T]here is a widespread and well-founded expectation that the incoming Obama Administration will rescind the Ashcroft FOIA policy and define a more forthcoming disclosure policy. In light of that probable scenario, I would urge DOE to cancel its proposed revision of [the public interest balancing test], or else to suspend action on it for six months while the new Administration prepares new government-wide FOIA guidance.

Seeing as the Bush administration won't extend the courtesy of allowing the Obamas to move into the official White House guest house a few days early, it seems unlikely that DOE will hold off on its proposed revision out of amity toward the incoming administration. But I guess it's worth a shot.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Nick Baumann covers national politics for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. He can also be found on twitter.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Temptation is nothing more than accepting and giving into some possibility that suddenly makes itself available in an irresistible way—thus whatever it is and for whatever the reason, it seduces us or if you prefer it leads us into temptation. This seductive force from a paranoid religious standpoint needs no more sensuality than dropping various sized stones from a leaning tower and deducing from the observations of this mundane event some form of a universal concept which because it is counter to the eternal perfection of Church dogma must be condemned as heretical and for which the guilty must be made to repent or be burned at the stake.

In this sense the idea of faith is no different from anything else—for example to pray to not be led into temptation is in its essence a contradiction in terms (because you are tempted to prayer because you hope the prayers will be answered) and yet to not pray to avoid being led into temptation is to lack faith—faith is apparently the belief that because we assume a certain view of the world, this view makes the whole world intelligible and harmonizes it with the will of God. The problem is that this “faith” does not guarantee that all is well because it does not coincide with the experience of the world (instead it is supposed to coincide with the word of God and thus our senses are in contradiction with the holy words)—one’s faith can be strong and yet it does not in any way protect the faithful from the phenomenon of this world. The faithful can get into their car and have an accident in which they die—forcing the issue of whether they were not faithful enough, or was it because they had an unfaithful thought—this timid state of existence where all events must be correlated to the strength or weakness of one’s faith has already shown itself to be incapable of satisfying the social structure of society in relation to the world we live in—faith breaks down not because people are not “faithful” but because that to which they are “faithful towards” is incompatible with the way the world works and becomes no longer believable. Still this collective breakdown in faith forces itself to the foreground in a brutal way and as a reaction to this obvious fact the fanaticism of religion asserts itself via the structures of power it has created which have enabled it to rule and control—yet in order to maintain these structures the religion must disavow its teaching (it must assert its power by punishing the doubters but in a way that contradicts the teaching of the faith—the faith itself must “sin”), which in turn further increases doubt—hence the temptation of faith.

Terrorism is like temptation—we can guard ourselves so strongly against it that our means to protection becomes the very meaning of terrorism.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.
Colombia's first environmental film fest.