Remember that politician around 8 years ago who promised the most transparent Administration ever? Well, long ago, President Obama distinguished himself by withholding documents, pictures, and documents from the public and Congress. This includes the withholding of photos for the simple reason that they will embarrass the government or be used by critics like the pictures of Osama Bin Laden. (In the case of Bin Laden, it appears that the account glamorized in movies like Zero Dark Thirty may not be true and that U.S. forces allegedly riddled the body of Bin Laden with countless bullets, according to a new report). However, the Administration has gone well beyond the simply embarrassing. It has defied Congress in refusing to turn over documents to oversight committees, prompting a vote to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder be prosecuted for obstruction. (The Administration then prevented prosecutors from acting on the charge). A new analysis by the Associated Press shows what is already well known in Washington, President Obama has created the least transparent presidency in decades. The AP found that the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.
Across the categories of information and 99 agencies, last year was the worst on record for the government. In that year, the Obama Administration cited undefined national security reasons for withholding information roughly 8,500 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama’s first year when the rationale was used some 3,658 times. It is not just the Defense Department and the CIA which covered most of the claims, but also the Agriculture Department’s Farm Service Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency did twice and the National Park Service which also claimed national security exemptions.
The use of the oft-abused “deliberative process” exception was used by the Obama Administration a record 81,752 times. The government censored materials overall in 244,675 cases or 36 percent of all requests. For an additional 196,034 requests, the government simply said no information was available or the request was improper or required payment for production.
The weird thing White House spokesman Eric Schultz insisted that the damning report showed “that agencies are responding to the president’s call for greater transparency.” That seems perfectly Orwellian where the denial of records shows a greater openness.
Even Democrats in Congress has complained about the treatment of FOIA requests as well as the refusal to turn over material to oversight committee. Recently, even the most deferential member to the Intelligence Community, Dianne Feinstein, complained of obstruction and spying by CIA as her staff tried to secure documents for the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Reporters are also complaining about a wholesale blocking of media requests — part of the dismal record on press freedoms that has resulted in the United States ranking 64th in the world. That was a drop of 13 spots under Obama. For a recent column, click here.
The hostility of the Obama Administration to inquiries from the public, the press, or Congress is obviously part of a broader attack on civil liberties. From surveillance to kill lists to torture, the Administration has held tightly to information that could be used by critics. Indeed, the Administration has protected officials who destroyed evidence of torture under the Bush Administration at the CIA.
If the recent report on the Bin Laden pictures is true, it offers a disturbing glimpse of the mindset in the Administration. Obama barred the release of the pictures while his Administration played up his role in approving the killing of Bin Laden. The actions of the President has been heralded by Democrats even though there was clearly no intent to capture Bin Laden. It was an assassination carried out in violation of international law after entering the territory of an ally without permission. The legality of operation led many to ask what the U.S. would do if Mexico took out a figure in San Diego or New York. However, the Administration maintained the story that Bin Laden was shot a couple of times but that his body was treated with respect and given a proper burial at sea. If the U.S. forces riddled his body with bullets, it would constitute the abuse of a corpse and violate long-standing military principles. Of course, the truth is held to deduce when the Administration is holding the evidence that would prove its own misconduct.
The same can be said with regard to the withholding got the “Fast and Furious” documents and other scandals. Those are areas where Congress has a legitimate right to investigate the moronic actions of federal officials that led to at least one death of a federal agent — and included later false or misleading statements.
Thanks for the link Annie. I do not think that a third or fourth party is the answer. It is human nature to be tempted by wealth and power. That tendency could be overcome by a very exceptional and strong and ethical leader. However, to attempt to pass legislation that helps Americans and goes against the interests of who ever is really running this country means the leader has to be willing to risk their life and the life of their family. A very strong leader could be brave enough to do this – but that won’t help either because most likely this person would be taken down like JFK.
I have not read the linked article yet, but if what you say is true, then I disagree with Jonathan Turley on the problem. I do agree we have a continuous loop of corruption with our two party system – but that is not what is causing the dysfunction because adding another party will only make it a loop of three parties instead of two.
The problem is corporate bribery, lobbying, and now the final nail in the coffin – Citizens United.
Think Professor Turley may not like the hypocracy of the Citizens United ruling, it only runs in one direction and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that way:
Corporations that were complicit in torture, kidnappings, war crimes, warrantless wiretapping, etc. weren’t viewed as “citizens” when they committed felonies or war crimes.
“Corporate citizens” had greater rights than “human citizens”!
The Green Party and the Libertarain Party don’t seem to be able to get enough traction. What sort of third party could ever get a candidate elected to President with Citizens United in play?
Sorry Jill, yes I know, too many questions.
My daddy always said money buys you freedom…
… And if you have enough of it, you can be free enough to own a Congressman.
Corruption.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/
If I understand Professor Turley correctly, he thinks that the dysfunction with our government is not financial, but instead is structural. That our two party system is continuous loop of corroptution. My question is how can a third party or a fourth party not be sucked into corruption by big monied powers? How does Citizens United not just add to the corruption? Why would other political parties be beyond the reach of the epigovernment?
I am also confused about comments on this site saying that Professor Jonathan Turley agrees with Citizens United. Surely that cannot be true.
If Jonathan does agree with the policies of Citizens United, it would only be because it would be discriminating against those with more money and a usurpation of individual rights to disallow them from using their money to affect the changes they believe would make our society better. The majority can out vote the minority rich and thus money is often their only weapon to fight against those things they deem bad for society. As we know the majority is not always correct.
As an example David Koch was the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate back in 1980 and I voted for him and Ed Clark. We were surely in the minority as he only received a small number of votes, a million or so. However, his money helped garner the highest vote number that the party ever received. Why should he not be allowed to contribute as much money as he wants to try to improve our society. Libertarians as you know are against such things as the huge military industrial complex, which many of you agree with. Just because one has money doesn’t make them a bad person and thus they cannot utilized that money because others abuse it to do bad things.
If it weren’t for the wealthy during the American Revolution, we would most likely not have won. With capitalism and the protection of individual rights you must however except the good with the bad as there is no utopia.
Remember under capitalism, we wouldn’t have enacted our central bank as that is a communist enactment. It should have been found unconstitutional bu our judiciary but they are bought and paid for by the oligarchs.
RTC, If you have a life, why not assume others do as well? You asked other people to look up information. Why not look it up yourself and post it for everyone?
It reminds me of the govt. They’ll ask/take information from citizens but not provide any information about anything if they can help it!
Mike A: “Well, at least now we know why Bin Laden’s body was buried at sea”
Yes, they were sure he would sink.
hskiprob
Dredd – Let’s not let this confuse the inherent problems of a democracy. If society is in fact being run by a so-called epigoverment, which I do believe, would that not thwart or negate the influences of the democratic process. Why do you think I and many others have been saying that all democracies fail for the same reason, as do democratic republics. BECAUSE, in reality they are not democracies but in fact oligarchies or epigovernment as you are suggesting we call them. The masses are just led to believe that by being good Citizens, fighting for democracy and apply pie, things will just miraculously work up for what is int he best interest of the majority. The facts are that It is much more deceptive then most care to imagine or believe.
=============
Fair enough.
All I am advocating is a sound nomenclature which accurately depicts the dynamics of any government.
My use of the term “epigovernment” means only that the particular government type is not self-contained –is not working on its own as designed.
The essence of that is that an oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy, etc. can be orchestrated from outside the visible constituents and constructs particular to the type of government involved.
Thus, in an epigovernment situation a democracy, communist regime, oligarchy, plutocracy, theocracy, monarchy, etc. can be influenced from an epigovernment, an external dynamic, that is actually pulling the strings behind the scenes.
In other words it is a perversion of the dynamics that type of government is supposed to operate under.
Thus the U.S.A., Russia, Germany, Australia, Ukraine, and so on, which have different types of governments, can all be rendered impure by the dynamics of an influential epigovernment.
Epigovernment is not a characteristic of the perverted government structure any more than a parasite is its host.
The term “deep state” implying “deep government” is not a valid concept, IMO, in that context.
hskiprob,
Dredd, In political economy, Epigoverment is called an oligarchy; leadership by the few.
…
===============
The use of “oligarchy” in place of “plutocracy” is an error that is several thousand years old.
“Aristotle pioneered the use of the term [oligarchy] as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy.” {Wikipedia, “oligarchy”).
Your false association of “epigovernment” with that term is just as egregious and is of folly.
“Epi” means above, but not a part of.
Epigovernment means something that controls government from outside of government.
The intelligent reason for having nomenclature is to avoid doublespeak and newspeak, in the sense that words have a particular meaning, not many incoherent and conflicting meanings in a cacophony of literary slop.
There are many words in the nomenclature of the many different types of government:
(The Government of MOMCOM: Wartocracy – 2).
Re: Bruce E. Woych
This slippery slope started soon after the Church Committee Reports in the 1970’s and includes both Republicans and Democrats.
We need a 2nd Church Committee or Truth Commission – there will be very few criminal prosecutions of either party if we ever want real reform to benefit the American people longterm.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/21/obama-the-media-and-national-security/only-nixon-harmed-a-free-press-more
James C. Goodale, who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, is a First Amendment lawyer and author of “Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.”
………………….Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More………………….
(quote)
“The First Amendment protects The A.P.’s right to gather news, as it protects Rosen’s too. Obama’s view is that national security interests nearly always trump the First Amendment. No president has had this view before, except Richard Nixon.” James C. Goodale
Well, at least now we know why Bin Laden’s body was buried at sea.
http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185&Itemid=106
Radio Interview: Justice -integrity Project: summary by Andrew Kreig
“James C. Goodale, one of the nation’s most battle-tested First Amendment experts, warns May 25 that President Obama “surely” will exceed the 1970s abuses of Richard Nixon “as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.” Goodale is author of a new book, Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles.”
“His Times op-ed May 21 “Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More summarized recent revelations about the Obama Justice Department. “The search warrant filed to investigate the Fox News reporter James Rosen proved as many had suspected: President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker,” Goodale wrote. “Until President Obama came into office, no one thought talking or e-mailing was not protected by the First Amendment.”
(see: Times article is highlighted at the above link)
Re: Annieofwi
The ACLU seems to have the best longterm analysis on Citizens United and campaign finance reform that I’ve come across in several decades.
The ACLU’s point is NOT to deny Freedom of Speech to corporations and special interest groups (like Planned Parenthood, NRA, etc.) but to “equalize” citizen speech so it’s better in proportion – based on the the number of citizens instead of being represented by the number of dollars.
Currently the powerful have a megaphone while citizens can barely be heard over the megaphones. This touches on every issue including our national security agencies viewing Americans as enemies instead of representing us, since they work for big business and the powerful – not us!
We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Jill: I’m not going to look that shit up, because I’m not an investigative reporter. While there are many things I’m willing to do, like show up at a rally and protest, I’ve got a life. I just raised the point because with so many, like yourself, willing to rush to judgement on a legal issues blog, some questions need to be asked. And sometimes it’s more important to ask the right questions than to have the right answer.
Also, I call the administrations behavior “disappointing” because it’s disappointing. I didn’t say it was right or not illegal. In fact, appropriately enough for a legal issues blog, it may not be illegal. You do understand that the lawyers here understand the term “illegal” to have a strict technical meaning, don’t you? And that the SCt has found that the Executive enjoys a broad privilege for withholding information,, as it did most recently for records of Cheney’s meeting with energy companies?
You and I can agree that what’s going on is bullshit and has to stop. But illegal? I’ll wait to hear what the lawyers have to say.
I agree Rafflaw. What I’m confused about is why Professor Turley as some have suggested, is in favor of Citizens United? Or is this erroneous? I’ll go search the Turley files and see what I come up with. I’m not demanding answers, I doubt there are answers. Just curious about what other’s think and if THEY think it’s even rational to think deep state can be reined in.
Annie, I’m asking you to contribute. As I pointed out, many people have given their ideas, and you just asked me to supply mine. So please, add your ideas to the mix. I’d like to hear your ideas.