The Freedom of Information Act specifically states:
…any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information except to the extent the records are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.
The nine exemption categories that authorize government agencies to withhold information are:
1 – classified information for national defense or foreign policy;
2 – internal personnel rules and practices;
3 – information that is exempt under other laws;
4 – trade secrets and confidential business information;
5 – inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges;
6 – personnel and medical files;
7 – law enforcement records or information;
8 – information concerning bank supervision; and
9 – geological and geophysical information.
But the AP has investigated and found that the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for records to political appointee’s to get approval first.
Where’s the outrage from the left?
For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.
~~~The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more open, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas.
But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for “awareness purposes,” no matter who requested it.
Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano’s political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked.
If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.
Of course as soon as the AP started investigating the DHS ceased this blatant .
This policy required that anything “controversial or sensitive,” anything related to White House policy, or anything requested by journalists, activists, watchdog groups and even lawmakers could only be provided after a political appointee looked it over. That appointee often opted to just never respond to a request…in effect vetoing the request.
How in the world can Napolitano keep her job after this? I mean they used the FIOA as an excuse to dig into the lives of private citizens who requested information that should be freely available to every citizen.
Open and transparent indeed. We have Napolitano providing information based on what party they belong to and we have a Attorney General who bases his decisions on whether to prosecute or not based on race.
Ch-ch-change
See author page