Memory Hole Un-Redacts Redacted DOJ Memo 453
DrDNA writes "After a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Justice Department released a study on workplace diversity. However, nearly half of the memo was blacked-out. In what was apparently an incredible goof, it was posted in a PDF format called Image+Text. The folks at The Memory Hole simply removed the image, revealing the redacted text. The redacted text was highly critical of the DOJ's diversity efforts, as the New York Times reports." Folks, if you're going to be sneaky, at least do enough research to make sure you're really being sneaky.
your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the people/person at The Memory Hole will be labeled as a hacker/pirate/terrorist by the justice department.
Why assume it was a mistake? (Score:1, Insightful)
Slaves resist their masters in many subtle ways. Wage slaves do, too.
Still waiting... but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it. Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).
What they remove (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to incite flames, but this speaks volumes about the Bush administration.
FIA is a sham (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever read any documents released through the Freedom of Information Act that has any actual substance?
The act is supposed to protect us against abuse from the government, yet it gives the government full power to remove whatever parts they see fit. Who does the editing? A neutral party? I don't think so.
Accountability for such actions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, I'm not american, but judging how the country has been going, I'm surprised the people uncensoring these reports arent vanishing without a trace.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth be told the fact it was redacted in the first place is far more disturbing than the actual content that was removed. Especially since its release was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act case.
$2M I'll write a page :D (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do we encourage them to be more skeaky? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am distraught that the editors and many posters find it simply amusing that the DOJ was technologically incompetent in this situation, and that that is all there is too it. What frightens me is when they do become competent, and these breakdowns cannot or do not happen, whether it be via more 'perfect' DRM systems, or simply more competent DOJ employees/contractors.
It is in our interest to have the government flawed when it comes to secrecy.
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:0, Insightful)
Then again, I'm glad that I can't get a job based on anything but my qualifications for that job - I'd be annoyed if my skin and gender put me above someone else.
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of equal opportunity and equal rights should be that you just hire whoever is better for the job, and hit anyone making this not so with a big stick that has a nail in it.
Actually, according to the memo, the issue here was not just about diversity, but active discrimation. They were not hiring whoever was better for the job, they were giving better chances to caucasians: certain career opportunities were only offered to caucasians, critical information was withheld from minorities. The playing field was severly skewed against minorities. Yes, in this memo lack of diversity is just a polically correct euphemism for outright racism!
Aiming for exactly 50% one thing or another is no less sexist/racist than only hiring women or only hiring men (etc).
It was not about aiming at exactly 50%, but rather about aiming at anything above 0% for the minority employees!
Re:What they remove (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
Buts its nice how we keep giving them millions to continue their search. Its so blissful living in such a faith based country that we'll pay to make any reality the truth, even if it takes covering up all those annoying little facts and painting over them with distraction after horribly fearsome distraction.
Its a good thing God exists. If he doesn't there are a lot of delusional people in this country who are prime targets for intesive psychotherapy.
absolutely appalling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What they remove (Score:4, Insightful)
> > That's because there are no WMD.
> Umm, they just diappeared? You do agree that there were WMD at one time, right?
Sure, back in 1991, before the UN made them disarm.
Re: What they remove (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, not all whites and not every time.
Geez.
What we NEED is universal access to education and non-districted affordable housing. Kids in gettos don't have much real chance to learn, and those that do have no support to pay for college, and may, or may not, win the grant lottery.
Our educational system is a class barrier. You are either rich enough to "make it", or you are forever barred from "real jobs". And tuition isn't the only expense in some of these people's lives.
Like everything we do, we've created yet another entitlement solution, rather than solve the actual problem. It so sucks and it so doesn't have to be this way.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a tired old canard. Sudan was not offering bin Laden. Some joker who claimed to have authority that he didn't have claimed that he could get the Sudanese government to offer bin Laden. There was no reason to believe that he was trustworthy. Conservatives make this an issue now even though there is no doubt that a conservative administration would have given this guy just as much attention as did the Clinton administration.
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Some would say women leave to have babies. How is the DOJ supposed to "fix" (your word) that?!?!
Re:Memory Hole Goes To Jail (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, though, I'd rather give it "+1 Scary".
Soko
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see the concepts of "redaction" or "under seal" (not to mention "FISA courts") appearing anywhere in the Constitution and I think they should be eliminated from our legal system.
How many African Americans work for Slashdot? (Score:1, Insightful)
What efforts are you guys doing to promote diversity among your ranks, particularly management?
Folks, if you're going to use such a smug, self-righteous tone when you post these stories, at least make sure sure your own house is in order.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy of a redacted court document to a redacted internal government report doesn't seem to hold up. The judicial system doesn't have any vested interest in preventing embarrasment of parties to law suits beyond the requirements of the law, and the protection of their legally guaranteed privacy, but government _bureaucrats_ have every interest in protecting their superiors, their superiors' superiors, and the elected officials who appointed them.
Re:your tax dollars at work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: What they remove (Score:2, Insightful)
As well as in 1998 when Iraq declared publically that they still had them. (And there was sufficient evidence that they were likely still producing them, hence the continued UN inspections) Sure, it could have been a bluff to make neighboring countries afraid of him, but why would Saddam go all the way to let himself be overthrown if he could have just said "We lied.. we really didn't have any. Come on in and freely look around to see for yourself" Secondly, it is naive to believe that the first Gulf War knocked some sense into the man and he just willingly gave up all his WMD capabilities. With his conventional military mostly destroyed, it was the only remaining base of power.
The anti-war folks would like people to believe that there was no possibility whatsoever that Iraq possessed WMD's before the war. This is decidedly untrue.
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships? I don't think they were planning to attack the US with a bucket full of mustard gas were they? Where are the atomizers? the catalysts? Where are the other chemicals to stabilize and refine biological agents? Where are the growing tanks for all the biological agents? Were they being incubated in a thermos or a yogurt maker?
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Blacking out non-security issues... (Score:4, Insightful)
The citizenry are quickly losing all control of the government, and the government is actively hiding information from the citizens. We need to regain control of the government, media, and military before the USA starts looking more like the USSR...
Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.
You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governments and you'll see what I mean. For example, China does not prosecute everyone that speaks against the government. In fact, people in shops and restaurants regularly criticize the government. The government doesn't arrest any of those. However, if the person that is critizing was a "true enemy" (i.e. powerful opponent, and not some guy off hte streeth), then the government would send the guy to jail. The government selectively applies the law. All of a sudden, the law that everyone breaks is used to punish those that are dangerous to the government.
If something was enforced all the time, no one would do it and the power wouldn't even exist. However, if you let everyone "break the law" but then prosecute a few of your enemies, that's power!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Still waiting... but... (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are saying doesn't apply to this case, since this is a consulting report which is the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. people within the system are being discriminated against).
In any case, what you are saying is valid for the general situation. The problem is that the world isn't perfect. A sizeable amount of the population are racists, sexists, etc. For example, people I have encountered in my life (people my age, who you would think aren't sexist) were very sexist. I have seen many men (20 to 30 year olds, meaning more liberal than old men) who actually say stuff like "women can't do that job", "women aren't good at xyz", etc. What do you think these guys are doing when they hire people? Do you really think they are hiring women? I highly doubt it. The same thing with ethnicity, language, etc.
The problem is as follows. You pre-suppose the following: "you just hire whoever is better for the job." Can you guarantee that? The answer is no, given what I said above with people being racist, sexist, and so forth.
Look at, say, blacks in USA. Blacks were considered as equals for a long time. Yet, many people did not hire them. They weren't even hired for the worst jobs. Why? The reason is discrmination. As long as the people who discriminate is sizeable, the best person will not be hired for the job. Trust me, if hte best person for a job was hired, things would be a lot simpler and you wouldn't have some of these problems.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I hope it happens... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we give the parent comment a score of 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government representatives are only supposed to keep stuff secret that would give a potential enemy vital information... blacking out anything that doesn't meet this criteria should be a hanging offense. If this report is true, then this is obviously corruption in its most base and basic form.
Next thing you know we will be trillions of dollars in debt spending half our income on taxes with social security about to collapse and being told that everything will be okay. Oh wait a sec...
Re: What they remove (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. Other countries do have WMD. So it's not absurd to accuse them of it.
Sure it is. The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.
It is not absurd to state that other countries have WMDs, it is not even absurd for the US to consider that state of affairs undesirable. However, it is absurd for the US to imply that everybody should agree that there is something ethically or legally wrong with that.
For example, I may "accuse" you of driving a car and thereby destroying the environment, but chances are that you and the majority of other Americans would consider my "accusation" absurd because I drive a car, too, and because you don't see anything wrong with driving a car in the first place.
Well, it's an uncertain world, and India, Pakistan, and China have as much interest in defending themselves as the US. And the US has done nothing to reduce the need for WMDs in this world--quite to the contrary. That's makes it truly absurd for the US to "accuse" other nations for having WMDs.
A nation like the Vatican, however, does have the moral authority to accuse other nations of having WMDs because they don't. And such nations generally accuse the US as much as they accuse other nations.
Um? (Score:2, Insightful)
The big problem with most people is they tend to think you can give government a break. You can't it's out after yuo libertiy and freedom so it's job is more convient. It can't ever be trusted.
Re:This happened once before... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about torture of human beings? Treatment of some "suspects" in Afghanastan and Iraq as well as detainees in Guantonimo falls well within the definition of torture of these organizations even if it isn't electric shock to the genitals. And those a AMERICANS doing the torturing.
What about the new policy of political assasination? Officially prohibited to US agencies for decades it is now acceptable. So far its only foreigners that can be assasinated, but its not that big a jump to internal politcal opponents is it? That used to be one of the things that we could point at that made the US better than dictatorships, but no more.
What about the government playing the legal system to get what they want no matter the courts? For example declaring a defendant an enemy combatant so they could imprison him when the trial wasn't going the government's way? What about holding hundreds of people indefinately without charge and without trial by mis-using the Material Witness laws?
People detained in Guantonimo have NO rights, even those given to non-citizens. The administration justifies this by claiming that they are not on US soil and therefore aren't entitled to the protection of any US laws, including the rights given to them by the constitution. In the past US bases, embassies, and ships have always been considered US soil. Face it - we have an admnistration that thinks it is justified in cancelling the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.
The people in this country who think that we haven't digressed from a country where citizens are protected from government by the Constitution really need to look hard at the reality of the situation rather than exercise their wishful-thinking genes and claim we're fine.
A true memory hole... (Score:1, Insightful)