EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case 390
Brad Eleven writes "The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit — but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
Que? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then why not just redact the names? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why not just redact the names and leave the statements intact? Oh yeah, that would actually make sense.
Typical Bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
The law should be: By default all information is public. The government must PROVE there is an overriding security reason to keep something a secret. And not wanting to be embarrassed isn't good enough. Hiding information to save someone's political career is an argument FOR releasing the data.
In future news.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously. For the EPA to do something this monumentally stupid, the entire agency deserves to be disbanded, considering that their actions have been completely and entirely contrary to their stated mission.
Sickening... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, this just really sucks. The Freedom of Information act was possibly the most effective means to hold the government accountable in my lifetime. Bush and company have no respect for it and think that they can arbitrarily ignore it. In the words of Emo Philips, "They need to be tought a lesson". Run their asses back to Texas along with all their followers, cronies and hacks. I'm greatly sick of all of this.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and you really are naive if you think Cheney is going to part with the sweets.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right. But we haven't a means to get this message out to anyone in politics such that they actually listen and act. I suppose we could start rampant impeachments or try to force the issue with the politicians. but they seem more involved with the micro-minority issues rather than just voters concerns.
You think LA is bad?? (Score:5, Interesting)
California doesn't need higher standards. California needs to start banning all old and out of tune automobiles, period. There's so many junker antiques running around that it's absolutely insane. Also, they need cleaner factories. They might as well start their own EPA while they're at it, because the one we already have isn't doing a goddamned thing. How do we get a vote to pull all of the EPA's funding into Congress?
What this action deserves (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pakistan model... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a mailing list, mostly populated by folk who post on Little Green Footballs. They told folk to register for Slashdot several years back. Whenever there is a political story they send out a begging letter asking anyone with mod points to mod down the most threatening posts.
They found out who I was and booted me off it a while back. I don't see why they would have stopped though.
If you think something has been modded down unfairly repost it. They have rather fewer mod points than they need to supress all the negative comments on the administration.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Executive Branch? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Executive Branch? (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL! This is why political discussions on Slashdot are so laughably out of touch.
For the record, yes. And so is every other agency in the federal government, except a few like the GAO which are specialized agencies that are by statute independent or act directly for Congress.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously an over-simplification, but chances are, if you don't like what they're saying, that's the truth. For example, does anyone really think lowering taxes will help pay off the 650+ billion dollars spent on Iraq? (Please save the "stimulates the economy" speech, I know it's more complex than either point of view.)
Now since each politician distorts different things, the choice isn't always clear and simple. Pick your poison and stick with it.
I want a President and Congress that will tackle the big issues, *then* the smaller ones. Here in Virginia, our legislators have wasted time trying to pick a new state song, and a bill to ban hanging anything that looks like testicles from trailor hitches. I can't even *imagine* what crap goes on at the federal level.
For example, for me, a candidate that is anti- (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning) etc... is missing the point. While these topics are important, they are individual matters and the US has serious community problems like the debt, healthcare, immigration, employment, etc... Get these solved (for which, I don't know the answers), then work on the others.
I know I will get shit-stormed by *someone* for using the above examples, so, not to inflame anyone's passions, but for the record, I am, and my wife was (she died two years ago):
Just About Time to Vote California (Score:4, Interesting)
Another interesting fact is that California's state budget is 1/5 of the federal budget without the current spending on the "W.o.T" (war on terror) that's being pushed by Bush and his cronies. So overall, I think the combination of the Real ID act, the EPA trying to tell us we don't have they right to set tougher standards then the nation, along with all the other flak and shit from Washington is finally giving us the needed push to leave the nest.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "but Paul has a bunch of crazy ideas" cop-out is moronic. People should really just say they want their nanny state to stay the way it is. So you will vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag politician.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
The effect on this level reach into interstate commerce which is directly within the rights of the US government to regulate. Article one section 8 would pretty much demand that the EPA or something similar be created to regulate the effects on interstate commerce. I might agree that it has too much power, I would agree that it over steps it's bounds, I would agree that it has caused a lot of extra costs in doing business and inflated the costs of goods we buy unnecessarily. ut it would be there as a legitimate use of the constitution regardless of the newdeal.
And
BTW, I'm in agreement with you on the sentiment of the newdeal. I just don't think the EPA would be non existent if it didn't happen.
You think so? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't doubt it at all.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you pro-war? Do you think the US needs to maintain permanent military bases in 200+ countries including Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Do you think that the the "security funding" in the US federal budget should exceed all other discretionary spending combined by 50%?
If not, then I can't see how you could support any candidate other than Paul or Kucinich. Sure, some of their positions on other issues are a little odd. Maybe the women of Iowa would have to drive 200 miles to get an abortion if Paul was president and got his way on Roe vs. Wade (which would be seriously unlikely). Maybe we'd end up with some overly expensive socialized medicine program and some silly commitments on global warming if Kucinich was president.
Personally, I just can't see those issues as being terribly important when $0.23 out of every tax dollar goes to either bombing foreigners, spying on Americans, or funding lobbyists to try to more money for those two practices. If you disagree with me, I suggest you spend some time looking at the numbers involved - either of deaths from our interventionist foreign policy or just how big these budget numbers really are. The military PR industry is damn good at what they do, and humans are really bad at intuitively grasping importance in numbers, but if you vote in the US you really have a responsibility to try.
Re:You think so? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're all for free speech. Unless you disagree with them.
Stay out of Fresno! They don't call it California's asshole for nothin'.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
It tells me the press is far more fascinated with making the party of tolerance and fiscal responsibility (D) seem hypocritical than in telling the truth about the "daddy" party (R), which has proven it will say and spend our children's future away to get votes.
After reading the complete stories behind the "racist" and "divisive" comments over the past couple of weeks in the democratic primaries, I'm far less concerned about Hillary lynching anybody or Barack leading a splinter faction than I am in Mr. "100 years in Iraq" McCain or Jesus McHuckaby getting into the Oval Office.
I wish we had a viable third party candidate this time around who was 1. Charismatic, 2. Intelligent, 3. Smart. and 4. Wasn't easily linked to true racist fringe movements.
*sigh*
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
He is admittedly Bat-shit crazy and has policies that I would NEVER want to see realized, but having him in office would force the congress to realize it has a backbone again. He wouldn't get everything he wants (No IRS, Complete withdrawal from overseas entanglements, complete de-regulation of the market) - but he would manage to do a lot of good (End the Iraq war, reduce the size and power of the government, etc).
We'd have a wild four years as he tries to turn the entire government around, make it stand on it's head, and sing for him. I'm all for it!
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:3, Interesting)
And oddly, in 1998 the Clinton administration announced the first budget surplus in a generation. And in 2000 the surplus was the highest since Medicare was enacted. Granted, they were playing with numbers because they weren't including money that was being borrowed from Social Security, but they didn't count it either when Bush turned in record deficits.
The Clinton administration had a goal of reducing the government's debt by $2.9 trillion by 2010, which would have put them on track to eliminate it entirely by 2012. I should note that I don't believe it would have happened, simply because part of the governments job is to borrow money. A certain amount of government debt is a stabilizing influence for the economy. It's all academic though, we are about to hit $9.2 trillion national debt and whoever takes office next January will have the 'pleasure' of heading the administration that was in office when we crossed $10 trillion in debt.