Slashdot Log In
EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jan 20, 2008 05:33 PM
from the interesting-use-of-term-executive dept.
from the interesting-use-of-term-executive dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: States Set to Sue the U.S. Over Greenhouse Gases 440 comments
dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Pakistan model... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
You people work for us, We the People. Any analyses you perform should be a matter of public record. Get over yourselves.
Furthermore, what is with "executive privilege" being used as a cover for bureaucratic malfeasance? We aren't talking nuclear secrets here, but matters of public policy.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side, I hear Dick Cheney increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams.
Seriously, November 1 can't come soon enough. The way things are going we're looking for a showdown between Clinton and McCain. For a change, we may have a win-win choice this fall. Neither's perfect, but I think either will result in a return to sanity and pragmatism, and result in a massive improvement over the current administration.
Parent
Unvarnished: (Score:5, Insightful)
EPA political appointee #2: "I'll check with GM to see it they'll raise their offer."
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone said it very well recently: The economy is all about money, and politics is all about power. Nowhere does the good of the people figure in or matter.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Funny)
Although you probably won't remember it.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
I couldn't disagree more. Both are corporate shills who will keep the USA mired in Iraq for at least the next 8 years. They both are on their knees to the machine that is destroying not only the USA as a country, but the biosphere itself. They are both really really lame. Neither of them have a plan to deal with the impending energy crisis, nor do either of them have any idea how to deal with the ecocide that is part and parcel of the (according to Cheney) non-negotiable "American Way of Life" which is basically a practice of pillage and destruction. With a nice smiley face from Hollywood to make it all seem OK.
RS
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll never happen though.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, who is that guy? I'd really like to know, so I can vote for him (or her, and no Hillary is not the one.) All the candidates I see out there at the moment are liars and/or hypocrites, to one degree or another.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dennis Kucinich, if you are a Dem and Ron Paul if you are a Republican (poor soul).
Consequently, their tendency to tell the truth has all but eliminated either from serious consideration or even inclusion in later debates.
Parent
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):
Parent
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Funny)
Stephen Colbert says he once fathered a Black Child, does that count?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/74281/ [alternet.org]
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Executive privilege is designed to protect matters of national security. Not political blunders or malfeasance. We're talking about automobile emissions standards, not plans for building an F-117 for crying out loud.
And California has a direct need to have higher standards than the rest of the freakin' country. Have you been to Los Angeles? *cough* *cough* The smog is horrible. And most of it is due to the rather large number of automobiles that operate on the roads there. Traffic sucks bad -- the streets are in constant gridlock.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they? If all you do is mutter on slashdot they've got nothing to worry about. Outside of the techie world how many people even know what a news discussion site is?
The problem about just saying you should have your rights under the constitution is that the people who got the opportunity to create it and then wrote it actually did fight, and many suffered and came over all dead. You don't compare well to them, except in the 'gathering to discuss their grievances' bit.
You need to do something about it aside from talk is the point I'm making.
I can't, I'm not American, but I would if I had to in my own country.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this age of climate change hysteria, if you did research that ended up suggested otherwise would you like to have it out there with your name on it?
If the research is solid, then yes, of course, why not? If fear over climate change is just 'hysteria', then the scientific process will over time eventually push the truth to the service, and what scientific researcher wouldn't want his/her name associated with pioneering good research that revealed the truth? You think scientists would rather lie and be buried anonymously than reveal a truth that puts them ahead of everyone else?
It will be effectively impossible for anyone to debunk the research if it is genuinely good, because that's how science works.
Parent
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's saying that all such things should be performed in public, but the record of their dealings damn well should be. Period! If their actions are not justifiable, then we need and have every right to know that, so we can get rid of these assholes and put in people that are more trustworthy. The issue here is that an important matter of public record, one that affects many millions of people, is being hidden from us using a flimsy excuse and a misuse of "executive privilege." If that doesn't at least smell like malfeasance in office to you, you must have a problem with your olfactory organs.
Parent
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.
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.
Liars and Thieves Hate The Light Of Inquiry (Score:5, Insightful)
As with previous examples, it's not that they fear a chilling effect on candid advice, it's that the advice they gave wasn't for the good of the country. They advised the EPA to do what was good for their industries, and that's bad press.
In an interview on the Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/schorr_5-29.html [pbs.org] in 2001, Daniel Schorr was asked what he'd learned about government after years of covering it, and he answered:
If people knew that their malfeasance was going to go public some day, and be exposed to the light, they would be less comfortable tell all the lies they tell in the dark.
Re:It's their job (Score:5, Insightful)
In Michigan we recently had an election where two candidates stood up and talked about how they were going to help the state's economy. One said he would train the workers to do economically sustainable jobs, and the other lied out his ass about how he was going to bring back jobs that our economy can't possibly support when competing with cheap labor from China. The liar won the election.
So yes. Things are seriously amiss. But make sure you point that finger in the right direction.
Parent
Re:Exxon Protection Agency (Score:5, Informative)
Parent