You are herecontent / Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence
Bush Administration Refuses to Comply With FOIA Request on Pre-War Intelligence
By David Swanson
House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff members report that the White House and the Departments of State and Defense have for six months refused to comply with a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act by 52 Congress Members – a request seeking information on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war.
On June 30th of this year, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (Dem., Mich.) and 51 other Congress Members submitted a FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war.
On August 11th, Conyers wrote to the Office of Counsel to the President as follows:
"On June 30, 2005, I and 51 other Members of Congress requested access to 'all agency records, including but not limited to handwritten notes, formal correspondence, electronic mail messages, intelligence reports and other memoranda,' as described in five enumerated paragraphs. A copy of the request letter is enclosed.
"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires your office to respond to a FOIA request within twenty business days from the date of receipt of such a request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The deadline has now elapsed without any response from your office. Because the leaked memoranda from Great Britain raise serious questions over when important war-related decisions were made, time is of the essence.
"I and the other Members of Congress do not wish to resort to litigation because, at this point, a cooperative approach is better suited to resolving the situation. I am available to assist your office in any way possible to facilitate the prompt release of the requested documents. If you need clarification of the request or have any questions, please contact Stacey Dansky of the House Judiciary staff at 202-225-6906."
The State Department phoned the Judiciary Committee Democratic staff on September 2nd asking for a clarification letter, which the Judiciary staff sent on September 19th. This letter limited the original request in some significant ways, as requested by the State Department, including limiting the time period from which certain information was sought, limiting some of the documents requested to those originating from the public affairs department, and eliminating some requests entirely.
On September 27th, the State Department sent back a brief note stating that the request was being processed.
That was three months ago, and the State Department has since told the Judiciary staff, in response to various phone inquiries, only that the request is still being processed.
The White House, meanwhile, has never even acknowledged the FOIA request.
The Department of Defense phoned the Judiciary staff on July 15th asking for a clarification letter, which was sent on July 28th. The July 28th letter clarified various points and limited the request in response to comments from the Department of Defense.
It then took until November 30th for the Department of Defense to send another letter to the House Judiciary Democratic staff. This new letter -- addressed from Will Kramer, Chief, Office of Freedom of Information, Department of Defense, to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. -- said that the request would take a considerable time to process. In fact, it said processing of the request would not even begin until Conyers sent the DOD a statement of willingness to pay applicable fees, which the Department estimated as $110,000, not including reproduction charges.
Conyers has introduced bills to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their refusals to respond to requests for information.
http://www.censurebush.org
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Is anybody(Fitzie?) or entity (House Judiciary Committee ?) seeking information from the PNAC/AEI too??? Anybody?
Google PNAC> "OUT" THE CABAL
http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I do not say that it is a lawless society, mind you, at least not yet. For the most part, its citizenry remains law abiding -- perhaps too much so.
But the nation itself must currently be seen as existing and operating almost entirely outside of any meaningful legal framework as its current rulers (and I used that term advisedly) are neither voluntarily compliant nor subject to any form of effective law enforcement in carrying out their ongoing functions and activities.
Noting the complete distain in the highest offices for what the U.S. constitution designates as the "supreme law" of the land, one can only wonder what remains of national and governemental legitimacy. The answer, apparently, is nothing much at all.
n/t
http://www.johnconyers.com
or support our efforts at After Downing Street here.
The initial delay, I believe can leave no doubt, in the light of what is already known,in what spirit the initial request was recieved.
Can there be any doubt of a strategy of deliberate delay?
Conyers states:
"I and the other Members of Congress do not wish to resort to litigation because, at this point, a cooperative approach is better suited to resolving the situation."
I'll ask the obvious; at what point would litigation become the better suite?
Additionally, I'm disturbed by page three, #5,of the revision, the withdrawl of the request for:
"all records relating to sorties flown over Iraq in which bombs were dropped and to the selection of targets for the dropping of such bombs for the period from January 1,1995, to October 16, 2002"
I recall reading from two unrelated sources that BEFORE the October 10,2002 authorization for military action by congress that the intensity increased and the pattern changed in the bombing,in a manner explainable only as preparatory to a ground invasion.
that could prove crucial in the light of the current White House resident's statements around that time and leading up to the ground invasion.
If my recollection is correct, then this would be critical information; why is it being omitted?
If the time span is so broad as to produce a prohibitively voluminous body of documents, why not shorten the time span to those critical last three months of 2002 and the first three of 2003?
---The Bikemessenger
The initial delay, I believe can leave no doubt, in the light of what is already known,in what spirit the initial request was recieved.
Can there be any doubt of a strategy of deliberate delay?
Conyers states:
"I and the other Members of Congress do not wish to resort to litigation because, at this point, a cooperative approach is better suited to resolving the situation."
I'll ask the obvious; at what point would litigation become the better suite?
Additionally, I'm disturbed by page three, #5,of the revision, the withdrawl of the request for:
"all records relating to sorties flown over Iraq in which bombs were dropped and to the selection of targets for the dropping of such bombs for the period from January 1,1995, to October 16, 2002"
I recall reading from two unrelated sources that BEFORE the October 10,2002 authorization for military action by congress that the intensity increased and the pattern changed in the bombing,in a manner explainable only as preparatory to a ground invasion.
that could prove crucial in the light of the current White House resident's statements around that time and leading up to the ground invasion.
If my recollection is correct, then this would be critical information; why is it being omitted?
If the time span is so broad as to produce a prohibitively voluminous body of documents, why not shorten the time span to those critical last three months of 2002 and the first three of 2003?
---The Bikemessenger
Yes, this is pretty frustrating and is a blatant refusal to provide accountablility to Congress and ultimately, us the voters. However, I also have to say that there is plenty that could be done without these papers.
For example, there are a number of people that ought to be interviewed such as Karen Kwiatkowski. She has done some pretty interesting interviews. Also, members of the PNAC and the original members of the 'Office of Special Plan' such as Douglas Feith ought to be subpoened.
So far I still do sense the outrage that our representatives should feel. There are exceptions like John Conyers. What will it take to get these gentlemen excited enough to stand up and really put the kind of energy in to these that is necessary?
Richard Norton
Yes, it is frustrating. And yes, there are other avenues open to being explored. But that's really not the point. Why should it be necessary to proceed without access to the best evidence available?
The real point is, as I've said below, that you are now living in a country that is, to all intents and purposes, a lawless nation -- one where its ruling class feels free to treat even the "supreme law" of the land as a matter of convenience -- a mere "piece of paper" that may apply to others when they want it to, but certainly never to them.
Their utter disdain for the law in general is evident nationally as well as internationally, and not only with regard to issues of war and peace. For other examples, one need only look to their contemptuous abrogation of their own trade treaties whenever any ruling thereunder (e.g. recent NAFTA rulings on lumber) are deemed inconvenient at any given moment. It's not a narrowly confined issue. What was once a "beacon to the world" is now a raging fire and national disgrace.
Think what it means when any national government can no longer be trusted to adhere to the law -- not even the articles of its own constitution. The implications are enormous, both for that nation's people and for the entire world. Would you, for example, ever again be willing to enter into any kind of agreement or pact with such a nation or government? It wouldn't be worth the paper (or parchment) it was written on.
If this U.S. administration (or any other) is allowed to continue much longer with its contemptuous disregard for the law (any law) with impunity, except when it happens to suit their own purposes, I'd strongly advise you to ensure that your passport and other travel documents are in perfect order. No doubt you'll be wanting to use them very soon.
If you go to www.question911.com and watch the 20 minute video called Secret Evil of 911 you will see George H. W. Bush call for a New World Order. What does that mean? One world government, one control would be my answer so my question to you is where are you going to go? The ones that control America will control there. Have you thought about that?
Actually, based on his actions to date, I'd be inclined to think that Bush's vision of a "New World Order" probably coincides quite closely with that of the AIPAC-PNAC cabal. And, based on the results to date, including the progress of the "mightiest armed forces on earth" against ragged bands of "insurgents", I'm not terribly worried about his becoming the unchallenged King of the World anytime soon.
On the other hand, if that does happen in my lifetime, I guess my ultimate destination would be a stark choice between the grave and a foxhole somewhere -- pretty much the same thing really.
Quick & Catchy> spread it everywhere! :
http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com/2005/10/pnac-video.html
GOOGLE PNAC> "OUT" THE CABAL !
http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pnac4gi.jpg
The achievment of the neo-con dream of world domination does seem remote, but the efforts in that direction are still currently on going.
That's why it's imperative to support any effort at derailment. It seems the deeper the hole, the more furiously they dig and the deeper we all get. That's the real reason I try to be as severe and strident as I can in my criticisms.
The impeachment of Bush might seem to only have iconic value in and of itself,but it would be a fatal tear in the fabric of the fantasy universe the majority have bought into.
Most of that buying in has been done passively by default, i.e.,what's presented on the TV screen is accepted,more or less unquestioningly.
Suppose what is being presented is presidential impeachment hearings. How would the MSM ignore that?
However secondary or incidental the ostensible basis for impeachment may be, it can't help but provide a natural platform for the further exposure of the whole menu of impeachable offenses.
This, I submit is the only viable means,short of violent social cataclysm,to escape the state of lawlessness you so aptly discribe.
In saying this, I'm fully aware that for this process to commence, the cooperation of many who are to varying degrees complicit must be enlisted. But that is achieveable, once they come to see the handwriting on the wall.
Willful participation would then be seen as a matter of cutting losses and surviving politically.
---The Bikemessenger
P.S.-Opt for the foxhole; better to go down fighting!
Serious question here folks. There is no doubt that the whole Bush bunch needs a one way ticket from office to prison. But who do we replace them with? I don't trust Hastert anymore than the rest of these criminals. What the pecking order is beyond him I'm not sure.
It is certainly not our responsibility, but for the sake of argument I think we need to be able to easily explain how just such a scenario would play out.....
John Perry
http://www.johnperryonline.com
All About Accountability:
download shows individually or subscribe to the podcast
But I'm not sure there are any easy answers, especially if one is looking toward some longer-term solution for the real underlying problems.
From my perspective, the system itself appears broken and badly in need of repair. Just replacing one group of politicians with another that uses a different party name but is beholden to many of the same sponsoring interests seems unlikely to accomplish much. Such "first order change" seldom does.
Changing the system itself, on the other hand, won't be easy and I'm not sure that most Americans today have the stomach for it. Unlike their more politically astute and much more activist ancestors, the modern American "peasant" seems perfectly willing and even eager to be persuaded by the Orwellian propaganda of his rulers, not to mention his daily doses of commercial "infotainment" -- so much so that he will vote repeatedly against his own best interests.
I see no second American Revolution on the horizon, but maybe, just maybe, if enough outrage can be generated amongst the populace, the politicians can be forced to take some uncharacteristic measures curtailing some of their own excesses for a change.
Some kind of public funding for the policial (electioneering) processes themselves wouldn't be a bad start. And, without necessarily advocating the parliamentary system, some way must be found to make the head of the administrative branch more directly accountable throughout his tenure. With all due respect to the founders, leaving a head of state, especially one so powerful as the U.S. president, without any such day-to-day accountablity looks now like an open invitation to disaster.
My understanding is that at the time of the revolution, (correct me if I'm wrong)there was a more or less even three way split amoungst the British loyalists, the revolutionaries and the apathic.
I imagine the factors you site("infotainment",etc.) serve to expand the proportion in the apathic ranks.
The system is'nt broken, it's running along nicely and smoothly---for those in power.But:
"Just replacing one group of politicians with another that uses a different party name but is beholden to many of the same sponsoring interests seems unlikely to accomplish much."
You got that right!
On the other hand,"Some kind of public funding for the policial (electioneering) processes themselves wouldn't be a bad start."
That's no start at all. Think about it; "public" funding would have to be managed by someone and if it's public in the common, conventional sense I take you to mean it, then the decision would be made by operants of a bureaucracy, even if you think you're ok with that, you've got to admit, it's hardly a fundamental change.
As I recall, this country was supposed to be some sort of "noble experiment".Well,in an experiment, if the findings are at variance with the initial working hypothesis, you change the hypothesis,like this:
" some way must be found to make the head of the administrative branch more directly accountable throughout his tenure"
Not this:
"Some kind of public funding for the policial (electioneering) processes themselves wouldn't be a bad start."
Let's hope there are no easy answers. If there are, boy are we going to feel dumb for not applying them!
But seriously, it's great to find someone willing to ask really fundamental questions.
Here's what I suggest, not so much in the vain of a concrete solution, but as a working hypothesis, so to speak, for a process of reevaluation:
In observing other living species that engage in social behavior, you observe a consistency and harmony between the species nature, and the abstract social structure within which they function.
If we first concentrate on developing a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the species,(YES, throw out everything that's been done along those lines until now; WHY? because for the most part, it's biased towards a particular social structure).
Lets build from scratch!
Does that give you an itch?
---The Bikemessenger
It's interesting that so many people still desire to believe that a beuracracy that used misinformation to begin a war in Vietnam (remember... the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed based upon an incident that didn't occur), the 1st Gulf War was passed by congress who listened to accounts given by two women from Kuwait who witnessed abuse by Iraqi soldiers toward children (those women were later found to have not even been in Kuwait at the time), and now misinformation concerning WMDs.
The past three wars we have enterred into have been based upon misinformation, and yet we still have people who continue to believe the establishment.
It doesn't even matter why we were misinformed... deceit, lack of accountability... whatever. It still boils down to the fact that we can not trust the information coming from our leadership. Yet we continue to allow that same group more and more funding and power.
Focus our fire on the person currently obstructing progress. In 2000, it was Katherine Harris, in 2004 it was Kenneth Blackwell, now it's this guy who's delaying the response to the FOIA request. These people need be investigated relentlessly, held to the letter of the law, litigated and punished severely. Keep lists of traitors and prioritize our retribution resources.
She's running for Senate in 2006 :
http://www.electharris.org/
But Bushies have jilted Harris:
http://www.slate.com/id/2121746/
GOOGLE PNAC> "OUT" THE CABAL !
http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pnac4gi.jpg
well As compliced as all of the Officials In this administration are of war crimes and treason against The american peoples and the Constitution of there Law, {IE our Law}, Its would mean The Removal of BUSH, Cheney, And The House Speaker Scott Mc somethings, Inccluding others throught A Impeachment process,The Predicessor of the Presidentail office would be the house Leader which would mean In hopefull 2006 we could Have our first woman President , Barbera Boxer,, remember Impeachment is Not a four letter word and is a processs we use for elected official to Allow them to clearify possible Misconduce, it was intended to be used Liberally and In large dosses, It was given a light hearted Name To not warry off Party loyalist from accountability, we somehow throught its possible Outcome have Demonized it's Definition, in All likellyness because the Fear of the unknow outcome scares use and The Lack of Faith in The Judicial process's we conceive to our Land as the rule law we guide our Principals By, Thanks for the Forum
I have worked on a blog site for my boss, the Dean of a law school - a guy who hates computers and writes all of his correspondence by hand. Regardless of his dinosaurian work process, his ethic, I stongly hope, cannot go the way of those 'monstorous lizards' - we need to have these ethics. And we need to not silence these questions; we deserve answers and resolution.
http://VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com
SOLDIERS DESERVE REPARATIONS
Many Christian nations have joined the coalition to fight the war in Iraq. Not a single Moslem nation has sent its troops to fight there.
Presently, over 2,100 American troops have perished and over 15,000 have been injured. Our government pays for care of the injured and compensation to the families of the deceased; and the cost is borne by American taxpayers. Many Moslem countries are blessed to have vast oil reserves. Why shouldn’t the other Moslem countries be compelled to pay reparations for the dead and injured Americans caused at the hands of their co-religionists? Can anyone logically believe that President Bush, a professing Christian, should be considered liable for the American casualties? Once reparation payments are commenced, President Bush can declare victory and then order our troops to leave Iraq.
Most Moslems claim that their religion is one of peace. Then, let them join with us in asking, “How many deaths will it take ‘til we know that too many people have died
STAR OF WONDER!
Is there hope for the future? The horrible events on our planet deepen our awareness of evil. We have a wonderful planet. But hate, fear, greed, lust and war continue in many parts of the world to make life on our planet a dismal night of despair.
However, at Christmas attention for the Star of Bethlehem brings warm feelings of cheer. On the days just before Christmas, wherever you go, you find people more friendly and cheerful. Many radio and TV programs feature beautiful Christmas Carols.
The record of history clearly shows that the power of compassion, justice and freedom in the last 2000 years was most inspired by the amazing story of Jesus -- who he was and what he said and did.
While other religions and beliefs have also fostered the ways of peace, I have found in Jesus my guiding star. In my case, the words and deeds of Jesus inspired the idea of Earth Day and its Earth Trustee ideas that foster peace, justice and the care of Earth. This can provide a better future for the human family.
Differences and difficulties abound. But the blacker the night, the brighter the star. Its darkest before dawn and day will soon come.
Star of wonder, star of light,
Star with royal beauty bright,
Westward leading, still proceeding,
Guide us to thy perfect light.
STAR OF HOPE
Following is what I wrote right after the launch on October 4, 1957 of Sputnik -- the first satellite in Space. This was the editorial in my weekly newspaper, The Toe Valley View -- published in Bakersville, N. C. (The editorial was edited by our wonderful Editor, Louise Toness.)
Sputnik was the name of the Russian satellite that began the Space Program.
My editorial was picked up by the wire services and obtained global attention:
THE TOE VALLEY VIEW
Bakersville, North Carolina
October 31, 1957
Make Our Satellite A Symbol Of Hope!
Usually in these editorial columns we stick pretty closely to local matters. But some issues arising outside our own locality become so universal in importance that they are "local" for everyone in the world. Of course we are referring now to earth satellites and man’s venture into the conquest of Space.
What was science fiction only yesterday has become visible – audible – fact today. "After a lifetime of some 250,000 years on earth ...man has conquered earth gravity and stands poised on the era of universal exploration." writes Norman Cousins in a penetrating editorial in "The Saturday Review" for Oct. 19, called "Sense and Satellites."
But, he points out, the event brings "no universal feeling of release or jubilation," overcast as it is by the chill of a cold war and the threat of extinction by intercontinental missiles utilizing the same principles used in launching the satellite. The answer, Cousins says, is "not to conjure up more effective ways of destroying the world." (How trivial is the whole argument of who or what is to blame for the Russians’ getting ahead of us in the armed missiles race – when we consider that the race itself can lead only to destruction!)
"The principal need," insists the Saturday Review editor, "is to tap our intelligence and moral imagination to the fullest in creating a working design for a better tomorrow in which all the world’s people can share. …A great idea looking towards the development of a world community will circle the globe more rapidly than the fastest satellite. It will give us access to the majority of the world’s peoples – on whom security really depends. It will also help to make life bearable on this planet before we take off for other ones."
Now is the moment when "Peace On Earth" might have its best opportunity for realization. When men work together for some great goal they share, the forces that make for peace and understanding have the best chance to operate. And a greater goal could scarcely be dreamed of than the exploration of the Universe, in man’s eternal search to find and understand his place in the Universe.
What will be the effect upon the world when our own satellite is launched? Will it turn the world toward peace and unity, or away? We need some symbol of peace, to give the world a promise that conquest of space will be for good and not for evil. To create such a symbol would require no new discoveries. The means are already at hand to make the appearance of our satellite as startling an event as the appearance of Sputnik, but startling in a different way. Could not the small satellite to be launched in December according to present plans appear as a brightly shining Star of Hope?
The mechanics of the thing should not be too difficult. The body of the satellite could be covered with some highly reflective material such as aluminum foil. More difficult would be the task of convincing the peoples of the earth that this was not just a propaganda device. Indeed, we would need to make sure ourselves, as a nation, that it was not!
The symbol would need to be accompanied by sincere words and convincing deeds in the direction of peace and world cooperation.
It is true that certain segments of humanity do not believe in the Event symbolized by the star of Christmas. But there is no religion or no nation on earth (considering people, not governments) that does not respond with hope and longing to the angel’s song of Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men.
******************************************************************** ************
The above 1957 editorial was indpired by the Star of Bethlehem. I urge Space Program People to announce that they will launch a Star of Hope Satellite on October 4, 2007. This will be the 50th Anniversary of Sputnik. Given suitable attention, the story would unite the peacemakers of our planet and aid their efforts. It would get attention and wake up the mighty rulers of the United States and other countries. It would help them see and support nonviolent solutions.
We will have global peace when we devote our money and amazing technology to spread the proven power of faith and love demonstrated by Jesus.
Let's pray for a mighty spiritual awakening - and then put feet to our prayers. This will result in our wealth and actions fostering peaceful progress on our amazing planet.
October 4 is St. Francis Day
Prayer of St. Francis
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love,
Where there is injury, pardon,
Where there is despair, hope,
Where there is darkness, light,
Where there is sadness, joy.
O divine master, grant that I may not
So much seek to be consoled, as to console,
To be understood, as to understand,
To be loved, as to love,
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is dying that we are born to eternal life.
*****************************************************
Let there be peace on Earth. and let it begin with all of us.
May the spirit of peace found in Christmas bless you and your loved ones.
John and Anna McConnell
4924 E. Kentucky Circle
Denver, CO 80246 www.earthsite.org
303/758-7687