The White House finally agreed to allow lawmakers (not the public) to see the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel memo authorizing the use of drone strikes on civilians, the New York Times reports, but as a Sunlight analysis has shown, the administration is still withholding 37% of these crucially important legal opinions from public view (that were issued from inauguration in 2009 until March 2012). The administration is even holding on to much older opinions. 39% of OLC opinions issued between 1998 and 2012 are still being withheld from online publication, accounting for 201 of the 509 opinions issued during that time, our August 2012 analysis found. This three minute Advisory Committee on Transparency video, featuring CREW's Jeremy Miller, explains the importance of the OLC opinions. Secret law and good governance do not mix. While we recognize that there occasionally may be reasons that countenance against their full release, we recommend the following:
- The Office of Legal Counsel should refresh its website to indicate how many memos are issued each year. It should adopt the default of releasing all memos, not just the ones it deems “significant” (as such a distinction invites abuse and mistrust), and should do so prospectively and retrospectively.
- Where OLC cannot release an opinion in its entirety, it should release versions that are redacted as lightly as possible.
- At a minimum, the titles of opinions should be released, and if even that raises insurmountable issues, descriptions of memos should be available in their stead.
- Finally, the administration should consider bringing in a trusted reviewer from outside the executive branch who can credibly (and publicly) make recommendations about the release of additional opinions.
by Daniel Schuman and Adeeb Sahar The Department of Justice is withholding from online publication 39% (or 201) of its... View ArticleContinue reading
Really, what is there to say? After a six-years the Department of Justice dropped their investigation into former House Majority... View ArticleContinue reading
This year has seen more attention than ever given to transparency – most focused on the White House and federal... View ArticleContinue reading
More often than not, scandals in Washington run their course: apologies, resignations, jail time, followed by book deals and CNN interviews. But not the Jack Abramoff scandal. The Associated Press gives word that the former deputy chief of staff of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Robert Coughlin, is being charged for accepting gifts from Abramoff and his law firm as they tried to woo him to join their team.
In court papers filed Monday in federal court in Washington, prosecutors accused Coughlin of providing assistance to a lobbyist and the lobbyist's firm while receiving gifts from the firm and discussing prospective employment there. The lobbyist isn't named but The Associated Press has previously reported that Coughlin was lobbied during the period in question by Kevin Ring, a member of Abramoff's lobbying team who also is under investigation.
When President Bush signed the Open Government Act of 2007 on New Years Eve, the first reform of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a decade, one might have been tempted to believe the administration was reevaluating its embrace of hyper secrecy and warming to more openness and transparency. No such luck.
Over the weekend, Think Progress reported how the administration is now attempting to "neuter" the new law, which Congress wrote to open up government to more accountability. The law sets up the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), designed as an ombudsman to provide independent oversight and settle disputes over FOIA requests. The law authorized funds to address backlogs in the requests and resolve the requests in a timely manner.Continue reading