Notes from afar
May 9th, 2007 by JamieB
We are focused on changing the law in Pennsylvania. But this issue is making waves across the country and around the world. Why? Because it is so important. Read on . . .
On the national scene:
The U. S. House of Representatives passed HR 1309, a bill “to promote openness in government,” in March. The act, officially the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007, seeks to increase public access to government information in a number of ways that dovetail with what we are trying to do in Pennsylvania. Among its provisions are:
• Restore the Presumption of Disclosure to the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA
The bill would reaffirm the presumption that records should be released to the public if disclosure is allowable under law and the agency cannot reasonably foresee a harm from such a disclosure.
• Help Requesters Get Timely Responses
• Improve Transparency in Agency Compliance with FOIA
• Provide an Alternative to Litigation
H.R. 1309 creates a new ombudsman to help requesters resolve problems without having to resort to litigation.
• Provide Accountability for FOIA Decisions
In an earlier posting, we cited AP President Tom Curley’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of extending the Freedom of Information Act.
Some of Curley’s words bear repeating: “The presumption that any plausible reason for locking the files is a good enough reason is doing immeasurable harm.
“When government has trained itself to believe that the risks from openness are substantial, while the risks from keeping secrets are negligible, you begin to get the kind of government nobody wants – a government that believes its job is to do all the thinking for us.”
California’s liberal Democrat Henry Waxman is a sponsor of the House bill, while Texas’s conservative Republican John Cornyn sponsored the Senate bill, proving once again that this issue has broad appeal.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously for the bill.
The bill easily passed the full House 308-117. Of Pennsylvania’s 19 Congressmen, 16 voted “yea.” One, Paul Kanjorski (D-11) did not vote. Only two – Joseph Pitts (R-16) and William Shuster (R-9) – voted “nay.”
On the international scene:
The New York Times reported that the International Court of Justice, which declared Serbia not guilty of genocide during the Bosnian war, had not seen Serbia’s full military archives. It now seems clear that Serbia’s objective in keeping its records secret was to prevent Bosnia from using them in its genocide lawsuit.
Times reporter Marlise Simons wrote:
Lawyers in both The Hague and Belgrade said that the [judicial] outcome might well have been different had justices pressed for access to the full archives, and legal scholars and human rights groups said it was deeply troubling that the judges did not subpoena documents directly from Serbia.
Citing national security, [Serbian] lawyers blacked out many sensitive – those who have seen them say incriminating – pages.
“It’s a question that nags loudly,” Diane Orentlicher, a law professor at American University in Washington, said recently in The Hague. “Why didn’t the court request the full documents? The fact that they were blacked out clearly implies these passages would have made a difference.”
Natasha Kandic, director of the Humanitarian Law Center in Belgrade, said she was shocked at the court’s inaction, in part because it blocked the Serbian public from understanding the reality of the war.
After the verdict, she said, she met with a leading member of the Serbian team. “He was very pleased,” Ms. Kandic said, “but I confronted him. I said, you did not tell the truth.” The man, a scholar she said she could not name, replied: “It’s normal, every country will do everything possible to protect the state. Bosnia wanted a lot of money for damages.”
Ms. Kandic added: “I said that one day the truth will come out. And my friend said: But that’s the future. Now it’s important to protect the state.”
OK, that’s it from The Hague and Washington. Now send us your stories from Pennsylvania.