DOCSLIB.ORG

I UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

i UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN U.S. GOVERNMENTAL SECRECY AND DEMOCRACY: CLASSIFICATION, CULTURES OF SECRECY, AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfi llment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Harry Thomas Hall, Jr. Norman, OK 2005 UMI Number: 3164564 UMI Microform 3164564 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ii EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN U.S. GOVERNMENTAL SECRECY AND DEMOCRACY: CLASSIFICATION, CULTURES OF SECRECY, AND THE PUBL IC SPHERE A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION BY ________________________ Dr. Eric Kramer ________________________ Dr. Loretta Bass ________________________ Dr. Dan O’Ha ir ________________________ Dr. Sandy Ragan ________________________ Dr. Todd Sandel iii © Copyright by Harry Thomas Hall, Jr. 2005 All Rights Reserved iv Acknowledgements Many f riends, instructors, and family members contributed to the successful completion of this dissertation. Friends like Tim Doty and Bill Pierro, professors like Larry Wieder, and administrators like Kristi Wright all have my utmost gratitude for their assista nce in the entire process of achieving my Ph.D. In addition to these wonderful people, there are a handful of individuals whose assistance merits special recognition. Throughout the duration of my graduate work, Dr. Sandy Ragan was the best instructor, ad visor, and friend that a student could ever hope to have. Her kindness and accessibility established the bar with which to measure my own success as a professor. In addition to assisting me with my first scholarly publication, Dr. Dan O’Hair deserves gre at thanks for all of his other efforts on my behalf. From the Graduate School Fellowship to the Department of Defense Academic Advisor position, Dr. O’Hair’s assistance is appreciated and was essential to my success. I am also thankful for the opportunity to learn from Dr. Todd Sandel and Dr. Loretta Bass. Both are wonderful and inspiring instructors and committee members. Finally, there is Dr. Eric Kramer —my guru. Though I am in debt to all instructors mentioned here, my debt to him is the greatest. Whet her it was a three hour class period, a brief office visit, or an email, I always felt as if I came away from the interaction a more inspired and more intelligent person. He gave me the freedom to pursue the dissertation topic of my choice and the guidance to create a finished product in which I could be proud. Thank you. There are a few characteristics that all of the previously mentioned professors share. Firstly, even though I was always aware that I was the student and they were the v instructors, they all treated me as an equal and as someone whose contribution was important and appreciated. Secondly, regardless of how busy they were, every member of my committee made themselves available to me. Thirdly, and most importantly, all inspired me to think mo re critically, read more deeply, and to never be satisfied with a lackluster effort —from either myself or my students. This combination of respect, generosity, inspiration, and availability made my experience at the University of Oklahoma an extremely posi tive one. Fortunately for me, I have the most wonderful wife and children that any husband and father could ever hope for. McCulloch, my daughter, is the perfect combination of brain -power, charm, and beauty. Harrison, my son, is energetic, compassionate, and fun- loving. I do not know what they will be when they grow up, but I know that they have all of the personality and intelligence to accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish. Of course, without my wife, this dissertation would not be readable —in fact, without Romney, I’m not even sure that I could have written this. You are the best proofreader in the world. Before Romney, the sentences looked like—“Secrecy bad. Democracy good. Democracy hate secrecy.” I think we can all agree that the finished product reads a little better. Thank you so much for your unconditional love and support —you are one of a kind, and I am a better person because of you. Finally, I would like to thank my mother and father, Harry T. and Eva Jo Hall, as the original sources of inspiration in my life. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . 44 3. GOVERNMENT SECR ECY, THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY . .108 4. BUREAUCRACY, SECRECY, AND CULTURES OF SECRECY . 141 5. GOVERNMENT SECRECY AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE . .181 6. SECRECY AND CIVIL RIGHTS . .232 7. CONCLUSION . 270 REFERENCES CITED . .295 APPENDIXES A. CLASSIFICATION STATISTICS . .314 B. INTERVIEW SCRIPTS AND PHONE SCRIPTS . .317 vii Abstract For the past 60 years government secrecy in the form of officially classified documents has increased dramatically. According to the Information Security Oversight Office there were slightly fewer than 16 million classification decisions in 2004 alone. In what way does classification impact representative democracy as it is practiced in the United States? This dissertation employed hermeneutic analysis to investigate the phenomenon of government secrecy and its effects on democracy. Through the analysis of executive orders, legislation, and official documents, the nature and scope of government secrecy was explored. The internal effects of secrecy on the information flow between governmental agencies were investigated, as well as the exter nal effects of secrecy between the government and its constituents. Findings suggest that overclassification not only negatively impacts the internal communication networks of the government, but also, negatively impacts the public sphere, as citizens are denied access to information vital to informed decision making. The effect of secrecy on civil liberties is also examined. What emerges from this comprehensive hermeneutic analysis is a simple pattern consisting of a threat, followed by increased secrecy and legislation, which finally results in the infringement on individual and group civil liberty. Historically, this pattern frequently repeats itself. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction For the past eighty years, U.S. government secrecy has proliferated at an alarmin g rate. In 2003, the Information Security Oversight Office 1 documented just over fourteen million original and derivative classification decisions for that year (ISOO, 2003)—the number of existing classified documents is invariably much larger. In 1997, th e Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, alarmed by the 5.7 million classified documents in 1996, concluded its three and a half year study by announcing that the governmental secrecy system had reached the point where it was threatening to undermine the democratic system of the United States. The severity of this issue cannot be found in the simple recitation of ever inflating numbers; however, the breadth of this issue is fully realized by a closer examination of events, such as Septemb er 11, 2001, where the veracity of warnings by previous secrecy committees and researchers decrying the threat of overclassification to national security was tragically realized. According to the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, th e effects of government secrecy are numerous, and all have serious implications for democracy. Lack of government accountability, a cornerstone of a representative democracy, combined with increasing infringement on the civil liberties of the populace, are just two of the more critical symptoms of governmental secrecy. These products of the secrecy system, along with decreased national security, do, in fact, provide clear and present dangers to democracy. 1 The Information Security Oversight Office was es tablished by Executive Order 12958. The ISOO is a component of NARA —the National Archives and Records Administration. The mission of the ISOO is to oversee security classification programs and report the activities of those programs to the President of the United States of America. 2 The impetus of this dissertation is the fundamenta l need for the citizens of a democracy to have access to information. What happens to a representative democracy when the classification system and the ensuing culture 2 of secrecy systematically control the flow of information? Using concrete examples of bureaucratic secrecy and concrete examples of how secrecy threatens security, accountability, and civil liberties, this dissertation seeks to define and understand the impact of governmental secrecy on a political system predicated on transparency and the free flow of information among all participants. Government secrecy is not a new topic. Others have discussed aspects of the issue—focusing on specific components, such as the intelligence community (Odom, 2003; Powers, 2002; Shulsky & Schmitt, 2002; Steel e, 2001; Berkowitz & Goodman, 2000, 1989) or the dangers of secrecy for democracy (Rozell, 2002; Theoharis, 1998; Moynihan, 1997; Katz, 1987; Hoffman, 1981; Orman, 1980; Cox, 1975; Rourke, 1961). This dissertation seeks to reify certain elements of previous research, investigate secrecy through a communicative lens, and expand the discussion to clearly identify and describe cultures of secrecy, while examining the broader effects of government secrecy on democracy. Additionally, a recommendation will be mad e for the creation of a statutory basis for the classification system, as well as the formation of a coalition of concerned citizens to work with the government to assist in the declassification of information. According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Unit ed States Constitution, “each house shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting 2 The word culture in the singular is used here to refer to all government individuals and groups with the authority to classify or access classified information.
Recommended publications
  • Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, and the Perils of Leaking William E

    Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, and the Perils of Leaking William E

    American University Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 5 Article 8 2008 Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, and the Perils of Leaking William E. Lee Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Lee, William E. “Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, and the Perils of Leaking.” American University Law Review 57, no.5 (June 2008): 1453-1529. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, and the Perils of Leaking Keywords Journalists, Press, Leakers, Leak Investigations, Duty of Nondisclosure, Duty of Confidentiality, Prosecutions, Classified information, First Amendment, Espionage Act This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol57/iss5/8 DEEP BACKGROUND: JOURNALISTS, SOURCES, AND THE PERILS OF LEAKING ∗ WILLIAM E. LEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................1454 I. Leaking, Leak Investigations, and the Duty of Nondisclosure..........................................................................1462
  • Buzzfeed FOIA Release of Mueller Report FBI 302 Reports

    Buzzfeed FOIA Release of Mueller Report FBI 302 Reports

    86'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH )HGHUDO%XUHDXRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQ Washington, D.C. 20535 )HEUXDU\ 05-$621/(232/' %8==)(('1(:6 7+)/225 &211(&7,&87$9(18(1: :$6+,1*721'& )2,3$5HTXHVW1R &LYLO$FWLRQ1RFY 6XEMHFW$OO¶VRILQGLYLGXDOVZKRZHUH TXHVWLRQHGLQWHUYLHZHGE\)%,$JHQWVZRUNLQJIRUWKH 2IILFHRI6SHFLDO&RXQVHO5REHUW0XHOOHU 'HDU0U/HRSROG 7KH HQFORVHG GRFXPHQWV ZHUH UHYLHZHG XQGHU WKH )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ3ULYDF\$FWV )2,3$ 7LWOH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &RGH 6HFWLRQ D %HORZ \RX ZLOO ILQG FKHFNHG ER[HV XQGHU DSSOLFDEOH VWDWXWHV IRU WKH H[HPSWLRQVDVVHUWHGWRSURWHFWLQIRUPDWLRQH[HPSWIURPGLVFORVXUH 7KHDSSURSULDWHH[HPSWLRQVDUHQRWHGRQWKH SURFHVVHGSDJHVQH[WWRUHGDFWHGLQIRUPDWLRQ ,QDGGLWLRQDGHOHWHGSDJHLQIRUPDWLRQVKHHWZDVLQVHUWHGWRLQGLFDWH ZKHUHSDJHVZHUHZLWKKHOGHQWLUHO\SXUVXDQWWRDSSOLFDEOHH[HPSWLRQV $Q([SODQDWLRQRI([HPSWLRQVLVHQFORVHGWR IXUWKHUH[SODLQMXVWLILFDWLRQIRUZLWKKHOGLQIRUPDWLRQ 6HFWLRQ 6HFWLRQD E E $ G E E % M E E & N E ' N )HGHUDO5XOHVRI E ( N &ULPLQDO3URFHGXUH H E ) N 86& L E E N E E N E N SDJHVZHUHUHYLHZHGDQGSDJHVDUHEHLQJUHOHDVHG 'HOHWLRQVZHUHPDGHE\WKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH2IILFHRI,QIRUPDWLRQ3ROLF\7RDSSHDOWKRVH GHQLDOVSOHDVHZULWHGLUHFWO\WRWKDWDJHQF\ 'HOHWLRQVZHUHPDGHE\WKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH([HFXWLYH2IILFHIRU8QLWHG6WDWHV$WWRUQH\V7R DSSHDOWKRVHGHQLDOVSOHDVHZULWHGLUHFWO\WRWKDWDJHQF\ 3OHDVHVHHWKHSDUDJUDSKVEHORZIRUUHOHYDQWLQIRUPDWLRQVSHFLILFWR\RXUUHTXHVWDQGWKHHQFORVHG)%, )2,3$$GGHQGXPIRUVWDQGDUGUHVSRQVHVDSSOLFDEOHWRDOOUHTXHVWV 'RFXPHQW V ZHUHORFDWHGZKLFKRULJLQDWHGZLWKRUFRQWDLQHGLQIRUPDWLRQFRQFHUQLQJRWKHU *RYHUQPHQW$JHQF\
  • Supreme Court Spinners

    Supreme Court Spinners

    Lobbying&Law Supreme Court Spinners By Bara Vaida hen Mark Corallo opened that includes Apple Computer, Intel, Mi- I What’s Washington’s latest his copy of The New York crosoft, Micron Technology, and Oracle, PR trend? It’s pitching reporters Times on March 28, the supported eBay’s position challenging street-smart Republican spin the appeals court’s ruling. on Supreme Court cases. Wdoctor did a little touchdown dance. Corallo says his communications firm, The paper had published an editorial Corallo Media Strategies, was hired to ex- I Experts say that strong media supporting the legal position of several plain eBay’s position and garner media of Corallo’s clients in a high-tech patent attention because “the justices read the coverage can influence the case before the Supreme Court. newspapers.” Former Justice Sandra Day justices and their clerks. The editorial appeared the day before O’Connor was the best example of that, the case was to be argued, and it came af- he says, noting that during oral arguments ter weeks of work by a team of lawyers and she would ask the dueling lawyers, I Some practitioners shy away consultants that included the 40-year-old “‘Where are the people?’ on issues of law.” Corallo, a former Justice Department Corallo’s confidence that the nine jus- from talking about their work. spokesman. The many phone calls to re- tices and their clerks pay attention to porters and newspaper editorial boards what the media say about cases chal- explaining the case—in which a small Vir- lenges conventional wisdom.
  • Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England—Volume 1

    Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department Misconduct in New England—Volume 1

    INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISCONDUCT IN NEW ENGLAND—VOLUME 1 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS MAY 3; DECEMBER 13, 2001; AND FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Serial No. 107–56 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:07 May 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\78051.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:07 May 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\78051.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISCONDUCT IN NEW ENGLAND—VOLUME 1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:07 May 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\DOCS\78051.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:07 May 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\DOCS\78051.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1 INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISCONDUCT IN NEW ENGLAND—VOLUME 1 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS MAY 3; DECEMBER 13, 2001; AND FEBRUARY 6, 2002 Serial No. 107–56 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 78–051 PDF WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
  • A Very Stable Genius at That!” Trump Invoked the “Stable Genius” Phrase at Least Four Additional Times

    A Very Stable Genius at That!” Trump Invoked the “Stable Genius” Phrase at Least Four Additional Times

    PENGUIN PRESS An imprint of Penguin Random House LLC penguinrandomhouse.com Copyright © 2020 by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig Penguin supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book and for complying with copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing Penguin to continue to publish books for every reader. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019952799 ISBN 9781984877499 (hardcover) ISBN 9781984877505 (ebook) Cover design by Darren Haggar Cover photograph: Pool / Getty Images btb_ppg_c0_r2 To John, Elise, and Molly—you are my everything. To Naomi and Clara Rucker CONTENTS Title Page Copyright Dedication Authors’ Note Prologue PART ONE One. BUILDING BLOCKS Two. PARANOIA AND PANDEMONIUM Three. THE ROAD TO OBSTRUCTION Four. A FATEFUL FIRING Five. THE G-MAN COMETH PART TWO Six. SUITING UP FOR BATTLE Seven. IMPEDING JUSTICE Eight. A COVER-UP Nine. SHOCKING THE CONSCIENCE Ten. UNHINGED Eleven. WINGING IT PART THREE Twelve. SPYGATE Thirteen. BREAKDOWN Fourteen. ONE-MAN FIRING SQUAD Fifteen. CONGRATULATING PUTIN Sixteen. A CHILLING RAID PART FOUR Seventeen. HAND GRENADE DIPLOMACY Eighteen. THE RESISTANCE WITHIN Nineteen. SCARE-A-THON Twenty. AN ORNERY DIPLOMAT Twenty-one. GUT OVER BRAINS PART FIVE Twenty-two. AXIS OF ENABLERS Twenty-three. LOYALTY AND TRUTH Twenty-four. THE REPORT Twenty-five. THE SHOW GOES ON EPILOGUE Acknowledgments Notes Index About the Authors AUTHORS’ NOTE eporting on Donald Trump’s presidency has been a dizzying R journey. Stories fly by every hour, every day.
  • Evidentiary Privileges Can Do Little to Block Trump-Related Investigations

    Evidentiary Privileges Can Do Little to Block Trump-Related Investigations

    Evidentiary Privileges Can Do Little to Block Trump-Related Investigations Norman L. Eisen and Andrew M. Wright1 June 29, 2018 1 Norman L Eisen is a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and served as President Barack Obama's “ethics czar” and as U.S Ambassador to the Czech Republic. He is also the co-founder and Chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Andrew M. Wright is Associate Professor, Savannah Law School. He previously served as Former Associate Counsel to President Barack Obama, Assistant Counsel to Vice President Al Gore, and Staff Director/Counsel to the Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This report was prepared for the Presidential Investigation Education Project, a joint initiative by ACS and CREW to promote informed public evaluation of the investigations by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and others into Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. This effort includes developing and disseminating legal analysis of key issues that emerge as the inquiries unfold and connecting members of the media and public with ACS and CREW experts and other legal scholars who are writing on these matters. The authors would like to thank Kristin Amerling, Conor Shaw, Maya Gold, and Eden Tadesse for their contributions to this report. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3 II. Executive Privilege: A Contested Doctrine..................................................................... 5 A. Executive Privilege Issues in the Russia Investigations to Date ..............................5 B. The Process: Executive Privilege Requires a Presidential Act ................................7 III. Executive Privilege Components ..................................................................................... 9 A. Presidential Communications ..................................................................................9 B.
  • Expedited Treatment Requested

    Expedited Treatment Requested

    VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS EXPEDITED TREATMENT REQUESTED September 18, 2017 Hon. Beryl Howell Chief Judge U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Hon. Rebecca Beach Smith Chief Judge U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 600 Granby Street Norfolk, VA, 23510 RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER AND STAFF AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED INVESTIGATION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING INTO GROSS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS Dear Chief Judge Howell and Chief Judge Smith: Freedom Watch and I are forwarding this letter with attachments in the public’s interest.1 The undersigned General Counsel of Freedom Watch submits this as a former prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the founder and former chairman of Judicial Watch, as well as the founder, chairman, and general counsel of 1 The undersigned counsel made efforts to obtain docket information from the clerks of the respective courts, but was unable to obtain this information. The undersigned counsel was informed by the clerks that this information is secret, which is ironic and telling, given the fact that little to anything else related the substance of the grand jury proceedings are being kept secret by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his staff. Ethics Investigation Request: Robert Mueller Page | 3 Washington, DC 20530 Hon. Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, #4706 Washington, DC 20530 Hon. Jeff Sessions Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC, 20530 Hon.
  • Anthrax in America: a Chronology and Analysis of the Fall 2001 Attacks

    Anthrax in America: a Chronology and Analysis of the Fall 2001 Attacks

    Working Paper Anthrax In America: A Chronology and Analysis of the Fall 2001 Attacks November 2002 Center for Counterproliferation National Defense University Research Washington, DC The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the Center for Counterproliferation Research, and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. This publication is cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without further permission, with credit to the Center for Counterproliferation Research, National Defense University. For additional information, please contact the Center directly or visit the Center’s website at http://www.ndu.edu/centercounter/index.htm ii Anthrax in America Executive Summary Introduction On September 11, 2001, terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terror network hijacked four airliners. Two of the planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. A fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania en route to its suspected target, the U.S. Capitol building. The attacks and their dramatic demonstration of American vulnerability created an atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty. Further attacks were anticipated, although there was a great deal of uncertainty as to when those attacks might occur and what form they might take. Against this backdrop, on 4 October 2001, health officials in Florida announced that Robert Stevens, a tabloid photo editor at American Media, Inc. (AMI), had been diagnosed with pulmonary anthrax – the first such case in the United States in almost twenty-five years.

  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA ___Steven J. HATFILL, MD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V

    Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 229-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________ Steven J. HATFILL, M.D., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 1:03-CV-01793 (RBW) ) Attorney General Michael MUKASEY, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT April 11, 2007 HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS, LLP Thomas G. Connolly, D.C. Bar # 420416 Mark A. Grannis, D.C. Bar # 429268 Patrick O’Donnell, D.C. Bar # 459360 1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 730-1300 Facsimile: (202) 730-1301 Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 229-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 2 of 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .................................................................................... 6 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. 6 I. THE AGENCY DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE SAFEGUARDING, INSTRUCTION, AND ACCOUNTING PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVACY ACT....................................................................... 6 A. The Investigative Disclosures in this Case Reflect "Records" Contained Within a "System of Records" ......................... 8 B. The Agency Defendants Failed to Safeguard Investigative Records About Dr. Hatfill
  • Presidential Obstruction of Justice: the Case of Donald J. Trump

    Presidential Obstruction of Justice: the Case of Donald J. Trump

    PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: THE CASE OF DONALD J. TRUMP 2ND EDITION AUGUST 22, 2018 BARRY H. BERKE, NOAH BOOKBINDER, AND NORMAN L. EISEN* * Barry H. Berke is co-chair of the litigation department at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Kramer Levin) and a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He has represented public officials, professionals and other clients in matters involving all aspects of white-collar crime, including obstruction of justice. Noah Bookbinder is the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Previously, Noah has served as Chief Counsel for Criminal Justice for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and as a corruption prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section. Ambassador (ret.) Norman L. Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and before that, defended obstruction and other criminal cases for almost two decades in a D.C. law firm specializing in white-collar matters. He is the chair and co-founder of CREW. We are grateful to Sam Koch, Conor Shaw, Michelle Ben-David, Gabe Lezra, and Shaked Sivan for their invaluable assistance in preparing this report. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology In

    Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology In

    ENACTING A REASONABLE FEDERAL SHIELD LAW: A REPLY TO PROFESSORS CLYMER AND ELIASON ∗ JAMES THOMAS TUCKER ∗∗ STEPHEN WERMIEL “[W]ithout some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” Justice Byron White1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.......................................................................................1292 I. Promoting an Informed Electorate Through a Free Press ...1294 II. The Need for a Federal Shield Law: Branzburg and Its Aftermath.................................................................................1297 A. The Branzburg Decision ....................................................1298 B. State Responses to Branzburg and Nixon’s Abuse of Power.................................................................................1301 C. The Hodge-Podge of Federal Responses to Branzburg ...1303 1. Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not recognize a common law shield ..................................................1303 2. Department of Justice regulations are inadequate ...1304 3. Federal courts are divided over the journalist shield’s scope ..............................................................1307 ∗ First Amendment Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington Legislative Office; S.J.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2001; LL.M., University of Pennsylvania, 1998; J.D., University of Florida, 1994. ∗∗ Adjunct Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law; J.D., American University, Washington College of Law, 1982; B.A., Tufts University,
  • Ashcroft Attacks Librarians Over Patriot

    Ashcroft Attacks Librarians Over Patriot

    ISSN 0028-9485 November 2003 Volume LII No. 6 www.ala.org/nif Attorney General John Ashcroft accused the American Library Association and other critics of the USA PATRIOT Act September 16 of fueling ‘‘baseless hysteria’’ about the government’s ability to pry into the public’s reading habits. In an unusually pointed attack as part of a speech in defense of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism initiatives delivered in Memphis, Tennessee, Ashcroft mocked and condemned the ALA and other Justice Department critics for believing that the F.B.I. wants to know ‘‘how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.’’ ‘‘If he’s coming after us so specifically, we must be having an impact,’’ said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of ALA’s Washington office. Ashcroft Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the department, said the speech was intended not as an attack on librarians, but on groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and politicians attacks who he said had persuaded librarians to mistrust the government. The ALA ‘‘has been somewhat duped by those who are ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act,’’ Corallo said. Ashcroft’s remarks, he said, ‘‘should be seen as a jab at those who would mislead librarians librarians and the general public into believing the absurd, that the F.B.I. is running around monitoring libraries instead of going after terrorists.’’ over Patriot ALA President Carla Hayden responded to Ashcroft in a prepared statement, which read: Act “The American Library Association (ALA) has worked diligently for the past two years to increase awareness of a very complicated law—the USA PATRIOT Act—that was pushed through the legislative process at breakneck speed in the wake of a national tragedy.