OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Secrecy Concerns in the Defense Bill

August 17, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

The Project on Government Oversight has flagged a potential government secrecy concern in the Defense Authorizations bill the Senate is expected to vote on when they come back from recess. The issue is a provision three-quarters of the way through the 539-page bill that would give the Department of Defense broad authority to exempt unclassified information from public disclosure via the Freedom of Information Act, including information that may be relevant to public health and safety.

Here’s the text of the section:

SEC. 1044. TREATMENT UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION.

(a) Critical Infrastructure Information- The Secretary of Defense may exempt Department of Defense critical infrastructure information from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, upon a written determination that the disclosure of such information would reveal vulnerabilities in such infrastructure that, if exploited, could result in the disruption, degradation, or destruction of Department of Defense operations, property, or facilities. Critical infrastructure information covered by a written determination under this subsection that is provided to a State or local government to assist first responders in the event that emergency assistance should be required shall be deemed to remain under the control of the Department of Defense.

Although the provision is clearly intended to keep sensitive information out of the hands of terrorists, it’s written so broadly that it could be used by the military to keep secret any information about their facilities that they’d rather not share for other reasons.

Activists in Port Townsend, WA believe that the provision has been inserted in the Defense bill in order to nullify a recent Supreme Court ruling that compelled the Navy to release information describing the storage of explosives under FOIA. Specifically, they believe it is intended to help the Navy hide public safety information about weapons on Indian Island in Port Townsend Bay. “The Navy increased the amount of explosives at the explosives handling wharf by 33 percent in order to accommodate a larger type of container ship,” they write. “If the Navy is out of compliance with rules regarding safe distances for explosive handling we have a right to know.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] is supporting an amendment to the provision that would require the Defense Department to balance the public’s right to know against the public interest in withholding when deciding to exempt information from FOIA under the provision. If you’d like to write to your senator regarding the bill, you can do so with our brand new, open-source Contact-Congress tool right here.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

sylviawake 04/05/2012 4:07am

This is really interesting post. I liked the way you have created this. Thanks for sharing.. waiting for your next post.Raspberry Ketones/a>

sylviawake 04/05/2012 2:33am
in reply to ventrellaca Aug 17, 2011 6:24pm

This is really nice post. Thanks for sharing such a useful information with us. I will be waiting for your new post. raspberry ketones supplement

jaamess 03/21/2012 3:11am

Really good site i just love this whole idea of sites providing good information.
Pay Someone To Do My Research Paper

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

youngphillip1230 11/22/2011 11:46am

My thoughts exactly, I think both ideas are great

zygor guides

ventrellaca 08/17/2011 6:24pm

I think that both have good ideas, but I think that they should be incorporated in a different way. I think that information should only be released about anything that could pose a danger to our citizens. Then again, disseminating information could also pose a danger to our citizens, so its a fine line between resonable and irrational. Unfortunatley, you could go to extreme in either directions.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.