Posted on 02/27/2002 2:08:26 PM PST by RCW2001
Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department
PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
©2002 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/02/27/national1804EST0818.DTL
(02-27) 15:04 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Energy Department to release thousands of records on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, criticizing the government for moving at "a glacial pace."
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler could undermine the Bush administration's effort to keep secret the names of industry executives and lobbyists who met with the White House as it formulated its energy plan last spring.
The General Accounting Office and a conservative group, Judicial Watch, have filed separate lawsuits trying to force the White House to turn over the material.
Starting March 25, the Energy Department must turn over its documents to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. It must complete the task by April 10.
The department had asked to release the material in stages, beginning March 15 and ending May 15. The environmental group first asked for the documents last April 26 and sued the government in December.
The Energy Department and other federal agencies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, while the White House is not.
"I don't know that it's possible for certain to tell what the documents will reveal, but obviously the DOE stonewalled us for almost a year and they presumably had a reason to do that," said Rob Perks, a spokesman for the environmental group.
The government says 7,500 pages on Cheney's task force are responsive to the NRDC's request. The department will continue to withhold many documents and will issue a list of them along with the legal reasons they are being kept secret.
"There can be little question that the Department of Energy has been woefully tardy" in processing the nonprofit group's request, wrote Kessler.
"After making a virtually meaningless release of some form letters back in May of 2001, the department has done little of substance -- apart from collecting and organizing responsive documents," the judge added. "What is even more distressing is that" there were at least 11 other requests for the same documents.
The government has no legal justification "for working at a glacial pace."
NRDC attorney Sharon Buccino praised the ruling, saying "the court has protected the public's fundamental right to know what its government is doing."
In a statement, the environmental group expressed confidence that with the court victory in hand, the NRDC "expects to make public -- for the first time since the task force was formed more than a year ago -- the names of participants, dates of meetings, and the topics discussed.
"That information will expose which energy companies or industry lobbyists influenced the work DOE staff did on the Bush-Cheney energy plan," said the environmental group's statement.
©2002 Associated Press
I don't even want to get started on those two worthless ....
Someone could answer your question better than me. The notes the GAO is after has to do with Cheney and the DOE and talks/discussions with corporate leaders.
These were official meetings to determine energy policy. Not some phone call from a friend or briefing on national security (whatever that means anymore).
So let me get this straight. Congress can get all the confidential ionformation it wants but the president must inform congress everytime he talks to his barber???
We were informed of the results of the task force and even told who attended (Hillary never released this information as it was conviently lost).
Will you explaine to me why you think the President shouldn't have the same right as a Senator to get candid advice. This act is to let the Public know what (appointed not elected) meetings were about. Elected officers are exempt. Cheney is not even under the juristiction of the GAO except for how he spends our money. He accounted for that which Hillary also convinently lost and was fined $250,000 for.
Of what are you talking about? National Security or something else?
I don't think I ever said that. These meetings were setting our energy policy. Are you saying that you like it that corporate leaders are setting policies? Why shouldn't we know what they talked about?
If this foolishness ever gets to the supreme court, never forget the 5-4 split....it drifts in the direction of a moderate conservative.
I would also hope that my President would get the best advice he could before making policy. Since Congress must pass any legislation the President comes up with I do not see how it would be possible for some company to write the legislation and get it passeed. The congress will stop it if it is bad policy. I don't really care if the President prays to God and get's it directly from him or Ken Lay(although if he did this I would ditch the policy along with the babby). As long as Congress takes a look at it and debates it then passes it I will be satisified. It is the policy that should count not how it is derivived. However I will be more likely to trust the President if he tells me how he came to the decision he came to. In this case I already knew the VP was going to run a task force and get candid advice from energy people in a confidential manner. I know Lay was in favor of Kyoto and Bush is not. Because of this I looked at the results carefully more so than if the meetings had been public.
Well actually we heard quite a bit about it. Bush is in favor of energy producers trading, buying, selling pollution credits to lower greenhouse gases...that's the first step to mandatory, then we'll get hit with BTU taxes carbon taxes and you name it energy taxes....
The fact he's in favor of lowering greenhose gases confirms he thinks they not only exist but also create a problem...
He didn't actually murmer the word Kyoto but everyone here (except you?) heard it that way......
Why is The Bush Administration About to Endorse Greenhouse Emissions Controls?
Excuse me for saying so but this explanation sounds rather "Clintonian."
Of course it's good for energy companies, that's why they're for the Kyoto accord...And the same goes for energy "deregulation". Energy deregulation is only good for the producers and the largest users who are able to negotiate deals on usage. The little residential user will once again make up the difference.
The phony Republicans claim, out one side of their mouth's they hate price controls and "deregulation" is the way to go, yet there is not one deregulated energy market that does NOT have some kind of government mandated price controls to make it work....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.