Judge orders release of Cheney task force records, criticizes Energy Department

Associated Press / SFGate

[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  

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Look, it's not enough to get them impeached.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Well, I'd certainly like to think so. But the fact I'd _like_ to think so doesn't give me any reason for thinking it's true. And when I try to sort through it on the merits, I run into troubling comparisons. For example, it seems more important that the President disclose what the law requires him to disclose in his capacity as our number one public servant than that the President disclose what the law requires him to disclose as a private citizen in a civil suit.

[lucysmom]

"By the way, NRDC and Judicial Watch both want this information to institute lawsuits in which we, the taxpayer, will foot the bill. (Just in case someone was thinking this was being done out of a 'concern' for the truth.)"

What ever the motives it seems important that "we the people" should have the right to know how the decisions that effect our lives are made. We should have the right to know what advice is given, by whom and what their interest in the matter might be. The only exception should be national security.

Like it or not we live in a republic, not a soviet style dictatorship. We have the right to insist that OUR interests are served and the responsibility to be informed and vote for those representatives who will serve our interests. Without information we can not do our job as citizens.

Our system of government is not based on trust but on a system of checks and balances. We are not called upon to kiss our brains goodbye to be good citizens.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I think that he would tell the truth in either case, or at least I hope so.

[freethinkingman]

These "Dim-Bulbs" will continue to point at "The Process" instead of trying to come up with an argument on the substance of the policy itself.

As long as they have the mass media as an ally this will never change...

Same can be said about the campaign finance reform getting ready to be passed.. If they can use an ENRON to scare up support they'll do it, nevermind focusing on the substance of "what went wrong" like acounting standards and 401k protection, Lets' just try to attach it to the pubbies and move on.

[monkeywrench]

"...President disclose what the law requires him to disclose as a private citizen in a civil suit." clinton LIED! THAT was what got him in trouble!

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I think that he would tell the truth in either case, or at least I hope so." But Bush and Cheny have not discosed what you argue the law requires them to disclose as our number one and number two public servants. And I can't see anyway to avoid your compelling analysis of the law, so for now I'm stuck with that troubling conclusion. The only issue still open is, how bad is it for them to have failed to disclose what the law requires them to disclose? And if we use Clinton's failure to disclose what the law required him to disclose as a private citizen in a civil suit to calibrate, what conclusion should we draw?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

They don't want to discuss what law compells them dlsclose the energy documents because it will make them look stupid. What conclusions can we draw from this? It is hard to consistent leaders, I am sure that you can relate.

[chainsaw]

Right on. Good ruling.

Bad ruling don't stand the test of appeal. We'll see if your opinion is worth anything demidog.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

But surely, if we share a committment to the Rule of Law, our views about policy are irrelevant to questions regarding the application of current law. That's the essence of Rule of Law. It's funny. I meet many people on FR who claim to share the value only to turn around and give passionate arguments for ignoring it.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"They don't want to discuss what law compells them dlsclose the energy documents because it will make them look stupid." You think? Intersting. But I wasn't asking you to speculate on their motives. I was asking how we should compare the seriousness of two different sorts of failures to disclose what the law requires: On the one hand failure to disclose what the law requires in one's capacity as a private citizen in a civil suit, and on the other hand failure to discose what he law requires of one in one's capacity as President or Vice-President of the United States.

[1rudeboy]

Your problem is that you are "calibrating" what you know Clinton did, with what you think Cheney has done. Even if the final trier-of-fact finds a violation of one Act or another, the remedy will be for Cheney to turn over the documents. Hardly grounds for impeachment, and hardly grounds to argue that Cheney should have turned the documents over in the first place.

After all, Clinton was not impeached because he claimed "secret service" privilege (which was ultimately shot down), nor will Cheney find himself impeachable because he claimed executive privilege, as is his right.

[justshe]

Groups such as Judicial Watch can only represent people detrimented by the Clinton Administration and file civil suits for monetary damages.

You either have a VERY short memory, or have not fully researched "Judicial Watch" (JW). During the campaign between Gore and Bush, Judicial Watch sponsored a debate. They had a 'tentative' agreement that Gore would show (he ended up not showing up). GW sent his regrets that, due to a previous commitment, he would be unable to attend. JW went on a total rampage against GW because he was not going to attend their debate, complete with Press Releases that made GW sound like the scourge of the earth. When this happened, JW guaranteed they would never receive another financial contribution from me. Gamemanship to garner attention is NOT my idea of a competent 'watchdog' which JW purports to be. This group, led by Mr. Klayman is a joke at best...and dangerous at worst. They tie up the courts with many lawsuits that are being brought ONLY to garner attention for JW with little in the way of results.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I actually like Klayman because I don't see anyone else trying to do anything about Clinton. He does all that he can realistically and possibly do.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I don't have a short memory at all, but I don't recall that particular story about Judicial Watch, sorry.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"if the final trier-of-fact finds a violation of one Act or another" You're mixing up trier-of-fact -- which in some cases is a jury -- with a trier of law. There are no facts in dispute in this case. It's a pure question of law. But setting that aside, on your view Bush and Cheney should not be impeached if they comply with a court order to hand over the documents but should be impeached if they fail to refuse to comply?

[1rudeboy]

If a trier-of-fact finds a violation and compels disclosure, and that determination and remedy are upheld as a matter of law, and the Bush Administration refuses to comply, then that refusal is an impeachable offense. Absolutely.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Interesting. Let's see where it goes.

[buffyt]

Thank goodness they work at glacial speed... otherwise they would have found a way to tax us 100% by now!!!

[browardchad]

Without the discovery of the energy task force documents being released to the public, we will never know for sure how much Enron influenced the Bush Administration's energy policy. An forthcoming and open government tends to be very an honest and the best thing for the Bush Administration to do, is to just release these documents, because they won’t win in court and they can’t dodge the law. I would like to believe that they are better than that and hopefully better than the behavior that has characterized the Clinton era.

Dream on -- these records will wind up in Waxman's hands, and will twisted and skewed out of all proportion to what was said (since Dems have proved time and time again that the truth is of no importance), and all the public will hear are sound bites manufactured for the evening news. That's truth? May I remind you that Enron was in favor of the Kyoto Treaty, but Bush/Cheney is not? You really don't hear too much about that do you?