Homeland Security Okays Closed Proceedings 281
CNet is reporting that a newly created branch within the Homeland Security Department that brings together many different federal agency employees and private sector players has been given the go-ahead to disregard a law requiring meetings to be open and proceedings public. From the article: "The 1972 law generally requires such groups to meet in open sessions, make written meeting materials publicly available, and deliver a 15-day notice of any decision to close a meeting to the public. The last is a particular point of concern for Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice."
Homeland Security Okay's Closed Proceedings (Score:4, Interesting)
But speaking seriously:
The 1972 law generally requires such groups to meet in open sessions, make written meeting materials publicly available, and deliver a 15-day notice of any decision to close a meeting to the public. The last is a particular point of concern for Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice.
The private sector, fearing that sensitive data will get to the wrong hands, has continued to resist sharing important information with the feds, the Department of Homeland Security said, citing government auditors' findings from late 2003.
Making the meetings public would amount to "giving our nation's enemies information they could use to most effectively attack a particular infrastructure and cause cascading consequences across multiple infrastructures," another departmental advisory council warned in August.
Is this not a valid reason for a group charged with advising on issues dealing with critical public infrastructure?
Also, please note that ANY meetings under FACA [gsa.gov] can already be closed, but a 15-day notice must be given of such closure. The end result, since 1972, is still that the meeting is closed.
The issue here is that the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council may decide it needs to have an emergency meeting, AND that it should be closed, but can't wait 15 days to hold the meeting. The waiting period would seem designed to discourage federal agencies from routinely closing meetings without an announcement period that presumably may allow for recourse, official or otherwise, if such a closure is improper. However, the importance of a critical infrastructure advisory board holding an emergency meeting trumps the waiting period. Remember: being able to hold a closed meeting is NOT new; the only new element is not having to give a 15-day public notice that such a meeting will be closed.
I'd encourage everyone to actually read the article. Of course, if you think nothing should ever be secret and think this is part of another conservative/Republican plot, then you probably won't agree with any reasoning for keeping such critical meetings secret, and/or not having to wait 15 days to hold such meetings.
The meetings can already be closed (Score:3, Interesting)
The net result, however, is that the meeting is still closed.
This change allows for the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council to have closed meetings in an emergency without giving a 15-day notice that it is going to have a closed meeting.
I think that critical public infrastructure protection outweighs any need for a 15-day notice of a closed meeting.
Re:par for the course (Score:3, Interesting)
-no oversight (I dont care what they say this govt was founded on a system of checks and balances and there should always be an independant form of oversight)
-the mentality we are going to keep this secret not because it is sensitive but because the public is stupid and cant handle the truth (ok some people are stupid, but the govt is suppose to serve us)
-the problem with the fact that they typically goof up the process of classifying things in the first place and that it eventually will get leaked out (the govt needs to do a better job at keeping secrets secret).
So? (Score:1, Interesting)
Okay (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds okay to me. Maybe I'll just stop paying my taxes, too. I won't pay for a CD I can't listen to, or a book I can't read, so why pay for a government that won't let me see what it's doing?
If it's none of my business, maybe I shouldn't be paying for it.
Re:are you retarded? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Eroding, eroding, eroding (Score:3, Interesting)
What they didn't forsee was that the two party system would put party loyalty above the love of country, the devotion to the constitution and anything else. This congress will never impeach or sanction this president even though he clearly has overstepped his bounds and has comitted felonies becuase they care more about the republican party then the country. The courts have been stacked with republicans and they too will not check the president or the congress. Their loyalties lie with their political party not with the law of the land.
We are witnessing nothing less then the death of the american experiment. You will get to tell your grandchildren about it if you are allowed to talk about this time period at all.
This has nothing to do with real security. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Homeland Security Okay's Closed Proceedings (Score:1, Interesting)
Yet the end result will be that shortly, ALL meetings will become 'emergency' and 'closed' and yet more governemnt transparancy will be lost.
The problem is that historically, every piece of legislation that parades 'exceptions' as being required but not highly relevant end up becoming embodiments of those very 'exceptions'. Just look at how DMCA and patent law are being abused for recent examples.
sounds good on paper as always (Score:2, Interesting)
What I really don't like is "such and such cannot be disclosed because
Homeland Security and FEMA could not respond to Katrina with warning but now all of a sudden we are to believe their emergency meetings will be more than an exercise in beauracracy.
Lastly is does stink of coverup when businesses get to meet with government outside of the public's view. There is a bigger chance the dept will be setting up "protection from liability" for companies than it will be setting up actual protection from attack at these meetings.
In theory there is no situation or issue the government could not use the red herring or secrecy for security. We need to hold people accountable and not just keep writing blank checks and given open license hoping someone will fall onto the right decision. That is the only way we can really be secure. It should be obvious their first defense of a choice is alway to play on your fear.
Re:I for one do NOT welcome our overlords ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cars and junk food make huge amounts of money for large corporations. Drugs and terrorism do not - unless we have a War on them, and can then funnel enormous amounts of government money to companies that top politicians have close links with.
Remember, it's not about the People, it's about the Corporations. The principle of 'voting with your dollars' has been taken far further than anybody realises...