FOIA

  • April 20, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Reuben Guttman.  Mr. Guttman, a partner at the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, heads the firm's whistleblower practice and is founder of the website Whistleblowerlaws, which helps individuals using the False Claims Act to seek compliance with environmental, affirmative action, wage and hour, and "Buy American" requirements. It was cited as an authority by the Chamber of Commerce in its brief in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. U.S. ex rel. Kirk, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    As the fate of a government shutdown last week was teetering over budget cuts of between $20-$40 billion, I could not help remind myself that only last year the Deputy Attorney General of the United States estimated that Medicare-Medicaid fraud alone costs the government up to $60 billion.

    Of course, this figure does not even account for precious healthcare dollars spent to treat injuries caused by misbranded drugs and defective medical devices. Taking into account over-billing by defense contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the for profit colleges whose degrees are not worth the tuition financed with government grants, the construction contracts designed to create good paying jobs but whose workers are not being paid prevailing wages, or the large scale procurements made under the Buy American Act where the goods are actually manufactured abroad, and the government has either wasted a massive amount of money or the money has been spent in ways that will not bring anticipated returns. Worse yet, as in the case of misbranded drugs, taxpayers may also face physical injury or illness.

    Unfortunately, instead of jail time or debarment, fraudsters are often rewarded with more government business. Even when they pay fines, the fines are so disproportionally small that they amount to a fee for the license to break the law. Consider the government’s $2.3 billion dollar settlement with Pfizer in 2009, which encompassed a pattern of alleged wrongdoing including misbranding of a drug for pediatric use. The combined civil and criminal penalty seemed large but actually paled in comparison to the $171 billion that the drug giant pulled in from sales of the pharmaceuticals encompassed by the complaint during the damage period.

  • November 30, 2009

    FOIA FAIL: The Supreme Court vacated a ruling requiring the release of detainee abuse photos.

    Next Stop, Charleston?: The South Carolina Attorney General said today that housing Guantanamo detainees at the naval brig near Charleston would put local residents at risk.

    "...Must Be Brought to Justice": In a letter to the Attorney General, the American Bar Association backs federal trials for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other alleged terrorists.

    Sssshhhh, Your Honor: Can federal courts handle classified evidence?

    Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Now: Bagram has recently been the site of detainee abuse, according to reports by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

  • July 24, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Nate Cardozo, Open Government Legal Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation

    This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit to compel the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other members of the intelligence community to turn over documents detailing their concerns about their own misdeeds. We sued under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law that allows anyone to request information about the federal government's activities. President Obama has called the FOIA "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government."

    The documents we're seeking involve reports to the little-known Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which was created within the Executive Office of the President in the aftermath of Watergate. Until last year, the board was the primary body within the executive branch providing accountability for the intelligence community. Every intelligence agency was required by executive order to send the IOB quarterly reports of "any intelligence activities of their organizations that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive." The IOB reviewed and summarized this information for the President, and forwarded reports of misconduct that it believed violated the law to the Attorney General for prosecution. With few exceptions, reports to the IOB have not been made public.

    In February, 2008, President Bush issued a controversial executive order undercutting the IOB's oversight role, shifting much of the board's responsibility to the newly created Director of National Intelligence (DNI). While the IOB still receives reports of the intelligence community's questionable activity, it no longer has the authority to refer those reports to the Attorney General for prosecution. That job that now falls to the DNI. Intelligence agencies do not have to file reports with the IOB or the DNI quarterly, but rather when "appropriate."

  • June 2, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Ariel Lavinbuk, an attorney at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP and a Principal of the Truman National Security Project

    In recent weeks, President Obama's approach to national security - particularly on issues related to terrorism - has drawn considerable criticism from his base. What began as disappointment over the decision to withhold images of past detainee abuse quickly turned to disillusionment over the continuing use of military commissions. Such concerns now pale in comparison to the almost universal outrage directed at plans to "preventatively detain" certain individuals for a potentially endless period of time. Taken together, these policies have been seen as a betrayal by the left, which has taken to wondering aloud whether President Obama is any different than his predecessor.

    There is merit to some of the concerns that have been expressed, but there is also considerable danger in overlooking what President Obama has accomplished in a very short time, and in underestimating the challenges facing our country. These reactions distract from the considerable work that remains to be done in reforming our nation's response to terrorism.

    In his first four months in office, President Obama has banned all interrogation techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual and guaranteed Red Cross access to all detainees still being held. At the same time, he has loosened Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) standards, released more Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos and ordered a review of government classification procedures. These are significant accomplishments. We forget how recently it was that we did not even know who our government was detaining, let alone what it was doing to them. Even better, these actions have inspired renewed confidence in the idea that adhering to our values is a strategic asset, not a liability; indeed, by a 55-to-37 margin, the American public now believes that President Obama's policies have made the nation safer than it was under President Bush.