REP. TED WEISS

"Reagan Intends to Snuff Out the Light of the FOIA"

Freedom of information and the protection of privacy lie at the heart of our open democratic system of government. The coming attack on these principles presents a serious threat to our society.

The establishment of the FOIA was a monumental step toward guaranteeing our nation's commitment to civil and constitutional liberties and allowing the public access to government documents, information, and activities which their tax dollars fund and which, as citizens in an open society, they should be permitted to obtain. Through the FOIA, we have learned that certain government agencies have, indeed, acted outside the bounds of their authority.

We know, for example, that our intelligence agencies have gone far beyond their legitimate function of gathering intelligence.

As we are being asked to consider exempting the CIA and FBI from disclosing this and other information, let us not forget some of what the FOIA has enabled the public to learn: that the CIA was conducting drug experiments on individuals without their consent; the CIA had undertaken a program of secret recruitment on college campuses; that the CIA was infiltrating nonviolent political groups within the United States-clearly outside the bounds of its mandate to gather intelligence only in foreign countries; and that the CIA attempted to suppress the Glomar Explorer Story among others.

This week's action by the Attorney General represents a serious step in the wrong direction for open government. Although I don't believe the Attorney General's May 4th memorandum will have an immediate demonstrable effect on the laws, it does signal what we all already know-the Reagan Administration intends to snuff out the light of the FOIA.

I urge all concerned people to let the President and their representatives know that they will not tolerate a return to Nixon-like secrecy in government.

Prof. Rev. Robert Drinan, Gerogetown University (formerly Congressional Representative, Massachusetts): I lament the destruction of the Freedom of Information Act that the Attorney General's action signals. While in Congress, I worked very diligently to defend and improve the Act which had been passed into law over President Ford's veto. It is an outrage to do anything but strengthen this law, for it provides the implementation of the people's right to know.

Fran Bennick, National Chair, New Democratic Coalition: The New Democratic Coalition is appalled by the actions of government and any more restrictions on our freedoms must be fought.

RELIGIOUS TASK FORCE MOBILIZATION FOR SURVIVAL

"Return to a Cold War
Atmosphere"

Since the MFS has recently been accused before the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of being part of a Soviet campaign of sowing "disinformation" in the West, the recent annoucement of the Reagan Administration to curtail and thereby neutralize the Freedom of Information Act strikes one as somewhat ironic. A government so concerned about the dissemination of false information would be expected to allow its citizens access to files containing true information about their own activities (information which has often been obtained through non-constitutional means).

In fact, what we are witnessing today is a return to a Cold War atmosphere with McCarthyite congressional hearings, the cruel cut-backs of basic social survival programs, and a vision of foreign policy which appears unable to view any international situation or crisis separate from the threat of Soviet interventionism and world conquest. Whatever reservations or criticisms one may have of Soviet policy-and we have some-to continue the justification of a massive nuclear and conventional arms race; the support and arming of the murderous junta in El Salvador; the rationalization of the brutal destruction of Southern Lebanon with the help of U.S. weaponry and aircraft in the hands of the Israeli Defense Force; the projected support of murderous regimes in Guatemala or under Pol Pot in Cambodia-all in the name of staking off the Russians is a vision of the world which is politically blind and morally bankrupt.

The threat to the future of the FOIA is rooted in this same monolithic perception of history. One of the basic lessons of the Vietnam era is that when a government either engages in or prepares for military adventures abroad, it must also be ready to do battle against individual and collective dissent at home. Ironically it is the FOIA which represented an attempt to undo some of the violations of civil liberties during the Vietnam/civil rights era, that is now being dismembered by the Reagan administration as it plans public policy which threatens economic disaster at home and conceivably the ultimate nuclear holocaust for all the world's peoples.

The MFS calls on every decent American to protest this latest attack agaisnt the fast waning hope, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." -Rev. Paul Mayer, National Convenor

The American Friends Service Committee: The AFSC believes that the Freedom of Information Act has proved invaluable in defending and recuperating the Constitutional rights of Americans. Every reasonable effort should be made to preserve the Act. At a time when partisan interests are irritated by this Act of freedom, it is important for free citizens to insist on its survival-its effectiveness and permanence.

13th Report by the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Congress, 1977.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is based upon the presumption that the government and the information of government belong to the people. Consistent with this view is the notion that the proper function of the state in respect to government information is that of custodian in service to society. Yet such a presumption did not always prevail. Prior to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966, the burden was on the individual citizen to prove his right to look at government records. With the passage of the FOIA, however, the burden of proof was shifted from the individual to the government: the "need to know" standard was replaced by the "right to know" doctrine and the onus was upon the government to justify secrecy rather than the individual to obtain access.

Freedom of Information Not a Partisan Matter

-Judiciary Committee Report U.S. Senate, May 16, 1974.

There are some who would like to make freedom of information a partisan issue, claiming it is they or their party who represent the one true champion of this particular devotion to liberty. But, in fact, years of study by this committee show each new administration develops its own special secrecy techniques which, as time passes become more and more sophisticated. The factor of credibility, together with the inclination of government to invade the privacy of our citizens, poses an ominous threat to our democratic system which must be opposed at every turn despite the agony it might create. We believe it is better to have too much freedom than too little.

John E. Moss, Former Congressman, Author of the Freedom Of Information Act

If the Attorney General had ever read the voluminous transcript of the hearings and the massive supportive material, the careful and thoughtful work of members of the Information Sub-committee and the very precise language of the FOIA, he would understnd more fully the dangerous sandtraps of secrecy that lurk in any backward movement to diminish the absolutely necessary right of the people to known.

And certainly he would never in this world propose such an outrageous change in the only tool that allows the people to take the initiative in holding government accountable. -May 7, 1981.

I concur with the findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report. The importance of freedom of information is greater than ever today in light of the steady erosion of our Constitution by the Executive branch under all of the wartime administrations of both major political parties. This ominous trend must be reversed.

There are fundamental things which separate our representative system of government from a dictatorship. They include:

(1) free elections;

(2) freedom of information; and

(3) faith in the good sense of the people.

The first means nothing without the latter two elements. Thus, it was not by accident that the framers of the Constitution put freedom of expression as the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Nations may have all the free elections they want but unless their citizens are truly informed, those elections are largely meaningless. No citizen can adequately judge the performance of his leaders unless he has sufficient facts on which to make an informed judgment.

In dictatorships, the few who rule the many are removed only by death, some form of coup, or revolution. In democracies, the few who govern must account to the elec torate whether it be good news or bad news-and then regularly submit themselves to the judgment of the people at the polls. That judge determines whether governmental power is to be continued or taken away. Of course, there is no guarantee that the people will make the right decision. There is only the hope they will do so. Dictators have only contempt and distrust for the judgment of the people-in their words, the "many." For this reason, they control and manipulate in

formation to serve the ends of the ruling few, making certain the people do not become restless enough to revolt. If the few are adroit in their maneuverings-propaganda, secrecy, distortions, omissions and outright lies-they can hold the reins of government for years, even decades and, in some cases, generations. A democracy without a free and truthful flow of information from government to its people is nothing more than an elected dictatorship. We can never permit this to happen in America.

-March 14, 1974

I do not think we have to make dummies out of them [federal judges] by insisting they accept without question an affidavit from some bureaucrat-anxious to protect his decisions whether they be good or bad-that a particular document was properly classified and should remain secret. No bureaucrat is going to admit he might have made a mistake. House Debate, March 14, 1974

It does not require an Einstein. What it does require is some intelligence, sensitivity, common sense, and an appreciation for the right of the people to know what their Government is doing and why. I have confidence our judges have these qualities. House Debate, March 14, 1974

Soucie v. David, 448 F. 2d 1067, 2 ERC 1626 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in response to a persistent problem of legislators and citizens, the problem of obtaining adequate information to evaluate Federal programs and formulate wise policies. Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent decisions without such information, and that government institutions become unresponsive to public needs if knowledge of their activities is denied to the people and their representatives. The touchstone of any proceeding under the Act must be the clear legislative intent to assure public access to all governmental records whose disclosure would not significantly harm specific governmental interests. The policy of the act requires that the disclosure requirement be construed broadly the exemptions narrowly.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT