9/11 Study Finds U.S. States Froze Info

[Gold9472]

9/11 study finds U.S. states froze info

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/16/911_study_finds_us_states_froze_info/4352/

Published: Nov. 16, 2007 at 3:45 PM

SAN ANTONIO, Nov. 16 (UPI) -- A study funded by the Congress found 49 of the 50 U.S. states restricted access to information deemed vital to U.S national security after Sept. 11, 2001.

The report released Thursday by the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in Texas showed lawmakers in every state but South Dakota closed access to meetings, and prohibited access to disaster-response plans, emergency evacuation routes and documents on mass-transit, Stateline.org reported Friday.

The majority of restrictions covered sensitive information on cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, but some states limited access to public health and terrorist investigations.

Pete Weitzel, an adviser to the study, said the restrictions are easing as states struggle to find a balance between safety and security

"The flames of Sept. 11 confused the meanings of 'safety' and 'security' in the minds of the public and … the responses of the body politic," Weitzel told Stateline.org.

The report outlines six categories of restricted government information: critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, first response, political structure, public health and terror investigations.

The study found 14 states acted in all six categories, eight acted on all but the critical infrastructure issue, seven failed to move on cybersecurity, and two -- Hawaii and Minnesota -- imposed restrictions in only one category, political structure.

[simuvac]

This reminds me of the 5 minutes of the Democratic debate I caught last night. Wolf Blitzer asked some question about whether "human rights" were more important than "security". Talk about your loaded questions. I think he wanted to know if the candidates were willing to beat the crap out of Arabs. Anyway, I'm not sure why the two concepts were mutually exclusive.

[PhilosophyGenius]

This reminds me of the 5 minutes of the Democratic debate I caught last night. Wolf Blitzer asked some question about whether "human rights" were more important than "security". Talk about your loaded questions. I think he wanted to know if the candidates were willing to beat the crap out of Arabs. Anyway, I'm not sure why the two concepts were mutually exclusive.

Actually that was a really intersting question. Like if they would support Musharaf's control, or allow free elections which could be bad for the US.

[AuGmENTor]

This reminds me of the 5 minutes of the Democratic debate I caught last night. Wolf Blitzer asked some question about whether "human rights" were more important than "security". Talk about your loaded questions. I think he wanted to know if the candidates were willing to beat the crap out of Arabs. Anyway, I'm not sure why the two concepts were mutually exclusive.What the hell compelled you to watch that crapola?

[simuvac]

What the hell compelled you to watch that crapola?

I think there was a commercial on the other channel.

Honestly, I don't normally watch the "debates." They're insufferable theater of the absurd.

But I sometimes tune in to CNN, just to see what the propaganda of the day is. It can't hurt to know your enemy, right?

[Gold9472]

States Clammed Up After 9/11

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/25723/

Saturday, November 17, 2007

By John Gramlich - The 2001 terrorist attacks led every state but South Dakota to restrict access to information deemed critical to homeland security - from architectural blueprints to emergency evacuation routes, according to a comprehensive, state-by-state study of post-9/11 changes to open-government laws.

Wary of terrorists, state lawmakers closed government meetings previously open to the public, denied residents access to disaster-response plans and concealed documents on mass-transit systems, energy companies and research laboratories, according to the findings.

Nationwide, states have enacted scores of restrictions since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the congressionally funded study, "State Open Government Law and Practice in a Post 9/11 World," formally released Thursday (Nov. 15) by the Center for Terrorism Law based at St. Mary's University in Texas.

Most of the restrictions cover information on critical infrastructure and cyber security, while as few as half the states have restricted access to documents relating to public health and terror investigations.

South Dakota passed legislation creating a state homeland security agency. But it is the only state not to restrict access to six categories of information outlined in the study.

Nevada, on the other hand, was among states that most aggressively approved new restrictions in the wake of Sept. 11. Beyond limiting public access to documents and closing meetings, the Legislature also spelled out new responsibilities for state agencies, including identifying sites of potential terrorist attacks ranging from the Capitol Complex in Carson City to lakes and places of public worship.

Pete Weitzel, a Washington, D.C., consultant to the study, said that six years after the worst-ever attacks on American soil, some states are beginning to ease some of the restrictions and strike a fresh balance between homeland security and citizens' right to know.

Weitzel, the freedom-of-information coordinator for the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, an open-government advocacy group, said states increasingly are trying to keep information available that can be important to "public safety" - such as uninspected bridges - without sacrificing "public security."

"The flames of 9/11 confused the meanings of 'safety' and 'security' in the minds of the public and ... the responses of the body politic," Weitzel said.

In Pennsylvania, for example, lawmakers this month are debating whether to make some government information public again. In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) created an Office of Open Government immediately after taking office in January. The office is designed to "ensure that government's actions are always transparent and accountable to taxpayers," according to the governor's office.

The study details restrictions on six categories of government information: critical infrastructure, cyber security, first response, political structure, public health and terror investigations. Each category cites a wide range of information no longer available to the public.

Fourteen states passed restrictions in all six categories.

Hawaii and Minnesota restricted information in only one of the six areas - political structure, which encompasses changes to executive authority. Both states expanded their powers to close meetings to the public.

Eight states - Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont - have not moved to restrict information on critical infrastructure, which includes information on energy companies and public utilities, mass transit and telecommunications systems.

Seven states - Arizona, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, Wisconsin - also have not concealed information on cyber security, which covers information on identity theft and cyber-terrorism security procedures.

The 50-state analysis, available only in book form, was released on the first of a two-day conference on state open-records laws in Washington, D.C. It was funded by a grant from the Air Force Research Laboratory.

[simuvac]

Actually that was a really intersting question. Like if they would support Musharaf's control, or allow free elections which could be bad for the US.

I'm not sure that was the issue, PG. America already supports Musharraf. America controls Bhutto, too. Consider her education:

"After completing her early education in Pakistan, she pursued her higher education in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). From 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969) to 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973) she attended Radcliffe College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_College), and then Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University), where she obtained a B.A. degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor%27s_degree) cum laude (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum_laude) in comparative government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_government).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#_note-2) She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Beta_Kappa).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#_note-br) The next phase of her education took place in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom). Between 1973 and 1977 Bhutto studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy%2C_Politics%2C_and_Economics) at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Hall%2C_Oxford). She completed a course in International Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law) and Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy) while at Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#_note-3) In December 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976) she was elected president of the Oxford Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union), becoming the first Asian woman to head the prestigious debating society."

No matter what happens in this supposed showdown, I don't think America will allow control of the region to pass to an unfriendly power. There will be no "free" elections, just as there aren't free elections in America.

The original question, however, was about the use of torture ("human rights" versus "security" are the code words for this). The question perpetuates the false notion that torture works and is therefore useful for "national security." Torture does not work, and should not be allowed, whatever euphemistic prize is dangled before the public ("security").