September 25, 2004
Group Wins Battle Against Bush Admin. Secrecy
What could be worse than a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant in the US of A? Very little. So the public should expect that securing nuclear plants should be Job No. 1. The Bush Administration, in what is becoming all too commonplace, has tried to keep important information on this matter from the public.
Public Citizen, a citizen’s rights advocacy group, has just won an important victory against the administration’s secrecy tactics which prevent government accountability to the people.
Public Citizen reports: "A U.S. appeals court ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to go back to the drawing board after the agency violated federal law by secretly writing nuclear security rules. The NRC last year issued these vital regulations without first informing the public or giving interested parties a chance to have input. Public Citizen and the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace sued the agency." And last Friday they won.
Public Citizen has stated to its membership: "With your support we'll keep up the pressure, because only through openness in government can we keep our leaders honest." This is vitally important to insure Government works for the people and not just for political or corporate interests.
Posted by David R. Remer at September 25, 2004 02:03 AMNow I wonder how fast it will take the republicans to blame this ruling on the liberal judges. How can we be safe when we let the public know whats going on?
Excellent catch David, I just am amazed at how bold Bush and Company is about taking away the public import to our own government.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 25, 2004 04:08 AMWhat could be worse than a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant in the US of A? Very little. So the public should expect that securing nuclear plants should be Job No. 1. The Bush Administration, in what is becoming all too commonplace, has tried to keep important information on this matter from the public.
David, if I understand this correctly, it looks like the Design Basis Threat (DBT) is used to determine threats to nuclear facilities to help ensure that appropriate security measures are in place. I assume that the DBT is classified, for the same reason that all war plans are classified. Letting the bad guys know what you plan to do is not a good idea.
I’m not challenging you on this, but I don’t understand why Public Citizen and the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace want to provide input at all on security issues. The NRC apparently took the position that formulation of DBTs does not require public disclosure but a DC court disagreed and, according to the article, the NRC has decided not to appeal that decision. I assume they’ll have a forum for the public to make comments on what they believe are the greatest security threats and then the NRC will consider that input along with all the other information they have and prepare the classified DBT.
It looks to me like simply a procedural disagreement, not a cover-up. If we were talking about the same thing happening during a Clinton or Kerry administration, I’m fairly certain that I wouldn’t see the same sinister plot that you and Henry apparently do.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 25, 2004 07:38 AMNototh, the only sinister plot here is violation of the laws of this land in a singularly headlong pursuit by this administration to hide everything it does to the greatest extent possible.
I am not understanding what needs to be secret about having hearings on what security measures are necessary. It does this nation good to advertise that our facilities are secure. Look, we are in a deficit crisis here, which is why Bush and Kerry, and Nader and Badnarik all campaigning on cutting the deficit. When measures such as this are secret, the way is paved to hide the potential fact that nuclear power plant protection is an area in which spending is being cut.
We need transparency on such matters that affect the safety and security of many, many millions of Americans living in proximity or downwind of our nuclear power plants.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 25, 2004 08:35 AMNOTOTH,
Please don’t think my argument is over a sinister plot. Each citizen has the right to know what is happening in their backyard and have input to the laws that protect and govern them. Yes, even the security of our nation depends on our citizens being involved in their community.
No government official has the absolute knowledge on safety or any other subject. In fact back in 1972 two truck drivers proved the entire DOT Dept. wrong when they tried to state how many miles one could travel at 55 mph in a ten hour day.
Therefore, the citizens have better knowledge of the area and can give information that the highly educated government officials don’t know. For example a backwoods trail through the woods may exist up to the plant. This path may be known locally, yet the blueprint of the plant does not show this path.
I will agree the DBT needs to be classified where necessary, but the public has the right to know what is to happen in case of an event.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 25, 2004 08:53 AM
The people that know about the trail through the woods can inform officials without the whole thing being made public to everyone. I’m sure who ever they inform would also let them know what they will do about it.
Taking the chance that information becomes available to a terrorist now when it may have taken them a year to work out the details for themselves just doesn’t sound good to me.
I agree that knowing what to do and what will be done in case of the event should never be kept secret.
Posted by: Dawn at September 25, 2004 12:10 PMDawn,
People thought before 9/11 that America was safe and our government was on top of things. Guess what? They were wrong.
Today more than ever each citizen needs to pay attention about their surroundings. I have personally have had to report to the police things that didn’t seem right at the time. Imagine that you are taking your child to school when all of a sudden you see an 18 wheel tanker setting on a side road 100 yards from the school. What do you do?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 25, 2004 02:09 PMSeems like a rhetorical question.
Call me crazy - that does not compare to news reporters taking things on flights in their carry on bags or in their luggage only to come on television and let the world (and the terrorists) know where our weak points are.
I would be happy if that was reported to the proper authorities and not to me.
In that situation I could have waited until the end of the story - ‘we did this and they fixed it this way’ …. the media can use something like that as leverage to get things done. ‘Fix this problem or we will let the people know you aren’t doing your job.’ or even - ‘We found this out 2 months ago and we waited to tell the American Public until the plan to fix it was set in motion for fear of tipping off terrorists to our weakness.’
Seems to me that sometimes America’s ‘Right to Know’ does not out-weigh what the consequences may be. Maybe people forget that the ‘bad guys’ watch television and surf the net the same as we do.
Common sense and good judgement seem to be things that need to be used here also.
Posted by: Dawn at September 25, 2004 02:36 PMI have thought for quite a while that our college age (both sexes) need to get Nat Guard type training and spend full time four yearsto protect this country only here…assisting in defending our facilites, ports, national forests near sites & borders, ensure & check freight coming into and crossing the country are tracked, etc.
Posted by: Alex at September 25, 2004 05:08 PMDawn, those attacking us will find our weak points - that is one of their main objectives. Are you truly proposing that we should keep the American people ignorant of our weak points in deference to the terrorists? Are you really proposing that we make the terrorists the most important priority over informed consent of the people?
Why not just fire Bush and elect OBL, then? Last I checked, the Government was created to serve the needs of the American people and they decide what those are, not terrorists, and not politicians. It is awesome to me that some Americans are so ready to alter the landscape of our democracy, our way of life, and our future, in response to the terrorists - their fear should just proclaim OBL the winner and go home and teach their kids the inevitability of the lesson learned, fear rules! All power to the fear.
I say screw the terrorists. They may attack us again and again in years to come. But, I will be damned if I will sacrifice one ounce of my right to know what my government is doing in deference to the terrorists. They may attack us, but, I am not about to live my life differently or expect less from my government in terms of transparency, protection of civil rights and liberties, or accountability. That would be to give victory to the terrorists. Terrorists fight to change minds and hearts of their opponents -screw em, I will not give them the satisfaction of changing even one of my core beliefs or thoughts about what a responsible democratic Republic in America should be. Not in response to their threats. No! Not one!
Those in government today who would alter our government, our democracy, our people’s way of life in response to 9/11 are cowards and would make cowards of us all in asking us to act, think, live differently than we did before 9/11. Government should act first to protect our constitution and way of life, and then without changing either of those, act to defend and offend against terrorists. To act the other way around is cowardice and loss of priorities, which give the terrorists the kind of victory they seek. And that is why Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz would never, ever get my vote.
For they seek to change the way we live, and our relationship with our government, and even principles of the Constitution as a means of fighting the boogeymen they so fear. How, absolutely small and fearfully minded of them.
Nader is right, the real boogeymen are not foreign terrorists, but, the leadership in Washington who
so easily defer to the goals of terrorists while catering to their and our fears, growing those fears instead of standing tall to those fears. Giving in to those fears, instead rising above them. Being ruled by those fears instead overruling them.
Terrorists can’t invade and take over in this country. But the fear they peddle can. They know they can’t take America by war and attrition, but they can make it easy for Americans to change themselves. There is no greater validation of victory for the terrorists than to witness Americans changing their values, their priorities, and their behavior in response to 9/11. They sought to change us, and with this Administration’s help, they revel in their victory.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2004 04:13 AMDavid… I did not say that our government should keep secrets - I said some of this stuff should not be announced over National Television.
I said common sense and good judgement. How is that keeping secrets?
I say screw the terrorists too.
Announcing weakness is not making anyone feel safer. UBL wins if people stop living their lives. You know that.
Announcing what is being done makes people feel safer.
Reminding everyone that they can help by paying attention and noticing things that seem odd can help and may even give the feeling of having some sort of control over the problem.
If our government knows for certain there is an attack about to happen they should inform us.
You said, “For they seek to change the way we live, and our relationship with our government, and even principles of the Constitution as a means of fighting the boogeymen they so fear. How, absolutely small and fearfully minded of them.”
Just who is changing our relationship with our government and the principles of the Constitution?
Those things have been going on long before UBL.
The election itself is causing paranoia and fear. Both sides are doing that in their own way, and don’t forget Nadar. Though I cheer Nadar on and hope the media gives him more air time.
Seems like every day their is some person or group that wants to change the Constitution to suit themselves.
