Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cq.com/public/20050622A_homeland.html Billions in States Homeland Purchases Kept in the Dark By Eileen Sullivan, Congressional Quarterly About $8 billion in homeland security funds has been doled out to states since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but the public has little chance of knowing how all of that money is being spent. Of the 34 states that responded to CQ Homeland Security inquiries by press time, 12 have laws or policies that preclude public disclosure of certain details on homeland security purchases. The reason, state officials say, is that the information could be useful to terrorists. Many states, such as New York, will disclose broad categories of purchases, such as personal protective gear, but will not specify the type of equipment, which company makes it, how much it costs or where it is going. Many states nondisclosure clauses are included in their freedom of information acts. The Department of Homeland Security keeps records of how states spend homeland security funds but will not release the records to the public, DHS spokesman Marc Short said. Specific to expenditures, potential adversaries could review planned projects to determine vulnerabilities within states or local communities, Short said in an e-mailed statement Wednesday. The non-disclosure policies are troubling, said secrecy expert Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Accountability is the price we pay. Were giving away the ability to hold public officials accountable, Aftergood said in a telephone interview. More than we value public oversight, we fear a nebulous terrorist threat, and its really changing the character of American political life. Security and Accountability Some states are still developing disclosure policies on homeland security purchases. New Jersey, for example, is soliciting public comment on proposed rules to clarify what can be made public and what cannot. Unqualified access to certain government records can threaten the lives, health and safety of the citizens of this State and endanger public and private property, according to the proposed regulations. The state makes some of its homeland security expenditures public, but not if the government thinks the information could compromise security, spokesman Roger Shatzkin said. Requests for state homeland security spending details are decided on a case-by-case basis, he said. There are just some concerns about whether every bit of information about whats been purchased should be made public, Shatzkin said. A hypothetical example, he said, would be if the state purchased defective equipment. If there was a potential flaw in the equipment, that could be exploited, he said, so the state would not want that information to become public. Aftergood, however, said that taxpayers have the right to know if law enforcement is using defective equipment: One of the things that happens when you restrict information is that you reduce the motivation to fix problems and correct weaknesses. Just Say No Colorados secrecy law was enacted in 2003, but the bills cosponsor, state Sen. Bob Hagedorn, a Democrat, says the law was misinterpreted to mean anything related to homeland security is not public information. Hagedorn, in a telephone interview Wednesday, said that was not his intention when he supported the bill. Lawmakers recently passed a law that would make some homeland security information public, but Hagedorn called the bill a half-ass effort to open up information. Hagedorn says a broad cloak of secrecy has shrouded how the state spends its homeland security funds. Earlier this year, state lawmakers discovered that Colorado did not have a state homeland security plan, yet it has spent $130 million. How the hell do you spend $130 million for homeland security when you dont have a damn plan, Hagedorn asked rhetorically. At this point, the public still does not have an official answer to that question he said. Alabama also forbids disclosure of homeland security spending specifics. We understand there are people who wish us harm, Jim Walker, director of the Alabama Department of Homeland Security, said in an e-mail Wednesday. There are certain prevention and protection capabilities we do not discuss openly because we do not want to risk compromising them. Homeland security in general operates under the Nancy Reagan principle of law: Just say no, said Bob Freeman, executive director of the state of New Yorks Committee on Open Government, set up by the governor to oversee the implementation of its Freedom of Information Law. Freeman, who describes himself as an ombudsman on freedom of information issues, said refusing to disclose information on public expenditures is the exception to the law, not the other way around. He said the law allows for exemptions if disclosing the information would seriously compromise security. But there is no reason not to disclose, say, a purchase order for police officers helmets, Freeman said. Ken Brown, a spokesman for New Yorks homeland security office, told CQ Homeland Security that the state generally only discloses broad categories of spending not, for example, how much it spends on gas masks. Lawmakers Curiosity Federal lawmakers want to know more about how states are spending homeland security funds, one source says. Theres a delicate balance that needs to be struck between ensuring our security and not advertising our vulnerabilities, but also ensuring how our security money is being spent, said a staff member for the House Homeland Security Committee who requested anonymity. Were spending billions of dollars every year on grants to state and local governments . . . there should be some expectation [of] accountability. _____________________________ Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you can visit: http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe. E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few days will become disabled or deleted from this list. FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
