Requesting public documents (FOIA) is about to get easier, they say brightly….yeah, we all believe that, right?

Seriously, does the current Administration think that a voluntary process is going to make functionally any difference at all? 

Those agencies with the most to hide, particularly those who may have employees or directors with inappropriate conflict of interest relationships with corporations or other organizations will be the last to ever consent to the transparency of making responses (truthful and illuminating responses) to FOIA requests more easily accessed. 

Perhaps in issues, which do not involve corruption and direct involvement of federal managers in confederate relationships to defense contractors, who profit mightily from such relationships, there may be some easier access to some information.  But the situations that are causing the worst of the mass of incidents being covered up and kept from the public will not be helped by any of this. 

And those federal employees who are trying to report such violations will continue to be shredded by the system of corruption and the influence pressured by conflict of interest relationships as they are today.

GFS 

Requesting public documents about to get easier

Link to original article: 

http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2012/06/requesting-public-documents-about-get-easier/56044/?oref=ng-relatedstories

The Real Reasons Some FOIA Requests Are Not Answered

I read an interesting article recently regarding how federal agencies have been trying to deal with their overly backlogged Freedom of Information Act requests for information that have apparently been piling up since the 2009 change in Federal direction about granting such requests. 

According to the article by Joseph Marks, in Nextgov, August 31, 2012, about half the agencies have actually reduced the number of FOIA exemptions (information they refused to release formerly, under the premise that such information is exempt to FOIA requests). 

The article also talks about agencies using technology to improve processing time for FOIA requests and the use of the FOIA libraries to post information that might commonly be requested via FOIA requests. 

It seems to this observer that if the Obama administration truly wishes to increase transparency, that more transparent action taken toward prosecuting the many cases of wrongdoing and criminal activity in the realm of federal defense contracting needs to take center stage.  Corruption, influence pedaling, cronyism, fraud, technology theft, use of the “revolving door” by people between industry and the federal government (and vice versa) in order to better serve the needs of the corporations they serve, must be stopped cold in order to allow the oversight that supposedly is in place now to be able to actually function and prevent such atrocities.  The Administration must see that a general clean up is put swiftly into action, and mean it so that these issues are handled first for any genuine transparency in FOIA request handling to be a reality. 

As long as intensive efforts within corporations and their government confederates go into covering up corruption, theft, and fraud within the federal defense contracting world, and wrongdoers that are occasionally exposed, usually by federal employees trying to do their oversight jobs, the status quo, cover-ups and sudden retirements of culpable individuals and use by such of convenient revolving doors will continue to provide sufficient threat of exposure to thwart any serious transparency granted to a FOIA request hopeful, preventing s/he from every getting an honest and “transparent” accounting of what is really going on in federal agencies, particularly in relationship to defense contractors and other corporate interests. 

This article describes a tempest in a teapot, and does not address the real problems related to FOIA requests not being honored by those trying to get to the truth of wrongdoing in the federal government. 

GFS

Link to article:  http://www.nextgov.com/big-data/2012/08/agencies-continue-struggle-foia-requests/57819/

Where in the World is Former DSS Director, Kathleen Watson?

Former DSS Director, Kathleen Watson Acceptes Position with McNeil Technologies, Virginia

The word on the street is that she has quick as a bunny, hopped right over to a defense contractor and is now in their employ.  Doesn’t anyone have to adhere anymore to the six months to a year wait period before leaving a government oversight job and jumping right into a contract with a defense contractor?  I hear that a lucrative contract was awarded by the government the very same day Watson signed her new contract with the contractor. 

 Check out her new digs at McNeil Technologies in Virginia:

http://www.mcneiltech.com/

James (Jim) Jones Leaves Position of National Security Advisor

A reader sent this to me this evening.  I had heard that something had happened to Jones, but was on the road and could not check for myself today.  Hmmmm    Exile or Revolving Door Next?  Thank you wonderful reader!

-GFS

G. Florence,

 

Stepping down, or stepping back to Boeing?  

 

Ex Boeing Employee

General James Jones to Step Down as National Security Adviser

Friday 08 October 2010

by: Steven Thomma  |  McClatchy Newspapers | Report

Washington – President Barack Obama will announce today that retired Gen. James Jones will step down as the president’s National Security Adviser and will be replaced by his deputy, Thomas Donilon, according to two officials with knowledge of the decision who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because it hadn’t been made public.

Obama will make the announcement at 1 pm in the White House Rose Garden.

Jones departure is expected to be effective in two weeks, a source said.

Comments from Truthout Readers:

»

Read between the lines when

Fri, 10/08/2010 – 16:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

Read between the lines when you go to explore who this man is and try to understand why he’s been fired – and he has been fired. Look for what is not said, ask why the steps in his career took place. Look for the dog that didn’t bark…

Not to give my opinion and sully the picture for others, but there does seem to be some failure of consensus at the high levels of power – a failure of consensus with respect to method, or, possibly, policy.

Wanna bet that the next Big Event is a tar-baby ploy, something like the bay of pigs?

Link to original at Truthout: 

http://www.truth-out.org/general-james-jones-step-down-national-security-adviser64018

The Too Cozy Relationship Between Defense Contractors and the U.S. Legislative Branch

Defending the Nation From Common Sense

Link to original:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060902843_pf.html

 

 

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

This meeting of the Senate Military-Industrial Caucus will now come to order.

The chair recognizes the senator from Northrop Grumman for a question.

“We’ve noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions,” said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). “Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding in the amphibious area?”

Of course, Senator. Nobody will hurt the DD(X) destroyers they build in Pascagoula.

Does the senator from General Dynamics have a question?

“Littoral combat ships,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). “Do you believe that this program will play a vital role in our Navy’s future fleet?”

Certainly, Senator. Tell the folks in Mobile that their shipbuilding operation is safe. The chair now recognizes the senator from Boeing.

“I wanted to ask you today if you can tell me how you are taking into account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base,” asked Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Sure, Senator. Your constituents in Everett will get another shot at that aerial refueling tanker contract they lost to the Airbus consortium.

And so it went at yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, attempting a bold reshaping of the military-industrial complex to meet the changing nature of war, pleaded with the lawmakers to rise above the powerful contractors that fund their campaigns and influence their elections. “The responsibility of this department first and foremost is to fight and win the nation’s wars,” Gates reminded them. “I know that some will take issue with individual decisions. I would ask, however, that you look beyond specific programs and instead at the full range of what we are trying to do.”

Not likely, Mr. Secretary. Lawmakers are perfectly happy to reform military procurement, as long as the cuts are not made in any of their back yards. The result will inevitably be that the Pentagon is forced to fund many programs it doesn’t want while shortchanging others it urgently needs.

Yesterday brought two of these NIMBY hearings to the Capitol complex. First, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee huddled with the secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, and the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey. Chairman Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), who has a solid reputation for giving the Pentagon things it doesn’t need, was once more concerned that the war fighters didn’t ask for more. “You only put $2 billion into the budget,” he complained about one project. “I assume you’ll ask for more money?”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) complained about a “particular problem” in Virginia — the specter of traffic tie-ups because of a plan to relocate 20,000 Pentagon workers. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) demanded that the Army rescind its plan to hire contractors at West Point. And Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) complained that the community around Fort Stewart has “overbuilt” in anticipation of more Army activity that never came. “We’ll find a way to reimburse the community,” Murtha assured Kingston. “We do it all the time.”

On the other side of the Capitol, senators were making similar cases to Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mississippi’s Cochran, who has a Navistar facility in his state that makes Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, started off with a question about “other uses” for the MRAP.

Alabama’s Shelby followed that with a bit of lobbying for the Army aviation school at Fort Rucker. “This is an urgent demand in Afghanistan right now,” he said.

“Having visited Fort Rucker, it’s clear that the schoolhouse needs to be expanded and modernized,” Gates replied.

Shelby also coaxed Mullen to praise Alabama’s very own littoral combat ships. “Could you tell us here the advantages that the Navy will gain once the service begins to utilize the LCS?” he asked.

“Okay,” Mullen obliged. “I need the LCS at sea, deployed today. . . . It offers unique characteristics in terms of speed and mobility and . . .”

“Also firepower,” Shelby added.

“And firepower,” Mullen agreed.

The boosterism became complicated when lawmakers spoke up for rival contractors. Shelby, speaking for the Northrop Grumman-EADS partnership that wants to build Air Force tankers in Alabama, urged Gates to buy “the most capable tanker for our war fighters.” Murray, representing Boeing, the West Coast rival for the contract, countered: “We want the best war fighter, and we also want what’s best for the taxpayer, as well.”

Luckily for Boeing, the contractor had reinforcements on the committee in the form of Republican Sen. Kit Bond, a great fan of the F/A-18 and the C-17, parts of which just happen to be produced in Bond’s home state of Missouri. “Admiral Roughead recently stated that the F/A-18E/F is the aviation backbone of our Navy’s ability to project power ashore, and the numbers of the carrier-capable strike fighters will decrease between 2016 and 2020,” he complained.

“We will probably buy more in ’11,” Gates offered.

“Senator Bond, it’s a great airplane,” Mullen added. “It’s actually at a great price.”

Congratulations, Admiral. That was the correct answer.

Former Boeing Project Manager May Seek King County Office

Former Boeing Project Manager may seek King County Exec Position

 

Fred Jarrett, former Boeing Project Manager and currently Washington State Legislator is considering running for the office of King County Executive.  He can not campaign until the Washington State Legislature sessions have ended lager this spring.  To read the whole Seattle Times story, go here: 

 

March 17, 2009 5:02 PM

“A real contest for King County executive”

 http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2009/03/17/a_real_contest_for_king_county.html