150. Steven Strasser, The Abu Ghraib Investigations (New York: PublicAffairs,
2004), 1‚Ä“14 and 52. A second report on abuses at Abu Ghraib, prepared
by Major General George Fay and Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones,
was also released in August 2004. Portions of the Fay/Jones report were
classiÔ¬Āed, but leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post
151. Hersh, Chain of Command.
152. The phrase was used by the Schlesinger panel: Strasser, The Abu Ghraib
153. William Gibson, ‚ÄúThe Road to Oceania,‚ÄĚ The New York Times, June 25,
154. Kim Zetter, ‚ÄúDownloading for Democracy,‚ÄĚ Wired News, July 19, 2004,
Web edition: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64237,64200.
155. Washington Post, ‚ÄúThe CIA‚Ä™s Prisoners,‚ÄĚ July 15, 2004, A20.
4. Message discipline
1. Senior government ofÔ¬Ācials issued a press release describing Kelly‚Ä™s posi-
tion, and agreed that they would conÔ¬Ārm Kelly‚Ä™s identity if it was guessed
by a journalist. Simon Rogers, ed., The Hutton Inquiry and Its Impact
(London: Politico‚Ä™s Publishing, 2004), 126‚Ä“127.
3. Lord Hutton, Report of the Inquiry to the Circumstances Surrounding the
Death of Dr. David Kelly (London: The Hutton Inquiry, 2004), 144.
4. Rogers, ed., The Hutton Inquiry and Its Impact, 4‚Ä“8 and 10‚Ä“27.
5. Peter Riddell, Hug Them Close: Blair, Clinton, Bush and the ‚ÄúSpecial Rela-
tionship‚ÄĚ (London: Politico‚Ä™s, 2004), 215.
6. Anthony Sampson, Who Runs This Place? (London: John Murray, 2004),
82. For an early complaint about the Blair government‚Ä™s preoccupation
Notes to Pages 83‚Ä“86
with ‚Äúmessage discipline,‚ÄĚ see House of Lords Hansard, October 28, 1997,
7. Iain Byrne and Stuart Weir, ‚ÄúDemocratic Audit: Executive Democracy in
War and Peace,‚ÄĚ Parliamentary Affairs 57, no. 2 (2004): 453‚Ä“468, 458‚Ä“
459, Committee on Standards in Public Life, Ninth Report, Cm 5775
(London: Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2003), 4.20.
8. Committee on Standards in Public Life, Ninth Report, 8.3, Government
Communications Review Group, An Independent Review of Government
Communications (London: Government Communications Review Group,
9. Evidence of Mr. Bob Phillis to the House of Commons Public Adminis-
tration Committee, January 22, 2004.
10. Nicholas Fraser, ‚ÄúTo BBC or Not To BBC,‚ÄĚ Harper‚Ä™s Magazine, May, 2004,
11. United Kingdom, Your Right To Know: The Government‚Ä™s Proposals for a
Freedom of Information Act, Preface.
12. Jack Straw, House of Commons Debates (London: House of Commons,
13. Lord Chancellor‚Ä™s Department, Annual Report on Bringing Fully into
Force Those Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Which
Are Not yet Fully in Force (London: Lord Chancellor‚Ä™s Department, 2002),
14. Maeve McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland: Five Years
On (Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, September 22, 2003 [Accessed
October 15, 2003]), available from http://www.freedominfo.org/reports/
ireland/ireland.pdf. On the controversy over the invocation of cabinet con-
Ô¬Ādentiality, see Seamus Dolan, ‚ÄúThe Penumbra of Cabinet ConÔ¬Ādentiality
and the Irish Constitution,‚ÄĚ The Galway Student Law Review 2 (2003):
15. Joe Carroll, ‚ÄúSpring Gets Cabinet Secrecy Poll in Hope of Changing Strict
Rules,‚ÄĚ The Irish Times, December 5, 1994, 7.
16. Minister of Finance, Fifth Report on Freedom of Information (Dublin:
Ministry of Finance, 2003), Table 1.3. The following cases are noted by
McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland: Five Years On.
17. FOI Civil Service Users‚Ä™ Network, Review of Administrative and Procedural
Arrangements Governing FOI (Dublin: Department of Finance FOI Central
Policy Unit, 1999).
18. Information Commissioner of Ireland, Annual Report 2001 (Dublin,
Ireland: OfÔ¬Āce of the Information Commissioner, 2002), 18.
19. Emily O‚Ä™Reilly, Address to the Second Annual Conference on Freedom of
Information of the School of Law, Trinity College, Dublin (Dublin, Ireland:
OfÔ¬Āce of the Information Commissioner, 2003).
20. Louisa Nesbitt, ‚ÄúInformation Laws ‚Ä˜Corroded Process of Government‚Ä™,‚ÄĚ
Press Association News, March 1, 2003.
21. Martin Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of Infor-
mation (Oxford: Reuters Foundation Fellowship Programme, 2004).
22. Dail Debate, June 1, 2004.
Notes to Pages 86‚Ä“87
23. Mark Brennock, ‚ÄúJournalists‚Ä™ Exposes the Only Competition Discour-
aged,‚ÄĚ Irish Times, July 5, 2003, 12, Karlin Lillington, ‚ÄúOpenness and
Transparency of State Only Go in One Direction,‚ÄĚ The Irish Times, August
22, 2003, 53. Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of
24. Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of Information,
McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland.
25. Information Commissioner of Ireland, Review of the Operation of the Free-
dom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 (Dublin: OfÔ¬Āce of the Infor-
mation Commissioner, 2004), 14‚Ä“19.
26. Irish Examiner, ‚ÄúGovt Made FOI Concept ‚ÄúAlmost Useless‚ÄĚ: Labour,‚ÄĚ Irish
Examiner, May 16, 2004.
27. In 1969, political scientist Denis Smith lamented that Canadian govern-
ment had been transformed into a ‚Äúthinly-disguised Presidential system,‚ÄĚ
without the beneÔ¬Āt of a strong legislature to balance presidential power.
Denis Smith, ‚ÄúPresident and Parliament: The Transformation of Parlia-
mentary Government in Canada,‚ÄĚ in Apex of Power: The Prime Minister and
Political Leadership in Canada, ed. Thomas A. Hockin (Toronto: Prentice-
28. Andrew Osler, ‚ÄúJournalism and the FOI Laws: A Faded Promise,‚ÄĚ
Government Information in Canada 17 (1999): http://www.usask.ca/
29. A brief chronology is provided in Annex 8 of Access to Information Review
Task Force, Access to Information: Making It Work for Canadians (Ottawa:
Treasury Board Secretariat, 2002). See also Privy Council OfÔ¬Āce, ‚ÄúDis-
cussion Paper on Freedom of Information Legislation,‚ÄĚ in The Complete
Annotated Guide to Federal Access to Information, ed. Michel Drapeau and
Marc-Aur¬ī le Racicot (Toronto: Carswell, 2001), 47.
30. John Roberts, ‚ÄúGreen Paper on Legislation on Public Access to Govern-
ment Documents,‚ÄĚ in The Complete Annotated Guide to Federal Access
to Information, ed. Michel Drapeau and Marc-Aur¬ī le Racicot (Toronto:
31. The efforts to avoid the law were revealed following the investigation
of the handling of a 1997 AIA request made by Ethyl Canada. The case
is discussed in Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report
2002‚Ä“2003 (Ottawa: OfÔ¬Āce of the Information Commissioner, 2003),
32. Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report 1996‚Ä“1997
(Ottawa: OfÔ¬Āce of the Information Commissioner, 1997), 63‚Ä“72. The deci-
sion to destroy records became public knowledge following a public
inquiry in 1995.
33. Canada‚Ä™s Federal Court later overruled the government. Canada (Infor-
mation Commissioner) v. Canada (Prime Minister), (1993) 1 F.C. 427.
34. John Crosbie, No Holds Barred (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and
Stewart, 1997), 300.
35. Liberal Party of Canada, Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada
(Ottawa: Liberal Party of Canada, 1993).
Notes to Pages 88‚Ä“91
36. Donald Savoie, Governing from the Centre (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1999); Jeffrey Simpson, The Friendly Dictatorship (Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 2001).
37. The comment is made in an e-mail released to the author following an
Access to Information Act request to Canadian Department of Citizenship
38. Donald Savoie, Breaking the Bargain (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2003), 164.
39. Alasdair Roberts, ‚ÄúNew Strategies for Enforcement of the Access to Infor-
mation Act,‚ÄĚ Queen‚Ä™s Law Journal 27 (2002): 647‚Ä“683, 653‚Ä“654.
40. Alasdair Roberts, Statement to the MPs‚Ä™ Committee on Access to Informa-
tion (Syracuse, NY: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2001).
41. Alasdair Roberts, ‚ÄúRetrenchment and Freedom of Information: Recent
Experience under Federal, Ontario, and British Columbia Law,‚ÄĚ Canadian
Public Administration 42, no. 4 (1999): 422‚Ä“451; Roberts, ‚ÄúNew Strategies
for Enforcement of the Access to Information Act,‚ÄĚ 654‚Ä“658 and 670‚Ä“
42. Ann Rees, ‚ÄúRed File Alert: Public Access at Risk,‚ÄĚ Toronto Star, November
1, 2003, A32. The following discussion draws on the same documents used
by Rees, as well as other documents obtained by the author through other
AIA requests. A more detailed discussion is provided in Alasdair Roberts,
‚ÄúSpin Control and Freedom of Information,‚ÄĚ Public Administration 83,
no. 1 (2005): 1‚Ä“23.
43. Gomery Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, October 14, 2004
(Ottawa, Canada: Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program
and Advertising Activities, 2004), 3672.
44. The practice of categorizing requesters actually began so that ministries
could provide a public report of the type of individuals using the disclosure
law. However, some departments reÔ¬Āned these categories, adding some ‚Ä“
such as Parliament, Political Party, Consultant, or Lawyer ‚Ä“ that are only
used for internal purposes.
45. Whether this bar on disclosure is always respected is uncertain. In
2001 the Information Commissioner fought a legal battle that hinged
on the question of how a PCO ofÔ¬Ācial had learned the identity of a
requester. Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report 2000‚Ä“
2001 (Ottawa, Ontario: OfÔ¬Āce of the Information Commissioner, 2001),
114. It may also be easy for an ofÔ¬Ācial to guess the identity of a requester
once his or her occupation is disclosed: Alasdair Roberts, ‚ÄúSingled Out
for Special Treatment,‚ÄĚ Media Magazine 10, no. 4 (2004): 16‚Ä“17.
46. Again, this is an adaptation of a feature originally added for other reasons.
See Alasdair Roberts, ‚ÄúAdministrative Discretion and the Access to Infor-
mation Act: An ‚ÄúInternal Law‚ÄĚ on Open Government?‚ÄĚ Canadian Public
Administration 45, no. 2 (2002): 175‚Ä“194.
47. For further details on CAIRS, see Roberts, ‚ÄúSpin Control and Freedom of
48. Frank Howard, ‚ÄúInformation Commissioner Warns New Access Process
Will Stem Leaks,‚ÄĚ Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 1992, A4.
Notes to Pages 91‚Ä“95
49. Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services, Coordina-
tion of Access to Information Requests CAIR System: Replacement of
Current System ‚Ä“ Business Requirements (Ottawa, Ontario: Government
Telecommunications and Informatics Service, 1999), 1.
50. Rees, ‚ÄúRed File Alert: Public Access at Risk.‚ÄĚ
51. Jonathan Murphy, ‚ÄúYour Candle‚Ä™s Flickering, Jean,‚ÄĚ Globe and Mail, May
17, 2002, A15.
52. Roberts, ‚ÄúSpin Control and Freedom of Information.‚ÄĚ
53. Roberts, ‚ÄúAdministrative Discretion and the Access to Information Act:
An ‚ÄúInternal Law‚ÄĚ on Open Government?‚ÄĚ
54. Roberts, ‚ÄúSpin Control and Freedom of Information.‚ÄĚ
55. Evidence of Mr. Charles Guit¬ī to the House of Commons Standing Com-
mittee on Public Accounts, April 22, 2004.
56. Gomery Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, October 14, 2004,
57. Daniel Leblanc, ‚ÄúGlobe‚Ä™s Sponsorship Probe Led Ottawa to Invent Rules,‚ÄĚ
Globe and Mail, October 15, 2004.
58. The case is discussed in more detail in Roberts, ‚ÄúSpin Control and Free-
dom of Information.‚ÄĚ
59. For example: Robert Hazell, ‚ÄúFreedom of Information in Australia,
Canada and New Zealand,‚ÄĚ Public Administration 67, no. 2 (1989): 189.
60. The lack of good evidence is noted by Dave Clemens, Requests Made under
the OfÔ¬Ācial Information Act 1982: A Survey at the Agency Level. Master‚Ä™s
Thesis, Degree of Master of Library and Information Studies (Wellington,
New Zealand: School of Communications and Information Management,
Victoria University of Wellington, 2001); Edward Adams and Andrew
Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: Study
Visit to Australia and New Zealand (London: Department of Constitutional
61. Brian Ellwood, Report of the Chief Ombudsman on Leaving OfÔ¬Āce
(Wellington, New Zealand: OfÔ¬Āce of the Chief Ombudsman, 2003), 11 and
13. The Ombudsmen‚Ä™s Annual Reports for 2001 to 2004 showed that about
40 percent of complaints relating to requests under the OfÔ¬Ācial Informa-
tion Act came from journalists or parliamentarians and their staff.
62. Adams and Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act
2000: Study Visit to Australia and New Zealand, 4. Another recent study
concludes that journalists in New Zealand are more active users of their
disclosure law than journalists in Australia, Canada, or the United States:
Stephen Lamble, ‚ÄúMedia Use of FOI Surveyed,‚ÄĚ Freedom of Information
Review 109 (2004): 5‚Ä“9.
63. Marie Shroff, ‚ÄúBehind the OfÔ¬Ācial Information Act: Politics, Power and
Procedure,‚ÄĚ in The OfÔ¬Ācial Information Act (Wellington, New Zealand:
Victoria University of Wellington, 1997), 20.
64. Adams and Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act
2000: Study Visit to Australia and New Zealand, 10.
65. Nicky Hager, A Researcher‚Ä™s View of New Zealand‚Ä™s OfÔ¬Ācial Information
Act: Comments to the International Symposium on Freedom of Information
Notes to Pages 95‚Ä“98
and Privacy (Auckland, New Zealand: OfÔ¬Āce of the Privacy Commissioner,
66. James Buwalda, Report of an Investigation into the Department of Labour‚Ä™s
Management of Information in Relation to Mr. Ahmed Zaoui (Wellington,
New Zealand: Department of Labour, 2003), 8‚Ä“12.
67. Mel Smith, Report Upon the Actions of the Department of Labor in Regard
to an OfÔ¬Ācial Information Act Complaint by Sarah Boyle, of the OfÔ¬Āce
of the Leader of the Opposition (Wellington, New Zealand: OfÔ¬Āce of the
Ombudsman, 2004), 29 and 38.
68. The Tampa controversy is discussed in: David Marr and Marian Wilkinson,
Dark Victory: How a Government Lied Its Way to Political Triumph (Crow‚Ä™s
Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
69. Patrick Weller, Don‚Ä™t Tell the Prime Minister (Melbourne: Scribe Publica-
70. Ibid., 51‚Ä“89.
71. Martin Chulov, ‚ÄúHow FOI Became Freedom from Information,‚ÄĚ The Aus-