<<

. 44
( 53 .)



>>

ment™s program of constitutional modernization.
36. Minutes of the Freedom of Information Practitioners™ Group, March 1,
2004. Released in response to a request under the Code of Practice on
Access to Government Information.
37. The Jamaican law went into effect on a phased basis; the ¬rst phase began
in January 2004.
38. Figures taken from the Government of Jamaica™s 2004“2005 Budget,
April 15, 2004.
39. The report also included two countries, Armenia and Macedonia, that did
not have a disclosure law in force.
40. Open Society Justice Initiative, Access to Information Monitoring Tool:
Report from a Five Country Study (New York: Open Society Justice Initia-
tive, 2004), 15. The study also included results from Armenia, whose law
was not in force at the time of the survey; and Macedonia, which had no
law at the time of the survey.
41. BBC Monitoring Service, “Moldovan Law on Information Access Seri-
ously Violated,” BBC Monitoring Service, September 29, 2004.
42. The observations in this paragraph draw on the U.S. State Department™s
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003. The reports are
located at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/.
43. Nakorn Serirak, “Making Sense of the Right to Know,” Bangkok Post,
September 24, 2002.
44. The mission statements are provided by Guidestar.org, a guide to non-
pro¬t organizations.
45. Again, the following observations draw on the U.S. State Department™s
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2003.



270
Notes to Pages 119“127


46. Ken Stier, “Post-Soviet Georgia Struggles to Find Democracy,” Christian
Science Monitor, July 24, 2002, 7.
47. From the U.S. State Department™s Country Report on Georgia for 2003;
similar observations were made in its 2003 reports for Armenia and
Albania, which have also adopted disclosure laws.
48. Data taken from the Open Society Justice Initiative™s website,
http://www.justiceinitiative.org/. Accessed December 14, 2004.
49. Jeremy Page, “My Friend the Dictator Wants to Chat,” The Times of
London, March 22, 2004, 13.
50. Again, in the words of the U.S. State Department. Its assessment of elec-
toral processes in Ukraine came before the controversy over the 2004
presidential election.
51. Banisar, Freedom of Information and Access to Government Records
around the World; Toby Mendel and Rashweat Mukundu, The Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act: Two Years On (London: ARTI-
CLE 19/MISA-Zimbabwe, 2004).
52. U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,
2003 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
2004).
53. Daniel Kwan, “Journalist Has Prison Term Cut by Two Years,” South
China Morning Post, March 19, 2003, 5, Perry Link, “China: Wiping out
the Truth,” New York Review of Books, February 24, 2005, 36“38.
54. Josephine Ma, “Lawyer Barred from Meeting Reporter in States Secret
Case,” South China Morning Post, September 25, 2004, 5.
55. Philip Pan, “In China, an Editor Triumphs, and Fails,” Washington Post,
August 1, 2004, A1. The editor of the Southern Metropolitan Daily, Cheng
Yizhong, received the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom
Prize in 2005.
56. Philip Pan, “Chinese Pressure Dissident Physician,” Washington Post,
July 5, 2004, A1.
57. United Nations Development Programme, Nigerian Governance and Hu-
man Rights Programme (Lagos: United Nations Development Programme,
2003). The House bill will become law when approved by the Nigerian
Senate.
58. Vanguard, “Hail Brave New World,” September 1, 2004.


6. Opaque networks
1. The penalty was contained in section 303 of HR 4392, the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
2. The decision was announced by Senator Robert Graham on Septem-
ber 4, 2001. The main advocate of the new penalty was Senator
Richard Shelby. The battle over this proposal is described by Jack
Nelson, U.S. Government Secrecy and the Current Crackdown on Leaks
(Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public
Policy, 2003).



271
Notes to Pages 127“130


3. William Sa¬re, “The Secrecy Legacy,” New York Times, November 2, 2000,
31.
4. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Leaky Reasoning,” September 2, 2001, B2.
5. Lars-Erik Nelson, “Congress™ Secrecy Bill Lowers Iron Curtain,” Daily
News, November 1, 2000, 39.
6. John Dean, “Bush™s Unof¬cial Of¬cial Secrets Act,” FindLaw, September
26, 2003.
7. The Commission on Government Secrecy was begun with a congressional
mandate in January 1955. The Coolidge Committee was established by
Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson in August 1956.
8. Reston™s criticism, and other reactions to the proposals, are described in
Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience, 166“168.
9. Minutes of the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Paris,
April 23“25, 1953.
10. I discuss this episode in more detail in Alasdair Roberts, “Entangling
Alliances: Nato™s Security Policy and the Entrenchment of State Secrecy,”
Cornell International Law Journal 36, no. 2 (2003): 329“360. NATO records
relating to the work of the Security Committee were declassi¬ed in the
1990s.
11. An advisor to Prime Minister Attlee observed: “We want the American
Atomic secrets and we won™t get them unless they modify the McMahon
Act. Of¬cials have already offered the procedure now proposed [positive
vetting] and nothing short of that offer “ and the direct question to the
candidate about Communist association is from the Americans™ point of
view a sine qua non “ will secure their cooperation”: Richard Aldrich,
The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence (New
York: The Overlook Press, 2002), 425.
12. The NATO standards adopted in the late 1950s were not released by NATO
until 2003. The criteria were closely modeled on those contained in an
executive order on security clearances approved by President Eisenhower
in November 1953.
13. Bucharest Ziua, “NATO Used as Scarecrow to Pass Law on Secrets,”April
8, 2002, Internet edition.
14. A few months later, the Bulgarian government restored access to the
secret police ¬les: Agence France Presse, “Bulgaria™s Secret Police Files
Re-Opened,” July 25, 2002.
15. Trud, “NATO Probes Bulgaria for Russian Spies,” May 8, 2003, 13.
16. Radio Free Europe, “Powell Pledges U.S. Support for Bulgarian NATO
Membership, Reform Efforts,” RFE/RL Newsline, May 16, 2003, Part II.
The proposal was later defeated by the Bulgarian Parliament Access to
Information Programme, Access to Public Information in Bulgaria 2003
(So¬a, Bulgaria: Access to Information Programme, 2004), 20.
17. The two prerequisites for the emergence of networked governance struc-
tures “ autonomy and interdependence “ are further described by W.
Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, and J. Koppenjan, Managing Complex Networks:
Strategies for the Public Sector (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
1997), 6.


272
Notes to Pages 132“136


18. Alasdair Roberts, “Australia™s “Great Surprise” for the US: Negotiating
the 2002 Security of Information Agreement,” Freedom of Information
Review, no. 106 (2003): 50“51.
19. This data was provided by the Of¬ce of the Secretary of Defense in
response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act in 2002.
20. The presumption in favor of classi¬cation of foreign government infor-
mation was established in Section 1.1(c) of Executive Order 13292, March
25, 2003, amending Executive Order 12958, regarding Classi¬ed National
Security Information. Properly classi¬ed information is protected from
disclosure under Exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act.
21. Agreement Between The Government of Australia And The Government
Of Canada Concerning The Protection Of Defence Related Information,
October 31, 1996.
22. The United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
23. Memorandum of Understanding Between Secretary of Defense on Behalf
of the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the
Secretary of State for Defense of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland Concerning Ballistic Missile Defense, June 12,
2003. A copy of the agreement was obtained by the British American
Security Information Council, a nongovernmental organization based in
London.
24. Alasdair Roberts, “Multilateral Institutions and the Right to Information:
The Case of the European Union,” European Public Law 8, no. 2 (2002):
255“275, 264“267; Roberts, “Entangling Alliances: NATO™s Security Policy
and the Entrenchment of State Secrecy,” 356.
25. Memo from the Security and Intelligence Secretariat of the Canadian
Privy Council Of¬ce, to the head of an internal task force reviewing the
Access to Information Act. May 29, 2001. This document was released in
response to a request under the Canadian Access To Information Act.
26. Arar Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, June 21, 2004 (Ottawa:
Commission of Inquiry Into The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation
to Maher Arar, 2004), 107, 172.
27. Section 13 of the Access to Information Act. The obligation to consult has
been inferred by the Federal Court of Canada.
28. Con¬dential memo provided by Privy Council Of¬ce to an internal task
force reviewing the Access to Information Act on April 23, 2001. This doc-
ument was released in response to a request under the Canadian Access
To Information Act.
29. Draft summary of discussion of security, defense, and law enforcement
of¬cials regarding reform of the Access to Information Act. April 25, 2001.
This document was released to the author in response to a request under
the Canadian Access To Information Act.
30. Section 87 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which created section 69.1 of the
Access to Information Act.
31. Evidence of the Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, October
18, 2001.


273
Notes to Pages 137“139


32. Opening Statement Of The Attorney General, Commission of Inquiry Into
The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation to Maher Arar, Ottawa,
Canada, June 18, 2004.
33. Motion On Behalf of Maher Arar For Disclosure of Documents, Com-
mission of Inquiry Into The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation to
Maher Arar, Ottawa, Canada, May 30, 2004.
34. Juliet O™Neill, “Canada™s Dossier on Maher Arar,” Ottawa Citizen, Novem-
ber 8, 2003, A1.
35. Evidence of Garry Loeppky, Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, October 7, 2003.
36. Opening Statement Of The Attorney General, Commission of Inquiry Into
The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation to Maher Arar, Ottawa,
Canada, June 18, 2004; Submissions of the Attorney General of Canada
in Response to Mr. Arar™s Motion For Disclosure, Commission of Inquiry
Into The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation to Maher Arar, Ottawa,
Canada, July 2, 2004.
37. Ruling on Con¬dentiality, Commission of Inquiry Into The Actions Of
Canadian Of¬cials In Relation to Maher Arar, Ottawa, Canada, July 19,
2004.
38. Commission of Inquiry Into The Actions Of Canadian Of¬cials In Relation
to Maher Arar, Press Release, December 20, 2004; Michael Den Tandt,
“Expert Warns ˜Culture of Secrecy™ May Block Truth About Arar Case,”
Toronto Globe and Mail, May 4, 2005.
39. David Cole, “Accounting for Torture,” The Nation 280, no. 11 (2005): 4“5.
40. Eugene Solomonov, “U.S.-Russian Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty: Is
There a Way to Control Organized Crime?” Fordham International Law
Journal 23 (1999): 165; Sean Murphy, “Note: Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaties with the European Union, Germany, and Japan,” American Jour-
nal of International Law 98 (2004): 596.
41. The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traf¬c in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances, also known as the Vienna Convention, was
agreed on December 19, 1988, and came into force in 1996.
42. The Financial Action Task Force is now housed in the headquarters of the
OECD in Paris.
43. Janet Reno, Statement by the Attorney General to the Symposium of the
Americas: Protecting Intellectual Property in the Digital Age (Washington,
DC: Department of Justice, 2000).
44. Rules on mutual legal assistance are also contained in the Convention
Against Transnational Organized Crime adopted by the United Nations
in 2000, which entered into force in 2003, and also in the 1996 Inter-
American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
45. See Articles 6 and 14 of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal
Matters Between France and The United States of America, signed in
1998. Similar language is used in other MLATs.
46. Amitai Etzioni, From Empire to Community (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004), 103“109.


274
Notes to Pages 140“142


47. Congressional Joint Inquiry, Findings and Conclusions of the Congres-
sional Joint Inquiry into September 11 (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Of¬ce, 2002).
48. National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final
Report, 355“356.
49. Philip Shenon, “Local Of¬cials Accuse FBI of Not Cooperating,” New
York Times, November 12, 2001, 6. Daniel Oates, “The FBI Can™t Do It
Alone,” New York Times, November 5, 2001, 17. See also National Com-
mission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final Report, 360“
361.
50. McKinsey & Company, Improving NYPD Emergency Preparedness and
Response (New York: McKinsey & Company, 2002), 28.
51. John Miller, Michael Stone, and Chris Mitchell, The Cell (New York:
Hyperion, 2002).
52. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, “Fight Networks with Networks,”
RAND Review 25, no. 3 (2001): 18“19; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt,
Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy (Santa
Monica, CA: RAND, 2001).
53. National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final
Report, 418.
54. Of¬ce of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security
(Washington, DC: Of¬ce of Homeland Security, 2002).
55. Michael Janofsky, “Intelligence To Be Shared, Ridge Tells Governors,”
New York Times, August 19, 2003, A19.
56. There were two noteworthy changes. The preamble to the Executive Order

<<

. 44
( 53 .)



>>