St. Mary's University To Research Ways to Make FEDS Even More Secretive

[Nbadan]

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY


The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.

Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.

Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys."

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-05-foia-research_x.htm)

This is likely primarily aimed at environmental groups and local governments who want some control over what goes on in their communities. I bet it is aimed at preventing environmental impact statements from being required before building on a piece of land. This is not about security, it is about more corporate power and greed. I'm ashamed that St. Mary's would even think about taking this public money.

[exstatic]

I'm getting really ashamed of SoTex. First we had ATTs asshole CEO Ed Whitacre giving out phone contact info (sans warrant), and now, a local institute of higher learning is trying to figure out a way to have Americans not be able to learn things.

Believe this: the dismantling of the FOIA has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the longstanding GOP hatred of it, dating back to the Reagan years. They don't want the people to have oversite of their activities, since most of them are greedy, illegal or otherwise questionable.

[boutons_]

Catholic orgs, for some mysterious reason, seem to favor concentration of power at the very top.

The USA is turning into France: institutions will always be favored and be permitted to crush individuals, while USA has historically protected individuals in their battle against institutions.

eg: the SC conservatives Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissenting in the recent 5-3 smackdown of dubya's use of military tribunals for terror detainees, with 4th conservative Roberts unable to vote but clearly wanting to make it 5-4.


Vive l'Amerique!! Allez les Rouge, Blancs, et Bleues!

[Nbadan]

Comment: St. Mary's study to ensure laws don't hinder flow of info
Web Posted: 07/23/2006 12:00 AM CDT
John Cornyn
Special to the Express-News


Last year, with bipartisan backing, Congress approved a defense appropriations bill that included $1 million for a study on state information laws to be conducted by St. Mary's University in San Antonio.

Several published news accounts in recent days have dramatically misstated the purpose of this proposed study. The reports erroneously allege the study is, as USA Today claimed, "aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom of information requests."

In fact, the opposite is true. The research will make certain that free flow of information is not unnecessarily hindered by security-driven laws approved by states after Sept. 11, 2001.

Contrary to some reports, the research will not affect the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, in any way. It will, however, seek to determine whether the spirit of FOIA — facilitating the free flow of information — is being compromised by recent state laws.

As Texas attorney general and as a U.S. senator, I have worked to increase public access to government information and records. We all recognize the delicate balance, particularly in wartime, between national security and the public's right to know. But we must remain vigilant, as we address security concerns, that we never unnecessarily restrict American citizens, or news media, from gaining access to information about their government.

"National security" should never be used as a pretext to inappropriately restrict public access to information. Fundamentally, our government is based not on the need to know, but on the fundamental right to know.

Since 9-11, some 41 states have enacted laws limiting access to certain information associated with cybersecurity and information assurance. These laws are all well-intentioned, but some may have the unintended consequence of limiting, without cause, public access to government data. Attempts to prevent assistance to those who would wish us harm may undermine important liberties that are essential for a healthy democracy.

With my support, Congress last year ordered a study to compile and analyze these state laws. Because the funds were included in the Defense Department appropriation, some critics have apparently assumed the unstated purpose is to restrict government transparency. That assumption is false.

The study is to be conducted by St. Mary's University in San Antonio. Its law school has a highly respected Center for Terrorism Law — the only such facility in the country. It is an institution committed, as its director says, "to preserving our cherished civil liberties." This research should be conducted in an impartial, academic setting, insulated from government and interest group pressure. The St. Mary's center is ideal for this task.

It's important to note that these 40-plus state laws have been approved without any central coordination. Some reflect the strength of our federal system and offer meritorious ideas about balancing national security and public information. However, approaches vary markedly from state to state, and anecdotal evidence indicates some laws may well be overbroad and excessively restrictive. The study will help determine if that is the case.

After this research is compiled, a national conference would be convened to examine the findings. The resulting examination of strengths and weaknesses of various laws may well produce a "model" state law incorporating provisions that best protect our security while facilitating maximum flow of information to the press and public.

These are the stated goals of the St. Mary's researchers. They also represent the intentions of those of us in Congress who approved this grant. I'm convinced this project will provide us with valuable analysis on whether current laws are serving us well or are instead undermining our bedrock open-government principles.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn represents Texas.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm ashamed that St. Mary's would even think about taking this public money.

It's not a surprise that St. Mary's would accept this money or start the Center for Terrorism Law. The school would like to be known for something other than high tuition and mediocre bar passage rates.

[boutons_]

"mediocre bar passage rates"

I thought StMU was known as a mediocre law school because it taught law only to pass the bar exam?

[FromWayDowntown]

"mediocre bar passage rates"

I thought StMU was known as a mediocre law school because it taught law only to pass the bar exam?

Teaching law to pass the bar exam is teaching law that makes good practitioners -- and frankly, it's the best way to ensure that your school will be among the better schools going.

Other than the thinktank in Austin, the best law schools in Texas -- Baylor, University of Houston, Texas Tech -- all emphasize courses that encompass the subjects that are tested on the Bar Exam. At most of those schools, a significant proportion of the courses a student takes over a 3 year period are non-elective, core curriculum sorts of courses. The theory goes that if you teach students the fundamental concepts that are tested on the Bar, you give them the ability to solve the more complex problems that arise over the course of a legal career (and, to an extent, on the Bar exam itself). It's very much like learning mathematics -- you can't begin to understand the complex issues unless you know the fundamentals. In the schools that are perennially at the top of the Bar passage heap, it's proven to be a very successful approach to teaching law. Graduates from schools like Baylor, for instance, are extremely well-prepared to practice law after gradutation and do exceedingly well on the Bar examination.

For example, there have been eight July examinations since 1998. In that time, St. Mary's had a high passage rate of 79.9% and a low of 58.6% (the passage rates by year are 72.3% in 2005, 79.9% in '04, 74.4% in '03, 61.8% in '02, 69.6% in '01, 58.6% in '00, 62.6% in '99, and 76.6% in '98). During that same time, the pass rates for the "practical curriculum schools" are signficantly higher. Baylor's high rate is 95.3% in 2003; it's low is 88.1% in 1999. University of Houston's high rate is 92.7% in 2001; it's low is 85.2% in 2005. Texas Tech's high rate is 92.1% in 1999; it's low is 84.0% in 2004. St. Mary's best year, therefore, is at least 5 percentage points worse than the worst years for any of those schools; in the case of Baylor, it's a difference of almost 10 percentage points. The perception of mediocrity has a great deal to do with those numbers.

St. Mary's is a mediocre law school largely because at some point, the curriculum moved away from teaching practical legal concepts well to embrace teaching legal theory poorly. Students weren't required to learn basics (though some did) but were permitted to take on all sorts of niche courses that encompassed subject matter that is highly impractical -- a full semester course on the legal implications of NAFTA is hardly as useful to a law student as a required course in a more basic subject like Evidence or state criminal or civil procedure. Students who immersed themselves in "majoring" in some sort of niche program were woefully unprepared to take the Bar examination. They didn't have the basic foundation, they couldn't learn the material necessary to pass the bar during the course of a couple of months of bar study. And when push came to shove on the Bar exam, they couldn't even fall back on fundamentals as a means to answer the questions posed.

As the curriculum drifted towards those kinds of niche courses, the bar passage rates dropped substantially while the tuition rates remained extremely high, in a relative sense. I was admitted to St. Mary's (to which I honestly applied in a worst case scenario sense -- to be sure I got into law school somewhere) but never seriously considered enrolling because the quality of the education relative to the dollars spent obtaining that education was ridiculously poor at the time.

Things have gotten better at St. Mary's recently, primarily because the current Dean, a former professor at Tech, brough with him the notion of a Tech-like curriculum. I know that he has faced a great deal of trouble from certain factions of the faculty who would prefer to keep St. Mary's a "liberal arts" sort of law school, without any particular emphasis on bar courses. But the proof seems to be in the pudding -- St. Mary's has begun to re-emphasize bar courses and the bar passage rates are going up, which in turn allows the law school to attract better students.

[Nbadan]

Hot off the presses. The San Antonio Chapter of the ACLU weighs in on the 1 million dollar grant given to St. Mary's University School of Law by the Department of Defense to "study how to limit the Freedom of Information Act." Below is an open letter to the community. We have also started a petition campaign to ask St. Mary's to give the money back: www.GiveItBackStMarys.com .

Dr. Charles L. Cotrell
President,
St. Mary’s University
One Camino Santa Maria
San Antonio, Texas 78228

Re: Grant from the Department of Defense

Dear Dr. Cotrell:


This is an open letter to the San Antonio community regarding a proposed Department of Defense grant to fund research on the Freedom of Information Act and corresponding state statutes governing disclosure of government information.

St. Mary’s University issued a statement regarding the application by the University’s Center for Terrorism Law for a $1,000,000 grant from the US. Department of Defense to study “Homeland Defense and Civil Support Threat Information Collection.” The press has reported the purpose of this grant would be to study the Freedom of Information Act. The statement by the university indicates it has not completed the process for submitting the final proposal for the grant. We assume, however, the proposal must be in its final stage of completion since it includes a recommendation for a national conference when the actual study is complete.

One focus of the proposed study, according to St. Mary’s University, would be on the protection of civil liberties. Members of the ACLU are very interested in events, laws, policies and practices which impact civil liberties, and we want to make sure that if St. Mary’s receives this grant, that a powerful voice in support of civil liberties is heard at the Center for Terrorism Law.

It seems to us that at present the point of view of civil libertarians is not well represented at the Center for Terrorism Law. The military mindset seems to dominate. Although Professor Jeffrey Addicott, the Director of the Center, is putatively well versed in matters of human rights, he is a career military officer. Consultants for the center consist of one retired Army lieutenant general, two retired Army major generals, a colonel who is an Army Reservist, and an active duty major in the Air Force. The only civilian consultant is a student who is studying to be a librarian.

While the Center for Terrorism Law claims it “provides a service as a partner in the San Antonio, Texas community” the list of local community affiliations seem limited to those directly or indirectly connected with the military. The Center is supported by the United States Air Force Research Laboratory through a subcontract between the Air Force and the University of Texas at San Antonio. In addition, the Center is affiliated with the Air Intelligence Agency at Lackland Air Force Base whose mission is, according to the Center’s website:

“o deliver multi-source intelligence products, applications, services and resources expertise in the areas of information warfare, command and control warfare, security, acquisition, foreign weapons systems and technology, and treaty monitoring, to support Air Force major commands, Air Force components, and joint and national decision makers.”

This mission statement mentions nothing about civil liberties.

The Center for Terrorism Law also claims affiliations with the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, which is concerned with “national defense of the homeland,” and with the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel. The latter “focuses solely on the subject of terrorism.”

One of the Center’s private sector affiliates arouses particular interest. The Center’s website lists TATE, Incorporated (Trusted Agent for Technology and Engineering) as a “community” affiliate. Since the corporate headquarters is in Germantown, Maryland, we find it difficult to see the San Antonio connection. Our concern was further heightened when we read that, according to the Center’s website, “TATE’s current customers include the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, Defense Intelligence Agency and other government agencies,” and that it is “the nation’s leading contractor providing . . . Peacetime Government Detention (PGD), Hostage Detention (HD), . . . plans and operations and other sensitive training support to the U.S. government.” Our observation is that TATE, Incorporated, does not include civil liberties in its corporate vocabulary.

As you can see, although the Center for Terrorism Law expresses concern for protection of civil liberties, its organization, staffing and affiliations strongly imply that civil liberties is not a priority. We are very concerned about this oversight.

We are also concerned about the fact that the grant St. Mary’s is seeking would be from the federal government—specifically from the Department of Defense—although the focus of the grant proposal is to be on state laws. This raises an unavoidable question: Why should the U.S. military fund a project whose goal is to write model legislation that could be used by state governments to deal with freedom of information?

Carlos Guerra, columnist for the San Antonio Express-News said recently, “Give me a break. The money is from the Defense Department, which has never championed transparency or open government.” The San Antonio ACLU agrees with Guerra.

The whole project upon which St. Mary’s is about to embark seems to beg for input from local and state organizations which are not connected with government and which have a stake in strengthening civil liberties in the United States and in Texas. The State of Texas, we emphasize, places individual liberties above all other public values. That is clear because the writers of our state constitution put the Bill of Rights in Article I and explicitly declared that Article I would take precedence over any other provision of the state constitution or laws.

We are confident that you share our concern for the need of protecting civil liberties, since there is a competing need for national security because of the possibility of attacks by terrorists. We do not want the war on terrorism to morph into a war on civil liberties, although we feel that the assault on civil liberties is well under way by the federal government and the Center for Terrorism Law can either help to turn the tide in favor of liberty, or become complicit in its erosion.

Because of our concerns, we urge the following:

• For the purposes of the study for which the university is seeking a grant, legal scholars from the ACLU and like-minded organizations should be made active partners in the research which will be conducted by the Center for Terrorism Law. Since security issues and civil liberties are the two main concerns of the study, civil libertarians should have input that is proportional to those whose focus is security.

• Before the final draft of the grant proposal is submitted to the Department of Defense, the draft should be made public.

• The university should clarify why a federal grant from a Department of Defense would focus on state laws on information access.

• In the face of efforts by the Executive Branch of the federal government to thwart efforts by the public to gain access to government documents under the Freedom of Information Act, one purpose of the study should be to find ways to make it easier for the public to know what our governments are doing.

Representatives of our local ACLU board would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues.

Sincerely,

Patrick John Filyk
President,
SA Chapter ACLU