The Washington Post, Christopher Lee, 21/2/2008

The Army has shut down public access to the largest online collection of its doctrinal publications, a move criticized by open-government advocates as unnecessary secrecy by a runaway bureaucracy.

Army officials moved the Reimer Digital Library ( http://atiam.train.army.mil) behind a password-protected firewall on Feb. 6, restricting access to an electronic trove that is popular with researchers for its wealth of field and technical manuals and documents on military operations, education, training and technology. All are unclassified, and most already are approved for public release.

"Almost everything connected to the Army is reflected in some way in the Reimer collection," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists. "It provides the public with an unparalleled window into Army policy. It provides unclassified resources on military planning and doctrine."

Aftergood, a daily user of the library until he was shut out by the new firewall two weeks ago, said the collection offers specialized military manuscripts that do not appear on the shelves of local libraries. These include documents on the Army's use of unmanned aircraft; tactics and techniques for the use of nonlethal weapons; a field manual for non-engineers on the fundamentals of flight; and a manual on working dogs in the military.

"All of this stuff had been specifically approved for public release," Aftergood said. "I think it's a case of bureaucracy run amok. And it's a familiar impulse to secrecy that needs to be challenged at every turn."

For years, open-government advocates have complained about the Bush administration's penchant for confidentiality, from the White House's long-standing refusal to release lists of presidential visitors to the secrecy surrounding the administration's warrantless wiretapping program and Vice President Cheney's energy policy task force.

In 2006, the National Archives acknowledged that the CIA and other agencies had withdrawn thousands of records from the public shelves over several years and inappropriately reclassified many of them. Early in 2002, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a memo urging federal agencies to use whatever legal means necessary to reject Freedom of Information Act requests for public documents.

Army officials said yesterday that they were compelled to limit access to the Reimer library site to comply with Department of Defense policies that call for tightening the security of military Web sites and to keep better track internally of who is accessing them and why.

"You've got to be a member of the military or a Department of Defense worker to have access to it," and not all of them can get in, said Ray Harp, a spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command, which oversees and maintains the Reimer collection. "They did this to make sure they are in line with the current DOD and DA [Department of the Army] information assurance policies."

Harp said some of the documents in the collection still are available to the public through the Army Publishing Directorate ( http://www.usapa.army.mil). That is not good enough, according to Aftergood, who said many of the most important documents on that site are password-protected, as well, despite having been cleared for public release. His group recently filed a FOIA request for all of the unclassified documents in the Reimer collection in order to replicate the archive on its own publicly accessible Web site.

"They can configure Army Web sites however they like," Aftergood said. "What they cannot do is to withhold information from the public that is subject to release under the FOIA. . . . What we really want to do is to persuade them to adopt a reasonable policy of openness, not to provide an alternative -- unless we have to."

Sophie Brodie and Richard Alleyne, The Telegraph, 21/2/2008

UK energy watchdog Ofgem has launched an investigation into the gas and electricity markets just hours after British Gas posted a five-fold jump in profits and sparked outrage from consumer groups.

Gavin Cordon, The Independent, 21/2/2008

The Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, 21/2/2008 

Exclusive: Concern over nuclear arsenal removed from Iraq dossier

The full extent of government anxiety about the state of British-Israel relations can be exposed for the first time today in a secret document seen by the Guardian.

The document reveals how the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness at the top of government about any mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on weapons of mass destruction.

The dossier was made public this week, but the Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having the handwritten mention of Israel kept secret.

The FCO never argued that the information would damage national security. The Guardian has seen the full text and a witness statement from a senior Foreign Office official, who argued behind closed doors that any public mention of the candid reference would seriously damage UK/Israeli relations. In the statement, he reveals that in the past five years there have been 10 substantial incidents and 20 more minor ones relating to Israeli concerns about attitudes to their government within Whitehall.

The Information Tribunal, which adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act, agreed to remove the single reference to Israel when it ordered the release of the draft of the Iraqi weapons dossier written by John Williams, the FCO's chief information officer at the time.

Along with unfavourable references to the US and Japan, the reference to Israel was written in the margin by someone commenting on the opening paragraph of the Williams draft. It was written against the claim that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".

In statement to the tribunal, Neil Wigan, head of the FCO's Arab, Israel and North Africa Group, said he did not know who had referred to Israel in the margin. He went on: "I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein."

Its disclosure would seriously damage the UK's relations with Israel, Wigan said. The comparison with Saddam and the "implied accusation of a breach of the UN's authority by Israel are potentially very serious". It was "inevitable" that relations between the UK and Israel would suffer if the marginal note were allowed to enter the public domain, he added.

Wigan observed: "Unfortunately, there is perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] are prejudiced against the country". The note on the Williams draft dossier "would therefore confirm this pre-existing suspicion and would increase the damage".

Writing in October last year, he noted that "criticism of Israel received a huge amount of media coverage". The margin comment mentioning Israel would thus be given a "high profile". Harming relations with Israel would undermine the FCO's ability to prevent and resolve conflict "through a strong international system". In addition, there was "an important national interest in relation to counter-terrorism", Wigan said.

The FCO insisted on the removal of the reference to Israel after it lost a long battle to suppress the draft dossier, which was drawn up in early September 2002. It originally argued that the name of the author needed to be protected. It then said the contents of the draft dossier should be suppressed to protect the need for officials to give frank advice. The Williams document was finally released by the FCO last week, three years after it was first requested by Chris Ames, an independent researcher, who pursued his campaign in the New Statesman magazine.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, said last year that it was in the public interest that the document should be released in its entirety. The FO appealed against his ruling and took it to the Information Tribunal.

The FCO had no objections to references to other countries in the margin of the Williams document. Alongside the claim that no other country apart from Iraq had twice launched wars of aggression against neighbours, the unknown FCO official writes: "Germany?" and " US: Cuba, Guatemala, Mexico". Against a reference to the use of chemical weapons, the official has written: "Japan in China?"

Claims in the Williams draft are similar to those in the final government Iraqi weapons dossier published in late September 2002. The Information Tribunal ordered the release of the draft, without reference to Israel, observing that it may have played a bigger role in influencing the final dossier than previously supposed. The government tried to distance itself from the Williams draft.

The Telegraph, Robert Winnett, 20/2/2008

Alistair Darling has been accused of trying to cover up Government plans for Northern Rock after introducing legislation to exclude the bank from Freedom of Information laws. The Chancellor took the unusual move of introducing small print into emergency legislation yesterday to prevent public scrutiny of the bank, which has been nationalised.

Ron Sandler, the new chairman of Northern Rock, Mr Darling and Gordon Brown have refused to reveal their plans for the bank, which are believed to include increasing mortgage rates, cutting savings deals and closing several branches.

MPs were forced to vote on the nationalisation yesterday, despite being kept in the dark over what public ownership will entail.

The Conservatives have already demanded that the Government should release the advice it received from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank.

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said last night: "The public is now paying for this bank, so we are entitled to know what it is doing with our money.

Reuters, James Vicini, 19 February 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU and other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.

The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."

Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program's disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists.

The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago.

Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's legal director, expressed disappointment that the high court refused to review the case.

Guardian, Haroon Siddique, 18 February 2008

The notorious claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was not contained in an early draft of the controversial dossier, but the draft version did warn that the country had acquired weaponry intended to "terrorise, intimidate and destabilise", it was revealed today.

The draft written by John Williams, who at the time was head of press at the Foreign Office, and released today under the Freedom of Information Act, also said that Iraq "was actively assembling an arsenal of terror weapons with which to intimidate its neighbours and the wider international community".

Williams wrote that Iraq was "developing as a priority longer-range missile systems capable of targeting Nato (Greece and Turkey?)" and "covertly attempting to acquire technology and material for use in nuclear weapons".

But later in the document it was noted that Iraq would "find it difficult to produce fissile material [for nuclear weapons] while sanctions remain in place".

Williams also qualified concerns about the regime's chemical weapons capability by adding he could not be sure "whether these [weapons] have been destroyed".

The former Daily Mirror journalist referred to a number of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, who he said "maintained power by torture, rape and execution".

He referred to the late dictator's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 1998 chemical weapons attack on the village of Halabja, which killed some 5,000 Kurds.

The 45-minute claim became a key plank of the government's case for going to war and Tony Blair was subsequently accused of "sexing up" the dossier with the help of spin doctors.

The content of today's draft was considered significant because the government has claimed that the dossier eventually published in September 2002 was the work of the joint intelligence committee and its chairman, John Scarlett, and that the so-called "Williams draft" had little influence on the final version.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Edward Davey, said that the "core analysis" was "the same in both documents".

"The government cannot continue to deny the major role that spin doctors played in creating this dossier," he said.

"A press official should never have been drafting a document that ended up being used as the justification for going to war.

Researcher Chris Ames had campaigned for three years for release of the document before a tribunal finally ruled in his favour last month.

Williams noted in his dossier that the Foreign Office could not publish everything it knew because it "would put people's lives at risk" but added: "The public deserves as much knowledge as possible".

Read the draft here

CNNMoney.com, 15 February 2008

NEW YORK (AP) - The Global Alcohol Producers Group paid Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $240,000 in 2007 to lobby on alcohol-related issues at the World Health Organization.

The group spent $120,00 in the second half of 2007 to lobby the Washington-based WHO, according to a disclosure form posted online Tuesday by the Senate's public records office.

Global Alcohol Producers also paid Akin Gump $120,000 during the first six months of 2007 to lobby on the same issue.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. (NYSE:TAP) (TSX:TAP'B) (TSX:TAP'A) , Constellation Brands Inc. (NYSE:STZ) , Great Britain's SABMiller PLC, Japan's Asahi Breweries Ltd. and 12 other spirits companies are members of Global Alcohol Producers Group.

The trade group was formed to lobby the WHO as it prepared a report on ways to reduce alcohol-related injuries and deaths for the 2007 World Health Assembly.

Global Alcohol Producers Group also lobbied Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Lobbyist Daniel Spiegel, the former U.S. envoy to the World Health Organization, is among those registered to lobby on behalf of Global Alcohol Producers.

Lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches, under a federal law enacted in 1995.
 

BBC News, 14 February 2008

The Lords authorities are facing calls to investigate Labour peer Lord Cunningham over claims he failed to properly declare consultancy work.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb wants an inquiry into claims the former minister receives £36,000 a year as an advisor to the City of London Corporation.

The Corporation has confirmed the peer had set up meetings with ministers and other work for it since 2006.

Lord Cunningham was not available to comment on the allegations.

Mr Lamb said he had written to the Lords' register of members' financial interests, as it appeared the former Cabinet minister "may have failed to comply with the rules".

The Lib Dem MP added: "We must have total transparency. This is certainly something that needs to be investigated."

Advice

A spokesman for the City of London Corporation confirmed that Lord Cunningham held the role of consultant, which it said involves "occasional" help with setting up meetings.

The Corporation is in charge of planning, policing and public services in London's main financial district.

Initially Lord Cunningham was employed through the lobbying firm Sovereign Strategy, run by former Labour MEP Alan Donnelly, but since September 2007 he has been paid through his own company, Brinkburn Associates.

His work mainly involved giving advice on a range of issues affecting the City, including proposed laws, as well as helping to liaise with ministers, the spokesman added.

"Occasionally he might assist us in contacting somebody he happens to know, in a particular minister's office, and explain that we were having difficulty arranging a meeting," he said.

Lord Cunningham left the government in 1999 and was made a life peer in 2005 after stepping down as the Labour MP for the Copeland constituency in Cumbria.

Since then he has carried out consultancy work for a number of organisations, mainly in the nuclear industry.

The register of Lords' interests lists several trips to the US paid for by Sovereign Strategy or an organisation called the Transatlantic Nuclear Energy Forum, which lists him on its website as its honorary legislative chair for Europe.

Lord Cunningham was unavailable for comment about his consultancy work.

Yorkshire Evening Post, 14 February 2008

SignonSanDiego.com, Huw Jones, 15/2/2008

BRUSSELS – The European Union's executive dismissed criticism from campaigners on Friday who said it was backtracking on promises on a plan to register lobbyists to increase transparency in decision making.

The European Commission is finalising a voluntary register it wants all lobbyists – who often try to influence EU laws before they reach the statute book – to sign. 

MoneyMarketing, Helen Pow, 19/2/2008

The Government is attempting to exempt Northern Rock from the Freedom of Information Act with a clause in its draft legislation to nationalise the stricken bank.

The legislation states: "Article 18 deems Northern Rock not to be a publicly-owned company for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000."

The Freedom of Information Act says nationalised companies in Northern Rock's situation should be subject to freedom of information requests. Other publicly-owned companies such as Royal Mail, Scottish Water and the Tote are subject to the Act.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne says the clause is an attempt to prevent the public obtaining information about how the institution is managing public funds and claims it "flies in the face of the Act itself".

He says: “The public is now paying for this bank. We are entitled to know what it is doing with our money. It is completely unacceptable to exempt it from the Freedom of Information Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been incompetent and now he’s trying to cover his tracks.”

But the Treasury says Northern Rock would be at a disadvantage to other banks if it were subject to the Act.

A spokesperson says: "Northern Rock will carry on being run as a commercial bank and, as no other commercial banks are subject to Freedom of Information requests, this clause keeps it on an even keel. This is not an attempt to hide anything, we have been transparent throughout this whole process."

Telegragh, Rosa Prince, 19 Februaury 2008

The "dodgy dossier" on Iraq which the Government claimed gave the intelligence agencies' case for war bore a striking resemblance to a draft by a Government spin doctor, it emerged on Monday.

The Herald, Robbie Dinwoodie, 19 February 2008

Labour leader Wendy Alexander's fightback continued yesterday with the appointment of her latest spin doctor and the support of former First Minister Henry McLeish.

But both developments were to a degree undermined by the new aide's lack of Holyrood or political experience, and Mr McLeish's frank views on Labour's recent difficulties.

Guardian, Chris Ames, 19 Februaury 2008

Make no mistake, the John Williams draft of the Iraq dossier, finally released yesterday, is a smoking gun. The document proves that Williams (a spin doctor friend of Alastair Campbell) who gave his own view of the affair in an article for Cif on Monday, was in the thick of drafting the document that took Britain to war. He wrote what became the dossier's executive summary. When the dossier was published, false claims from Williams were presented as "judgements" of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). It does not get any more serious than that.

The first thing the Williams draft does is to show that the government lied to the Hutton and Butler inquiries and to parliament when it claimed that the Williams draft did not influence subsequent versions and was put aside when JIC chairman John Scarlett made a "fresh start" the next day.

The Times: David Sharrock,  19 February 2008

Ian Paisley Jr

The First Minister made no immediate comment on the sudden announcement by his son, Ian Paisley Jr, that he was standing down as a junior minister in the power-sharing Executive. But with his own powers diminishing and an increasing reliance upon his son to steer him through his duties at Stormont, the odds on Mr Paisley making good his pledge to serve a full term in the Province’s top political role have been drastically shortened.

George Monbiot, February 19, 2008, Monbiot.com

As government documents show, Sir Nicholas Stern accidentally launched a trade in human lives.

This is a column about how good intentions can run amok. It tells the story of how an honourable, intelligent man set out to avert environmental disaster and ended up accidentally promoting the economics of the slave trade. It shows how human lives can be priced and exchanged for goods and services.

The story begins in a village a few miles to the west of London. The British government proposes to flatten Sipson in order to build a third runway for Heathrow airport. The public consultation is about to end, but no one doubts that the government has made up its mind.

Its central case is that the economic benefits of building a third runway outweigh the economic costs. The extra capacity, the government says, will deliver a net benefit to the UK economy of £5bn(1). The climate change the runway will cause costs £4.8bn(2), but this is dwarfed by the profits to be made.

PR Week: David Singleton, 14 February 2008

The public affairs industry emerged unscathed from the latest public administration select committee hearing - but only after MPs allowed a contentious claim about parliamentary passes to go unchallenged.

Representatives of the CIPR, PRCA and Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) were summoned to appear last week as the Commons committee pressed ahead with its inquiry into the transparency of the industry.

Lib Dem MP Paul Rowen had expressed concern about lobbyists holding parliamentary passes, which give privileged access to MPs and researchers. He said: 'How do you know whether that practice is going on?'

The Guardian,  Seamus Milne,  14 February  2008

In this climate of anti-Muslim rage, counter-terrorist police are talking more sense than the government or media

A week after the Archbishop of Canterbury dared to float the idea that some role for Islamic arbitration could be recognised in British law, the anti-Muslim backlash grinds on. Never mind that Rowan Williams's proposal was hedged with qualifications, that elements of sharia already have legal status, that he used the existing practice of orthodox Jewish courts as a model, and insisted such an accommodation could not override equal legal rights for all, notably women. The media and political reaction has been hysterical and ugly: from the Sun's declaration that Williams had "handed al-Qaida a victory", to the Express claim that he had "surrendered to fanatics", to the endless replays of floggings in western-backed states like Saudi Arabia.

EurActiv.com. 14 February 2008

The Commission has refuted claims that its upcoming lobbyists register, due in spring, will be 'useless' without more detailed information.