DOJ Drops FOIA Rule To Permit Lying 151
schwit1 writes "The Department of Justice has canceled a controversial revision to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules that opponents said would have allowed federal agencies to lie about the existence of records. In a letter to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley on Thursday, the DOJ wrote that the proposed rule 'falls short' of its commitment to transparency, and it 'will not include that provision when the Department issues final regulations.' The concern now is that the DOJ has been lying for some time and this rule was an attempt to provide cover for past denials concerning the existence of documents."
Does anybody think they're getting all the info (Score:2)
I'm most confident that we are getting to see what we want to see. Even if they give out info that seems injurious to the parties involved it only gives us an impression of FOIA that makes us feel good. Lot's more to see here folks, and we're not going to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that changed in the modifications under Ronald Reagan?
Clinton removed most of the Executive Order changes done under Reagan. Of course it's a little dubious that Executive Orders are used to alter the intent or scope of an existing Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States) [wikipedia.org]\
5 Step Program (Score:3)
1. Make laws
2. Ignore those laws, do whatever you want
3. Make new laws to cover your lies
4. ???
5. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
Hope n' change baby! Even worse than the previous guy.
You're about 35 years late. (Score:4, Interesting)
This practice was originally sanctioned un the Reagan administration. This rules change would have formalized the practice that was developed by the Feds under Reagan's AG. By removing the rule change (under the Obama administration) they are effectively barred from covering up the previous lies.
So clearly, Obama is to blame....
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
Of course Obama is to blame. Just because other Presidents have done the same just means all of them are to blame. Obama has the authority to end bad precedent set by his predecessors. By not doing so he shares in the blame.
Except (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Right, he's ending the policy now that he's had three years in office. I'd be impressed if he did this in his first 100 days, not when he's running for a second term and his polling numbers are under water.
Still pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around. This administration has not been very forthcoming when it comes to things like tax payers' money flushed down the toilet propping up "green" companies, where bailout money has been spent, how American made weapons are ending up in the hands of ille
Re:Except (Score:5, Interesting)
\
Still pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around. This administration has not been very forthcoming when it comes to things like tax payers' money flushed down the toilet propping up "green" companies, where bailout money has been spent, how American made weapons are ending up in the hands of illegal alien murderers, and why there are so many illegal aliens in this country in the first place.
As if the next administration will do any better? Surely you jest. I suspect that at this point we're in a death spiral. I'm not sure that at this point even an honest reformer could clean up the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get into office is to make it past the corporate gatekeepers controlling the media.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No kidding.
The corrupt, corporate donk sucking politicians in congress would impeach him in no time flat, if the media owned by the same corporate sector even allowed such a reformer to get into the whitehouse in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
But please, don't let a silly thing like "checks and balances" get in the way of your delusions.
After all, the government doesn't!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
He's the president. The buck stops with him. He appointed Holder, who may or may not have known about it. If Holder did, he's both a liar and a fool, and if he didn't, he's incompetent. Either way, he should have been fired already.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I don't see why not. Eric Holder is a total dimwit, whose illustrious career involves having covered up federal involvement in the OKC bombing. He has rather systematically assaulted Americans' 2nd amendment rights since he first entered office.
Obama could show him the door at any time. He pretends to be some kind of Constitutional expert, so it's not like he's out of his element.
Yet he's still there, lying to Congress about shipping guns to drug cartels. Why?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because nobody EVER went broke selling weapons. Not individuals, not STATES.
The U.S. Government's biggest income not counting income tax is sales tax and export duty on weapons sales.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. Government's biggest income not counting income tax is sales tax and export duty on weapons sales.
Wh-wh-wha? Citation needed! It doesn't show up here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm [taxpolicycenter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll call your citation and raise you some numbers right here [globalissues.org].
And here's the Grimmett Report [fas.org] which breaks it down even further by indicating where those arms are going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only one on that list I have a problem with you listing is the last one. Manning broke the law, and broke an oath he gave. He didn't expose wrongdoing but instead just gave a dump of a large amount of information he had access to. He is no hero, and according to law could be shot by a firing squad (espionage during wartime is literally punishable by firing squad).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Except (Score:5, Informative)
He's not being a troll.
The concern is not simply that they're American-made. It's that the executive branch (you know, the one Obama and his appointees lead) intentionally sold those 2000+ guns to known members of Mexican drug cartels. They knew at the time that these people were murderous thugs. But the officials overrode the objections of the gun dealers and some of the field agents to sell them anyway. This was allegedly to track where the guns would go, but A) the operation lost track of where most of the guns went, until B) some of those weapons were later used to kill a Border Patrol agent, not to mention in numerous Mexican crimes.
The debacle was called "Operation Fast and Furious". While investigations are ongoing, it's been reported that at least one of Obama's Cabinet members knew of the program - Attorney General Holder was briefed mid-program, in contradiction of his testimony to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it appears that the "Fast and Furious" gun sales that the ATF allowed to MX gangs and drug cartels does at least go as high as AG Eric Holder.
The AG is Obamas guy.....and it has been amazing at how this scandal has been so hard to uncover and track down...mostly due to stonewalling by the Justice Dept.
I'd say Obama
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, not judicial.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, not judicial.
Makes sense; the Department of Executions is part of the judicial branch, not executive.
Re: (Score:2)
I LOLed IRL. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This practice was originally sanctioned un the Reagan administration. This rules change would have formalized the practice that was developed by the Feds under Reagan's AG. By removing the rule change (under the Obama administration) they are effectively barred from covering up the previous lies.
So clearly, Obama is to blame....
-Rick
Much as I hate to say it, he is, and clearly so. He has continued most of the same "screw you, we're the government" bullshit that W started. And that was a lot of screw you-ing.
Re: (Score:2)
Much as I agree with you, you must take things on a case by case basis. In many cases he's let us down. In this case he hasn't. So criticize him where it's warranted, but reward him with praise when it's also warranted.
So good job Obama!
Now... about the other 99 things that need improvement....
d
Re: (Score:2)
The current implementation is based on a legal briefing from Reagan's AG in 1987 that basically said that if the government felt that the information was too sensitive, or was part of any on-going opperation or investigation, that they could lie about the existance of that record.
That loophole has been in place for the last 24 years. The rule amendment that just got shot down would have taken that implied hole in the law and made it an explicit hole in the law.
Now that the rule has been shot down, and the p
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that this administration is mostly the same corrupt crap, just with a different label, at least this guy didn't throw the nation into two wars which will force the country to remain involved for over a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't be too sure about that. The last time the US sent troops into a war with a country that was a serious opponent was WW2.
Since then there have been some proxy wars in-between, but never against a country that could actually take the fight back to them and do some serious damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Please if you think the country that sent human wave attacks against Saddam, could count as a serious opponent to the US you are mistaken. Now that Obama has shown the future of US conflicts is drone and air attacks w/out ground troops, the US Air Force could strip the Iranians' air defenses in a week followed by 2-3 weeks of carpet bombing, and then just pull back and let the
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Obama has shown the future of US conflicts is drone and air attacks w/out ground troops, the US Air Force could strip the Iranians' air defenses in a week followed by 2-3 weeks of carpet bombing, and then just pull back and let the people decide whom they want to lead them.
The answer -- which everyone already knows -- would be the Iranian regime. Every time the U.S. or other Western powers act against Iran, it strengthens the regime's hold because the only thing they hate more than their government is interference by others'. Especially ours. Most of the protesters still believe in, and the opposition's leaders participated in, the Islamic Revolution that removed the U.S.-backed Shah.
A bombing campaign initiated by the west would not dislodge the regime. Air power alone c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a country with nuclear capability. They could do a lot of damage to allies in that region.
Quite a difference from a group of camel fuckers with explosives, AKs and an overflowing supply of nutjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
He's only one term in. Looks like you guys will be bombing Iran soon:
Interesting conclusion for an article that says that while Israel is contemplating action against Iran, the U.S. is emphatically not, with experts on US-Iran relations, the White house, and even the Pentagon all saying it's a bad idea and not going to happen.
Bush Jr. made a lot of noise about Iran and gave a lot more indication that he was actually considering action against Iran. Never happened. Because even he and his know-nothing neo-con buddies, the ones who thought Iraq was a great idea, knew what a
Re:5 Step Program (Score:4)
He hasn't done much to get us out of the two wars that the last guy got us into. He claims he's pulling out of Iraq, but it's not true: how many "contractors" are going to stay, how many troops, etc.? It's not a real pull-out until everyone is gone. And what has he done to get us out of Afghanistan? Worse than nothing, he sent even more troops in there! We need to learn from history and do as the Soviets did: leave that country while you still can. It's impossible to set up a democracy there, and in fact it's not helping our cause to prop up a corrupt government.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At no point did he say he was pulling us out of afghanistan, he specifically campaigned on sending more troops there, because the war had been completely mismanaged and neglected by bush while he burned through our money fighting in Iraq. Obama was right then and he is right now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's just like Bush, and both of them are wrong. There's nothing being accomplished in Afghanistan, except people getting killed and money being burned. The only sensible thing to do is pull out just like we did in Vietnam.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to learn from history and do as the Soviets did: leave that country while you still can.
Because that worked out so well...
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? It DID work out well for the Soviets: before they pulled out, they were wasting resources and their soldiers were being killed left and right. After they pulled out, that all stopped. How is that not "working out well"? It would have been a lot better if they hadn't gone in there in the first place of course, but once you're in a bad state like that, pulling out is the only sensible thing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about?
Soviet's pullout --> chaos in Afghanistan --> rise of Taliban --> subjugation of people --> alliance with AQ --> 1993 WTC bombing --> attempted Philippine Airline bombing --> 1998 embassy bombings --> Sep 11, 2001.
Sure it worked well for the Soviets, for us and a lot of innocent people in other countries, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the Soviets care about our problems? Why should they care about the subjugation of people in a foreign country? We've already proven over and over that taking over countries and trying to set up puppet governments does not do anything for the cause of improving the lives of people in those countries (look at Iran for example).
The Soviet pullout didn't cause the rise of the Taliban and chaos in Afghanistan anyway; it was the Soviet invasion that caused those things. The pullout was the only rat
Re: (Score:2)
Theirs, obviously. Of course, ours isn't much better. If we, with one of the most corrupt governments in the world, can't govern ourselves properly, we have no business telling people in other countries how to govern themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Between his enthusiastic expansion of illegal spying, his des
Re:5 Step Program (Score:5, Insightful)
The War Powers Act is the lame requirement devised to cover the unconstitutionality of all our recent wars, and it requires that the President come asking for permission, after the fact, from Congress within 60 days of warring. Obama completely ignored that law with Libya.
So, while Libya didn't attain the scale of Iraq, it moves us one step closer to a Napoleonic Presidency and is in its own way, a signifier that Obama is just Bush III.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ask again... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Apparently, 2003 for Iraq. Unless you want to stick to the strict "declaration of war" which would be WWII.
However, the Libya was a UN op, not a US only op, so no war declaration needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You left out number four. (Score:3)
It was a real easy answer,
#4. Blame Bush
Though you were being nice we have gotten worse than your list.
1) Have Secret Laws.
2) Have Secret Courts
3) Use intimidation and threat of force to keep them
4) Blame Bush
5) Stay in Power, I mean profit
No Problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This should explain things more clearly. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Better yet, ask them to release all documentation on items they've previously lied about on any FOIA request. Then, get out a really big checkbook for the massive amount of paperwork you may or may not receive.
Re:No Problem! (Score:5, Funny)
</TinFoilHat>
Re: (Score:3)
I know where you're coming from.
I'm sitting on my couch here in England, the Land controlled by the United Kingdom Corporation, Limited (it's on Dunn & Bradstreet, look it up). The UK ("The UK", or "United Kingdom") is a short form of the United Kingdom Corporation, Limited, which is the Legal Entity created by the Crown (the 5 biggest banks in the World, nothing to do with the Queen), which through Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs collects tax to pay interest on loans taken out way back in the seco
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Strange, it was believed that all their ancestors migrated to, well, America...
Re: (Score:2)
We have UKIP [wikipedia.org], a fringe political party that stands on UK independence. It's position is that the Europe Union is a waste of time (which obviously explains why the party leader is a member of the European parliament ????).
We have the BNP [wikipedia.org], a fringe political party that just wants 'johnny foreigner' to 'go back where he came from'.
We have the EDL [youtube.com]. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, your wingnuts are atheists without guns?
Well, THAT explains why they never emigrated...
Re: (Score:2)
Europe under one flag, one currency, a Federated Superstate of homogenised regions ordered by *number* not *name*. The days of the Empire were numbered from that point on.
So, were those days of the Empire *named* prior to that point?
Re: (Score:2)
Aaand there's the mental image of Eric Holder playing with crystal globes while wearing plum-smuggling hot-pants. Thanks for that.
Prick.
Where's the brain bleach?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the brain bleach?
It's actual bleach. Or "Corn nuts!" if you prefer Drano-equivalent.
The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is to ask a question to which you already know the answer, and have documentary evidence of that answer.
Because then, if the public authority denies any knowledge, you can publicly enlighten them. Same as if/when you catch them in a barefaced lie.
I've done it a number of times. It's amazing what they'll come out with when you pull them in public for an outright violation of public trust.
Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Classic example of this: I ask the Ministry of Justice on how many occasions a family court judge (any family court judge, it doesn't matter specifics) out of a total 26,000 public law cases a year in the UK used Bench Memoranda (summaries of cases or even draft judgments written by their clerks or one or other of the solicitors) instead of drawing their own conclusions in deciding the disposition of each case; they said, categorically, none.
Disclaimer: I was an Advocate in Family Law.
I politely informed the Ministry that I had not only witnessed but had documentary evidence of no less than sixty cases out of seventy four in which I had been involved where the Judge had used Bench Memoranda - word for word to the drafts in most cases - and reiterated the question.
Their revised reply: "We do not know how many Judges use Bench Memoranda nor do we know how often if at all, they practise this. It is not a practise endorsed or encouraged by the Ministry."
Re: (Score:1)
Had to post to undo my accidental mod down. Meant to mod you up.
Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I believe this is precisely what is happening right now with the "Operation Fast and Furious" scandal. It seems that the House Oversight Committee has the nasty habit of asking the right questions of the right people and knowing precisely what documents to look for. They already know the answers, most of them anyway, since there have been numerous agents within BATFE and Border Patrol that have come forward and fed them information on the gun walking operation.
It seems that numerous people in Congress are giving the DOJ just enough rope to hang themselves. The DOJ is really getting beat up over this. It seems that people in State and Homeland Security were involved as well. The DOJ coming up with this rule to allow them to keep documents secret seems to be an attempt to contain the damage.
I just have to wonder, do they really think they they have the authority to deny these documents to Congress? Can they "lie" to the House Oversight Committee about the existence of documents? I would imagine that they can keep certain information from the public but they cannot keep the documents from Congress for long. These departments exist because of an act of Congress, if they get too far out of line then Congress can make them disappear. I believe that DOJ was reminded of this at some point since they backed off on this suicidal policy change.
Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... (Score:5, Informative)
FOIA, used in the right way, is a fantastic way to embarrass public authorities into telling the truth. When you already have the information (they don't know that - yet) and you ask them what you already know, they should be aware that a certain percentage of the questions they get asked are already answered; their credibility hence qualification to govern depends entirely upon their answer. Since such enquiries are covered under a Statutory Instrument, their responses are also covered under the same SI. Ergo, if they lie and they caught in it on a public forum [whatdotheyknow.com] then that is all the proof needed to legally disqualify them from their positions.
Gentlemen, call your lawyers.
Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since such enquiries are covered under a Statutory Instrument
Public officials already take an oath of office. We should amend this oath to make any lies whatsoever perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
Public officials already take an oath of office. We should amend this oath to make any lies whatsoever perjury.
Better yet, make it Treason.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is this: what recourse is there when they lie? You have 5 people replying to your post with examples of doing exactly what you suggest. That's great! But none of them end with any officials being indicted, resigning, or really any change. What you propose is good, but we need to take the next step. Senators who lie should be impeached. Officials who lie should be fired, and potentially sued.
This is similar to when big corporations push frivolous lawsuits against smaller competitors. Even
Re: (Score:2)
It's... tricky. Depending on who it is and what position they hold, I've managed to make a few people fall from varying heights. Social workers dismissed. Judges recused. Police officers of three or four decades fired and losing their pensions... I'm an evil bastard when I want to be, but never to anyone who doesn't thoroughly deserve it. And never without a. a plan and b. a plan b (usually involving a convoluted escape route).
Re: (Score:2)
There must be some interesting stories behind that. But I think my point is that the legal system needs to offer recourse here. It sounds like you have more devious approaches, which would be good to know but aren't going to work to correct the system as a whole.
What if they are lying about not lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are suspected of having lied in the past, and having issued the lying provision to provide cover for past lies, how can we trust their commitment to not seek approval for lying is truthful? (Debating this question would make a fantastic drinking game).
The only hard and fast rule you can trust almost all the time for anyone who lies for a living...if their lips are moving...they have to be lying.
Re: (Score:2)
A half truth is a whole lie.
Re:What if they are lying about not lying? (Score:4, Insightful)
reminds me of a scene in Labyrinth [imdb.com]. I don't have the exact quote to hand, but it basically goes:
There are two doors. Each guarded by one guard. Both will tell you which door goes where (one to where you want to go, the other to certain doom), but there's a catch. You can only ask one of them, and one always tells the truth while the other always lies. So you ask one of them "If I had asked the other guard which door was the correct door, which door would he have pointed to?", and whichever door he points to, you take the other one. It's a twisted logic, but there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
So the moral of this story is... no matter what anyone in the DOJ says, they are lying and the opposite to what they say is true? Sounds about right to me.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
There are two doors. Each guarded by one guard. Both will tell you which door goes where (one to where you want to go, the other to certain doom), but there's a catch. You can only ask one of them, and one always tells the truth while the other always lies. So you ask one of them "If I had asked the other guard which door was the correct door, which door would he have pointed to?", and whichever door he points to, you take the other one. It's a twisted logic, but there you go.
The double negation is superfluous. You need merely ask, "What answer would you give to the question 'Which door is the correct one?'?", and you'll get the correct answer regardless of which guard you asked. The lying guard would lie about his lie, canceling it out.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
um.... nope. If you asked the liar that one he will point you to the wrong door, and you pick the other one. If you ask the truthsayer and he points to teh correct door and you pick the other one... you're dead. You're playing the odds there.
It's in the wording.
By asking the question in the form I gave, the response from the liar would be to point to the death door, since he is indicating not his answer but the answer the other guard would have given and lying about it. The truthsayer would also point to th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Jaxoreth's solution is also correct.
The untruthful guard would answer the question 'which door is the correct one?' with the wrong door. If you ask him what his answer to that question would be, he will lie about it, i.e. indicate the correct door. (There's one negation coming from the question and one negation coming from the question within the question.)
The truthful guard will trivially indicate the correct door in response to the indirected question.
Re:What if they are lying about not lying? (Score:5, Funny)
This is my favorite solution to the problem [giantitp.com].
Face it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's the natural consequence of huge blocks of voters voting for politicians that overtly state that as their goal. The GOP's prime objective last session was to prevent anything from happening, and they didn't even bother lying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did they need to say anything? (Score:2)
Documents would have been kept compartmentalized until needed or lost - from any defense legal team or FOIA.
Anyone could request any term and very little would come back - this rush to hide results is strange.
Too much next gen cloud starting to connect too many old databases?
Oh good (Score:2)
It's certainly a comfort that they are not allowed to lie^H^H^H get caught lying. Next I suppose they will be required to pinky swear without crossing their fingers.
droids (Score:2)
those aren't the droids you're looking for
someone had to say it
Change! (Score:2)
'falls short' of its commitment to transparency"
Well, not really. I wonder who is going to get fired at the DOJ?
Duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The information is already out there. Call it "leaks", "wikileaks", "crackpot conspiracy theories", or whatever. Take that information, put it to the relevant bodies, and ask then if it's true or not. Not in so many words (see earlier in the thread when I caught the Ministry of Justice in a barefaced lie!), be subtle until they lie and you can prove it - then publish for the entire webosphere to see.
Some sample subjects to hit them with:
Ask DoD about low flying stealth or unusual aircraft - ask CAA the same
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us know the answers to these already. Yes, we're the ones you laugh at and call deluded.
I see someone skipped their meds this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK that's known as Public Interest Immunity.