|
On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 1 2011, 01:25 PM (299 Views)
|
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 1 2011, 01:25 PM
Post #1
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
I thought he already had a license to lie.
- Quote:
-
On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie By: Examiner Editorial | 10/30/11 8:05 PM
It's not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration's lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.
There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.
Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court.
Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar's rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. "Every day," Farrell notes, "the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House -- all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It's truly Orwellian." The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama's proposed "license to lie." LINK
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Nov 1 2011, 01:50 PM
Post #2
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
Obama has takens some lessons from the previous administration. That should make you happy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 1 2011, 03:09 PM
Post #3
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
You liberals are all alike. Obama is Bush III.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Nov 1 2011, 11:57 PM
Post #4
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
I think that I would be more concerned if I read this somewhere other than in an editorial in the Washington Examiner.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 2 2011, 01:05 AM
Post #5
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
Anything to refute what was said?
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Nov 2 2011, 01:07 AM
Post #6
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
No, Jim, I have seen nothing else bout it anywhere. That is the problem.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 2 2011, 01:10 AM
Post #7
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
I can see that would be a problem for you. Nothing to refute = must be true. If it is true are you ok with that. You seem to be perfectly ok with all his other lies.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 3 2011, 05:28 AM
Post #8
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
File Not Found
Why does the most open and transparent administration in history prefer to lie about government records?
Jacob Sullum | November 2, 2011
When he took office, Barack Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government." As a major part of that commitment, he pledged fidelity to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which he called "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government."
It is hard to reconcile these lofty memos with the Justice Department's proposed rule instructing federal agencies to falsely deny the existence of records sought under FOIA. But at least the Obama administration is open about its desire to mislead us.
Enacted in 1966, FOIA "encourages accountability through transparency," as Obama put it in his 2009 memo. The law created a general assumption that Americans have a right to information about their government unless there is a good reason to withhold it, such as when disclosure would violate people's privacy, undermine a criminal investigation, or threaten national security.
Congress amended FOIA in 1986, adding Section 552(c), which addresses situations where confirming the existence of records would tip off the target of a criminal investigation, compromise a confidential informant, or reveal classified information. In such cases, agencies "may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of" FOIA, which the courts and leading members of Congress have long understood to mean issuing a response that neither confirms nor denies the records' existence.
But the Obama administration prefers to lie. Under the rule proposed by the Justice Department, an agency with records believed to be exempt under Section 552(c) "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."
As the American Civil Liberties Union, OpenTheGovernment.org, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington note in their comments on the rule, it would "dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people." The rule also would impede judicial review of agencies' decisions to withhold records, since requesters would be led to believe that no records were being withheld.
Since requesters cannot demand a justification for withholding records they do not know exist, agencies would not have to convince a court that the information they believe qualifies for a FOIA exemption actually does. And while the lies supposedly would be limited to the three situations described in Section 552(c), agencies would be sorely tempted to deny the existence of any records they would rather not reveal.
Obama himself suggested where such unbridled discretion can lead. "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," he declared in 2009. But who can say whether that is happening if agencies can evade oversight by lying?
The ACLU suggests a FOIA response that avoids disclosing information shielded by Section 552(c) but is nevertheless accurate and preserves the possibility of judicial review: "We interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request." In an October 28 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, demands to know why that option is unsatisfactory and threatens to block the Obama administration's mendacious alternative.
It may be too late for that. Last spring U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney rebuked the government for falsely denying the existence of records sought under FOIA, not only to the requesters but to him. Carney noted that "it is impossible for the court to determine compliance with the law and to protect the public from Government misconduct if the Government misleads the Court." The Justice Department says its new rule merely codifies a practice dating to the Reagan administration, which means they've been lying to us all along. LINK
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Nov 3 2011, 05:45 AM
Post #9
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Jim Miller
- Nov 1 2011, 03:09 PM
You liberals are all alike. Obama is Bush III. We aren't all liberals Jim. Obama has been a lot like Bush in the areas of defense and executive power. But, he differs from Bush in tax policy. He has repeatedly called for dropping those Bush tax cuts, that we couldn't afford.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jim Miller
|
Nov 3 2011, 05:47 AM
Post #10
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 45,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Feb 19, 2008
|
You are as liberal as they come, Tom. You just don't know it. Perhaps you are too ashamed to admit it.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|