Transparency: Obama Administration Wants a License to Lie

[Thanatos]

From 'the most transparent administration in history' comes this latest
gem of Orwellian doublespeak:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants
-license-lie

[Ubiquitous]

This isn't the first time Obama has done this.

And you posted this off-topic article here because?


---
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."

[Barb May]

Quoting another free right-wing newspaper Thanny?

Here's the real story:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/10/27/justice_criticized_over_proposed_foia_regulation/

WASHINGTON-The Justice Department is being criticized by open government
groups for proposing a regulation that would in rare instances allow
federal law enforcement agencies to tell people seeking information
under the Freedom of Information Act that the government has no records
on a subject, when it actually does.

Avoiding tipping off people that they are under criminal investigation
is one of three highly sensitive law enforcement situations where the
government -- for the past 2 1/2 decades -- has been permitted to
respond to FOIA requests by falsely denying that it has records.

The other two situations -- the legal term for them is "exclusions" --
occur when federal law enforcement agencies are protecting the
identities of informants and when the FBI is asked for records on
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or international terrorism.

The issue is coming up now because the Justice Department is proposing
revised regulations that would codify a longstanding policy detailed in
a 1987 memo by then-Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department's Office of
Information Policy, says the provision "has been implemented the same
way for the 25 years it has been in existence." She said the department
took the "extraordinary step" of reopening the public comment period on
the proposed revision of FOIA regulations and that the department has
been open and transparent about the procedure for invoking exclusions
protecting "especially sensitive law enforcement matters."

The problem is a simple one, according to Meese's 16,428-word memo and
the Justice Department's proposed regulation.

Any person who suspects that a federal investigation might have been
launched against him could try to use the FOIA to confirm that
suspicion. Notifying the requester that the law enforcement agency is
refusing to turn over records would confirm the existence of an ongoing
investigation.

Meese's 1987 memo perhaps puts it best: a person filing a FOIA request
seeking information about informants "will receive a disarming `no
records' response."

A 1986 amendment by Congress to the FOIA cleared the legal path for the
attorney general's memo. The proposed regulation is one piece in an
overhaul of government rules on FOIA.

----------------------------------------------------------

So we're talking about a policy that has been in place for 25 years,
through both Republican and Democrat administrations.

Are Republicans now claiming they are in favor of allowing criminals to
find out if they are under investigation and get access to those
records? Ofo course not. This just the latest example of them opposing
anything the Obama administration does, no matter what the consequences.

--
Barb

[Thanatos]

In article <4eb0...@news.x-privat.org>,

"Barb May" <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> > From 'the most transparent administration in history' comes this
> > latest gem of Orwellian doublespeak:
> >
> > http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants
> > -license-lie
>
> Quoting another free right-wing newspaper Thanny?
>
> Here's the real story:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/10/27/justice_criti
> cized_over_proposed_foia_regulation/
>
> WASHINGTON-The Justice Department is being criticized by open government
> groups for proposing a regulation that would in rare instances allow
> federal law enforcement agencies to tell people seeking information
> under the Freedom of Information Act that the government has no records
> on a subject, when it actually does.

Which is exactly what the Times article said. The Administration ('the
most transparent administration in history', don't forget!) is seeking a
license to lie to people who are filing FOIA requests.

Even the evil, tyrannical, Orwellian Bushies never tried that.

Of course this is just par for the course with the 'transparent' Obama
folks. They actually declared the negotiations for ACTA-- a copyright
treaty-- classified national security information to avoid having to
allow anyone except the Big Content players access. (Of course that
doesn't explain why some executive from Disney or Warner Bros. can
attend a classified meeting but people from EFF and other consumer
watchdog groups can't. None of them have the security clearances
necessary to handle classified information, but for some reason the Big
Content execs managed to skirt that technicality.)

And then, of course, there were all those closed-door, late-night
negotiations on health care, followed by a "We must pass it RIGHT NOW
before anyone has a chance to read it" vote.

But they're transparent! How do we know? Well, just ask them, they'll
tell you.

> Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department's Office of
> Information Policy, says the provision "has been implemented the same
> way for the 25 years it has been in existence." She said the department
> took the "extraordinary step" of reopening the public comment period on
> the proposed revision of FOIA regulations and that the department has
> been open and transparent about the procedure for invoking exclusions
> protecting "especially sensitive law enforcement matters."

That's misleading. Under current law, documents that don't need to be
revealed -- for national security or law enforcement reasons, for
example -- lead to a response saying that the government "can neither
confirm nor deny the existence of records." That, at least, leads to the
possibility of an appeal and potential court case to make sure the
government is legally allowed to withhold such documents.

However, the new DOJ proposal would let federal agencies go even
further, and flat-out deny the existence of documents it doesn't believe
are subject to release -- even if they exist. And while it's true that
people could still appeal, most people are much less likely to do so if
they believe that the documents don't exist, rather than being told that
they may be there, but the government just doesn't want to reveal them.

[Barb May]

Thanatos wrote:
> In article <4eb0...@news.x-privat.org>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>
>> Thanatos wrote:
>>> From 'the most transparent administration in history' comes this
>>> latest gem of Orwellian doublespeak:
>>>
>>> http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants
>>> -license-lie
>>
>> Quoting another free right-wing newspaper Thanny?
>>
>> Here's the real story:
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/10/27/justice_criti
>> cized_over_proposed_foia_regulation/
>>
>> WASHINGTON-The Justice Department is being criticized by open
>> government groups for proposing a regulation that would in rare
>> instances allow federal law enforcement agencies to tell people
>> seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act that the
>> government has no records on a subject, when it actually does.
>
> Which is exactly what the Times article said. The Administration ('the
> most transparent administration in history', don't forget!) is
> seeking a license to lie to people who are filing FOIA requests.

Keep lying Thanny!

Here's the part of the article you cut because it doesn't fit your lie:

--------------------------------------------

Avoiding tipping off people that they are under criminal investigation
is one of three highly sensitive law enforcement situations where the
government -- for the past 2 1/2 decades -- has been permitted to
respond to FOIA requests by falsely denying that it has records.

The issue is coming up now because the Justice Department is proposing
revised regulations that would codify a longstanding policy detailed in
a 1987 memo by then-Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Meese's 1987 memo perhaps puts it best: a person filing a FOIA request
seeking information about informants "will receive a disarming `no
records' response."

-----------------------------------------

>> Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department's Office of
>> Information Policy, says the provision "has been implemented the same
>> way for the 25 years it has been in existence." She said the
>> department took the "extraordinary step" of reopening the public
>> comment period on the proposed revision of FOIA regulations and that
>> the department has been open and transparent about the procedure for
>> invoking exclusions protecting "especially sensitive law enforcement
>> matters."
>
> That's misleading. Under current law, documents that don't need to be
> revealed -- for national security or law enforcement reasons, for
> example -- lead to a response saying that the government "can neither
> confirm nor deny the existence of records."

So you think you know better than the Director of the Justice
Department's Office of Information Policy? Really?

Prove it. With verifiable facts -- not anecdotes.


--
Barb

[Thanatos]

In article <4eb1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Yeah, 15 years of responding to FOIA requests and I don't know how it
work.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:29:24 -0800, "Barb May"

I have to say, the codification of a policy put into place by Ed Meese
doesn't exactly raise my confidence level here.

[Barb May]

Nor should it, but the policy has been in place for 25 years now and the
reasons given for it seem reasonable.

--
Barb

[Ashton Crusher]

You obviously don't know how to read or you'd understand what's being
said and why you are wrong. Go back and read it again you moron.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:33:10 -0800, "Barb May"

The other takeaway from this ought to be that regardless of who the
president is, it's the bureaucracy and all the minions in it that
really set and control most policy. It's mostly fortuitous that
someone decided they would revisit this awful policy of official lies
so that it sees the light of day. I don't buy the bull about how it's
mainly used to thwart fishing by people being investigated. You can
be sure it's mostly used to avoid confirming that documents are being
withheld so people can't go to court and request a hearing on why they
are being withheld. Under the policy for the past 25 years the judge
would have simply said "They told you they have no such document so
get out of my court". Assuming they stop this policy of lying, now
when you request something and they say "we have it but you can't see
it" you'll have a "fact" you can take to a court.

I'd be willing to bet that what happened here is that someone who
actually believed the policy was to "protect investigations" was the
one who thought perhaps the policy should be reviewed. Certainly the
people who knew the real reason would never mess with a review of what
that already had a policy they liked.

[Barb May]

So let's hope they have an honest debate on the subject, rather than
accusing Obama of starting something that has actually been in place
over 25 years.

--
Barb

[Thanatos]

In article <4eq8b7lka6l5c40ql...@4ax.com>,

> >works.

>
>
> You obviously don't know how to read or you'd understand what's being
> said and why you are wrong.

Oh, look. Even the Obama folks realized they'd taken this a step too far.

They're backing off.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/03/great-news-obama-justice-dept-says-i
t-wont-lie-about-foiad-docs/

[trotsky]

Stop thinking with your fanny, Thanny. According to this:

> The DOJ has relied on a 1987 memo from then-Attorney General Edwin Meese that gave federal law enforcement agencies standing authority to deny the existence of records, but this would be the first time it was formally codified.

The root of all this is typical Republican bullshit. Which of course
you knew, and, in typical Thanny shithead fashion, tried to pile
bullshit on top of bullshit. I demand due process!

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:01:58 -0800, "Barb May"

What's to debate. The gvt should not be allowed to lie. But if you
want to give them wiggle room at the very least there ought to be a
requirement that in order to officially lie to people they have to go
to a court and get a court order allowing them to lie. The problem is
that would require a secret court or it would not work. The US should
NOT be a country with secret courts, even though we already have them.
Anyone who blindly trusts any level of gvt is a fool.

[Barb May]

That's just plain naive.


--
Barb

[Mason Barge]

I couldn't agree more, but don't count on it. I'm still reeling from the
blatant suspension of habeas corpus at Gunatanamo.

Actually, maybe there's a glimmer of hope about it. Where did FISA end
up? Didn't they eventually have a special court to approve warrantless
wiretaps?

[Thanatos]

In article <nk4eb7drkfo60depl...@4ax.com>,

At least the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas.

> Where did FISA end up? Didn't they eventually have a special court
> to approve warrantless wiretaps?

If the court is approving them, wouldn't they by definition *not* be
warrantless?

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 11:31:50 -0800, "Barb May"

What cave have you been in for the past couple decades if not longer?
We are assaulted with gvt lies on a daily basis. They lie at every
level, bureaucrats, elected officials, appointed officials, staff
members, the military, the researchers and on and on. It's not that
they always lie, of course sometimes they are telling the truth, but
they lie so often and so well there's no way to know the difference.
You have to assume they are lying until proven otherwise.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:09:52 -0500, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't think so. They have some administrative rules to follow but
the FBI can pretty much write it's own warrants as long as the work in
the word "terror". They charge people under terrorist laws now all
the time for things that 20 years ago were considered Halloween
pranks. The most prolific terrorist group in the nation now is the
gvt but of course they never charge themselves.

[Dano]

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:082gb797rfjrjrubl...@4ax.com...

>>
>> What's to debate. The gvt should not be allowed to lie.
>
>That's just plain naive.


What cave have you been in for the past couple decades if not longer?
We are assaulted with gvt lies on a daily basis. They lie at every
level, bureaucrats, elected officials, appointed officials, staff
members, the military, the researchers and on and on. It's not that
they always lie, of course sometimes they are telling the truth, but
they lie so often and so well there's no way to know the difference.
You have to assume they are lying until proven otherwise.

===========================================

Who doesn't lie? If you tell me you don't...then I KNOW you're lying.

Bullshit debate.

[Barb May]

Did I say the government doesn't lie?

No, I said your statement that the government should not be allowed to
lie is naive. Of course the government has to lie sometimes, and at
least sometimes it is for a good reason.

--
Barb

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:34:58 -0700, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <nk4eb7drkfo60depl...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:42:33 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
>
>> >What's to debate. The gvt should not be allowed to lie. But if you
>> >want to give them wiggle room at the very least there ought to be a
>> >requirement that in order to officially lie to people they have to go
>> >to a court and get a court order allowing them to lie. The problem is
>> >that would require a secret court or it would not work. The US should
>> >NOT be a country with secret courts, even though we already have them.
>> >Anyone who blindly trusts any level of gvt is a fool.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, but don't count on it. I'm still reeling from the
>> blatant suspension of habeas corpus at Gunatanamo.
>
>At least the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas.

How so?

>> Where did FISA end up? Didn't they eventually have a special court
>> to approve warrantless wiretaps?
>
>If the court is approving them, wouldn't they by definition *not* be
>warrantless?

Yeah. It got so freaking confused with all the Congressional proposed
amendments and stuff, I don't know where it ended up. Not really
something I know much about.

I'm thinking, at least initially, they were reviewed by the DOJ, that
would explain my confusion.

I thought that the hubbub was as much about not needing due cause as
getting a judge to sign it, but again, I don't know much about it. But it
seems (and yes, I have learned the hard way not to assume the law is
written in what I consider the logical way LOL) that if they can violate
the 4th amendment, getting a judge to review it on some lower standard
like "not arbitrary and capricious" or "not designed to fulfill an illegal
purpose" (like say Watergate) wouldn't be particularly burdensome.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:42:16 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:09:52 -0500, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:42:33 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:01:58 -0800, "Barb May"
>>><bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:33:10 -0800, "Barb May"
>>>>> <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

[...]

>>Actually, maybe there's a glimmer of hope about it. Where did FISA end
>>up? Didn't they eventually have a special court to approve warrantless
>>wiretaps?
>
>I don't think so. They have some administrative rules to follow but
>the FBI can pretty much write it's own warrants as long as the work in
>the word "terror". They charge people under terrorist laws now all
>the time for things that 20 years ago were considered Halloween
>pranks. The most prolific terrorist group in the nation now is the
>gvt but of course they never charge themselves.

Yeah no kidding. I was a lot less surprised and/or disheartened by the
Bush administration trying to get away with this, than with the
nonchalance of the American public about such a big inroad into their
civil liberties.

[Thanatos]

In article <3mngb7lpj1ptb3dnq...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:34:58 -0700, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <nk4eb7drkfo60depl...@4ax.com>,
> > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:42:33 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >What's to debate. The gvt should not be allowed to lie. But if you
> >> >want to give them wiggle room at the very least there ought to be a
> >> >requirement that in order to officially lie to people they have to go
> >> >to a court and get a court order allowing them to lie. The problem is
> >> >that would require a secret court or it would not work. The US should
> >> >NOT be a country with secret courts, even though we already have them.
> >> >Anyone who blindly trusts any level of gvt is a fool.
> >>
> >> I couldn't agree more, but don't count on it. I'm still reeling from the
> >> blatant suspension of habeas corpus at Gunatanamo.
> >
> >At least the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas.
>
> How so?

Article I, Section 8:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or
invasion the public safety may require it.

Note that habeas is defined as a privilege, not a right, as so many
people mistakenly believe.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:08:24 -0500, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I'm talking about substantive lies. Like Bush and "evidence" for WMD.
I would not lie about things like that.

[Dano]

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

news:8ap2c79jppj23p0fj...@4ax.com...

=====================================

"Substantive"? Smells like bullshit to me.

Define "substantive". If you mean about matters of importance...I can
imagine when it could be considered tactically important to lie. When
dealing with an enemy for example. Or to prevent some terrible thing from
happening. To spare someone from harm...mental or physical. Use your
imagination. It's all about the reasons. I'll give you a "substantive"
example. Saddam may have allowed us to THINK he still had WMD's...like
chemical weapons...because he may have thought that would be a deterrent to
being invaded. Another...the NFL has rules to try to prevent coaches from
lying about injuries so that opponents can prepare. Coaches are ALWAYS
trying to find creative ways to lie. To get any edge they might. I doubt
you could find a single politician that hasn't...doesn't lie at various
times. Or business executive...school teacher or cop as well.

People lie. That's the truth. "Substantive" truth is as much in the eye of
the beholder as any other.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:24:32 -0500, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>

Here's the problem Dano. As you'll note in your reply above, you
suggest it's ok to lie to your enemies. And I would agree. The
problem is, when you make a habit of systematically lying TO THE
CITIZENS of the country whom you "work for" it means you consider
those CITIZENS your ENEMY. That's what's happening in this country.
The cops think of every citizen as their enemy, our elected reps think
we are the enemy, the foolishly titled Dept of Homeland Security has
airport personal treating us as enemies.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:24:36 -0800, "Barb May"

Did I say the gvt never tells the truth? Nope. You might want to
read it again.