Tag(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 10   Well Said 8   News 4   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 10/25/11:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (33 comments)

Obama Admin Seeks Permission To Lie In Response To Freedom Of Information Requests - Even To The Courts

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (7 fans)   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

One of the President Obama's first promises after becoming President of the United States was a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented government transparency .  Instead the Obama administration has exhibited what may be an unprecedented obsession with government secrecy including blocking numerous law suits by invoking the doctrine of "State Secrets."   The administration has even come up with an interpretation of the Patriot Act which many in Congress who have seen it claim is overly broad and bestows more power on the Executive Branch than was intended by Congress when they passed it.  

Unfortunately those in Congress who have seen this document are not permitted to divulge its content, and we, the public, cannot see it because the administration has chosen to classify it as a "State Secret."   In other words, you might be doing something that the Obama Administration believes violates the Patriot Act, but you won't know it until they indict you for breaking a law you did not know existed (I might be breaking it just by penning and publishing this article).

Now the Obama/Holder Justice Department is attempting to re-write the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), empowering or even compelling government agencies to deny the very existence of records they know to exist if they believe they are legitimately exempted from disclosure.  Of course they are most likely the sole arbiter of whether they are indeed exempt from disclosure.  In effect the Obama/Holder Justice Department wants to be free to legally lie about the existence of records in response to FOIA requests.  Apparently they want to avoid the embarrassment and inconvenience of being officially rebuked by the courts for doing exactly that (lying to a Federal judge), as occurred earlier this year when, in a   strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the "Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court."   The solution is simple:   re-write the law so the government, in many circumstances, can affirmatively mislead the court.

Despite substantial opposition by such groups as the ACLU, The National Press Club, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, OpentheGovernment.org., Judicial Watch, et al to this radical re-write of the FOIA Law , this controversial effort by the Obama Administration to evade the very transparency it so passionately promised to deliver has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media which is supposed to the guardian of the people's right to know.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or neither, this move by the Obama administration should trouble you deeply.  Is this change we can believe in???

Below are snippets of reports on this controversy, none of them from a mainstream media source.   That was not my intent.   I just could not find any.   I learned about it just this morning in an e-mail from the National Law Journal:

National Press Club Urges Administration to Reconsider Draft Rule on Freedom of Information

"Under the new Department of Justice proposal, in replying to a request for information under the freedom-of-information law, if the information is allowed to be withheld under certain statutory exceptions, then federal officials "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist"--even if that is not the case.

"No rule or law should allow, let alone require, the government to mislead the press or the public about anything," said Mark Hamrick , a broadcast journalist with the Associated Press who is the 2011 president of the National Press Club. "If enacted, it appears that this proposed rule would offend the precepts that informed the Freedom of Information Act, and it would tarnish the government's credibility.

"What's more, the change seems unnecessary,"  he said. "If agencies are exercising legally allowable exceptions to the law and withholding certain records, they can just continue to do as they do today: neither confirm nor deny the information's existence.""

Justice Dept. proposes lying, hiding existence of records under new FOIA rule

"The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist," rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who've called it "Orwellian" and say it will "twist" public access to government.

In a public comment regarding the rule change, the ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org, said the move "will 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."

"Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch has also lambasted the proposed rules change

"Upon taking office, President Obama released a memorandum declaring his administration was "committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness. Specifically, he pledged to bolster the strength of the FOIA act, calling it "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government."

Government Could Hide Existence of Records under FOIA Rule Proposal

Next Page  1  |  2

 

I have been an advertising executive most of my career with a long-time interest in progressive politics and journalism. I was a progressive Democratic candidate for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives an 2010, and I serve on the Board of (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
33 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Freedom of Information by Jerry Policoff on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:31:50 PM
totally Vile! by Rob Kall on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:17:52 PM
Primary the B-------? But the vote-counting is fraudulent! by Jill Herendeen on Thursday, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:14:55 PM
Fire the bureaucrat who wrote that nonsense by Stephen Hansen on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:32:18 PM
fire the lawyer? by Jerry Policoff on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:13:46 PM
progress? by James Hunter on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:32:35 PM
treason by . . on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:50:22 PM
These Are Desperate Acts by linda jordan on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:57:34 PM
2 honest men by Jerry Policoff on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:43:29 PM
Yes but by Miriam Callaghan on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:53:43 PM
Bernie by tim mcghie on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:59:35 AM
like I have said by Anuel Jackson on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:59:42 PM
Another reason to get rid of Obama by Robert James on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:36:02 PM
In Response to Two Honest Men by linda jordan on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:15:26 PM
Thanks by Jerry Policoff on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:15:47 PM
Gore by Miriam Callaghan on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:59:04 PM
Justice is Blind, and they want to keep it that way. by mykl samu on Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:00:55 PM
In Reply To Author by linda jordan on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:53:19 AM
Ron Paul and Obama by kate loving shenk on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:12:49 AM
Kucinich by Thomas Brown on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:59:27 AM
We passed by cosmic J. on Saturday, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:08:46 AM
A downward spiral except for OWS by Marika on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:13:07 PM
Scope of deceit under FOIA by Clifford Johnson on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:25:11 AM
Government is Massive by Thomas Brown on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:47:14 AM
You mean...? by mrk * on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:57:17 PM
If only this was being done under a Republican President... by Al Rodbell on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:47:34 PM
You'll never vote him out. Votes are "counted" in secret, by Jill Herendeen on Sunday, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:20:01 AM
The Over-Throw by Dennis Kaiser on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:47:44 PM
In the houses of shadow, everybody Lies. by remo on Wednesday, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:31:39 PM
Question of Transparency by Michael LeVesque on Thursday, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:38:51 AM
More Secrets by Blaze Gold on Saturday, Oct 29, 2011 at 6:30:12 PM
Obama Admin Seeks Permission To Lie... by FrankieC on Monday, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:54:33 AM
You are dreaming by Marika on Monday, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:14:16 PM