Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Drops FOIA Rule To Permit Lying

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-cannot-tell-a-lie dept.

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."

3 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. No Problem! by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that they're not lying anymore, ask them if they were lying before! Problem solved!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:No Problem! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? No! They've already passed the bill, are lying about having passed the bill, and lying in the statement about not including this provision to enable lying in the bill they're lying about having passed!

      </TinFoilHat>

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Re:What if they are lying about not lying? by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    This is my favorite solution to the problem.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?