DOJ Drops FOIA Rule To Permit Lying
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."
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).
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.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I'm going to assume this is a joke, since no one would be stupid enough to actually conflate Bush's trillion-dollar, decade-long, 4000-soldiers-dead, 100000-civilians-dead, all-based-on-lies catastro-phuck with Obama spending less than 1/1000 that much to do exactly what he said he wanted - help a popular movement topple an insane (not "merely" stalinesque evil, but full-on dementia insane) dictator - with zero American casualties, in 6 months.
Between his enthusiastic expansion of illegal spying, his desire to expand the most spectacularly and massively failed policy of all time (the drug prohibition) and his otherwise lukewarm-at-best support for socially liberal policies, there's plenty shit he actually does wrong to whine about. There's no need to make shit up, sonny.
The scary part about Libya was that Obama ignored even the weakass nod toward the constitution that is the War Powers Act. Our founders wanted to make it so that one person was not able to embroil our country in arbitrary wars. That is why the constitution requires that Congress declare the war, and the Executive branch fight it. Giving the power of war to one branch makes the system susceptible to serious abuse.
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Because the ratio of people blaming Obama cf those saying previous presidents did it too is much higher now than the ratio of people blaming bush and people saying previous presidents did it too.
This is rather his own fault, since he's bending over backwards to wooo the right who just see an uppy nigger at worst, or a democrat at best, so he's going to get slammed by them. But, by his attempts to woo these intransigents, he's losing the center who are now not all that pleased with him and he actively slags off the little left you in america have left, so they're not going to be happy with him either.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!