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."

29 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. 5 Step Program by MachDelta · · Score: 2

    1. Make laws
    2. Ignore those laws, do whatever you want
    3. Make new laws to cover your lies
    4. ???
    5. Profit

    1. Re:5 Step Program by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      While I agree that this administration is mostly the same corrupt crap, just with a different label, at least this guy didn't throw the nation into two wars which will force the country to remain involved for over a decade.

    2. Re:5 Step Program by niftydude · · Score: 2

      He's only one term in. Looks like you guys will be bombing Iran soon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    3. Re:5 Step Program by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      He hasn't done much to get us out of the two wars that the last guy got us into. He claims he's pulling out of Iraq, but it's not true: how many "contractors" are going to stay, how many troops, etc.? It's not a real pull-out until everyone is gone. And what has he done to get us out of Afghanistan? Worse than nothing, he sent even more troops in there! We need to learn from history and do as the Soviets did: leave that country while you still can. It's impossible to set up a democracy there, and in fact it's not helping our cause to prop up a corrupt government.

    4. Re:5 Step Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At no point did he say he was pulling us out of afghanistan, he specifically campaigned on sending more troops there, because the war had been completely mismanaged and neglected by bush while he burned through our money fighting in Iraq. Obama was right then and he is right now.

    5. Re:5 Step Program by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:5 Step Program by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:5 Step Program by Reverberant · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about?

      Soviet's pullout --> chaos in Afghanistan --> rise of Taliban --> subjugation of people --> alliance with AQ --> 1993 WTC bombing --> attempted Philippine Airline bombing --> 1998 embassy bombings --> Sep 11, 2001.

      Sure it worked well for the Soviets, for us and a lot of innocent people in other countries, not so much.

  2. 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 gstrickler · · Score: 2

      Better yet, ask them to release all documentation on items they've previously lied about on any FOIA request. Then, get out a really big checkbook for the massive amount of paperwork you may or may not receive.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    2. 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/
  3. The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by Tastecicles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is to ask a question to which you already know the answer, and have documentary evidence of that answer.

    Because then, if the public authority denies any knowledge, you can publicly enlighten them. Same as if/when you catch them in a barefaced lie.

    I've done it a number of times. It's amazing what they'll come out with when you pull them in public for an outright violation of public trust.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by Tastecicles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Classic example of this: I ask the Ministry of Justice on how many occasions a family court judge (any family court judge, it doesn't matter specifics) out of a total 26,000 public law cases a year in the UK used Bench Memoranda (summaries of cases or even draft judgments written by their clerks or one or other of the solicitors) instead of drawing their own conclusions in deciding the disposition of each case; they said, categorically, none.

      Disclaimer: I was an Advocate in Family Law.

      I politely informed the Ministry that I had not only witnessed but had documentary evidence of no less than sixty cases out of seventy four in which I had been involved where the Judge had used Bench Memoranda - word for word to the drafts in most cases - and reiterated the question.

      Their revised reply: "We do not know how many Judges use Bench Memoranda nor do we know how often if at all, they practise this. It is not a practise endorsed or encouraged by the Ministry."

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by blindseer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. I believe this is precisely what is happening right now with the "Operation Fast and Furious" scandal. It seems that the House Oversight Committee has the nasty habit of asking the right questions of the right people and knowing precisely what documents to look for. They already know the answers, most of them anyway, since there have been numerous agents within BATFE and Border Patrol that have come forward and fed them information on the gun walking operation.

      It seems that numerous people in Congress are giving the DOJ just enough rope to hang themselves. The DOJ is really getting beat up over this. It seems that people in State and Homeland Security were involved as well. The DOJ coming up with this rule to allow them to keep documents secret seems to be an attempt to contain the damage.

      I just have to wonder, do they really think they they have the authority to deny these documents to Congress? Can they "lie" to the House Oversight Committee about the existence of documents? I would imagine that they can keep certain information from the public but they cannot keep the documents from Congress for long. These departments exist because of an act of Congress, if they get too far out of line then Congress can make them disappear. I believe that DOJ was reminded of this at some point since they backed off on this suicidal policy change.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Informative

      FOIA, used in the right way, is a fantastic way to embarrass public authorities into telling the truth. When you already have the information (they don't know that - yet) and you ask them what you already know, they should be aware that a certain percentage of the questions they get asked are already answered; their credibility hence qualification to govern depends entirely upon their answer. Since such enquiries are covered under a Statutory Instrument, their responses are also covered under the same SI. Ergo, if they lie and they caught in it on a public forum then that is all the proof needed to legally disqualify them from their positions.

      Gentlemen, call your lawyers.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    4. Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!
    5. Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      The problem is this: what recourse is there when they lie? You have 5 people replying to your post with examples of doing exactly what you suggest. That's great! But none of them end with any officials being indicted, resigning, or really any change. What you propose is good, but we need to take the next step. Senators who lie should be impeached. Officials who lie should be fired, and potentially sued.

      This is similar to when big corporations push frivolous lawsuits against smaller competitors. Even if they lose, they win, because the smaller company can't afford the fight even if they win. There is no real punishment for this behavior.

  4. You're about 35 years late. by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This practice was originally sanctioned un the Reagan administration. This rules change would have formalized the practice that was developed by the Feds under Reagan's AG. By removing the rule change (under the Obama administration) they are effectively barred from covering up the previous lies.

    So clearly, Obama is to blame....

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:You're about 35 years late. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Of course Obama is to blame. Just because other Presidents have done the same just means all of them are to blame. Obama has the authority to end bad precedent set by his predecessors. By not doing so he shares in the blame.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  5. What if they are lying about not lying? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:What if they are lying about not lying? by Tastecicles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      reminds me of a scene in Labyrinth. I don't have the exact quote to hand, but it basically goes:

      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.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    2. Re:What if they are lying about not lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jaxoreth's solution is also correct.

      The untruthful guard would answer the question 'which door is the correct one?' with the wrong door. If you ask him what his answer to that question would be, he will lie about it, i.e. indicate the correct door. (There's one negation coming from the question and one negation coming from the question within the question.)

      The truthful guard will trivially indicate the correct door in response to the indirected question.

    3. 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?
  6. Re:We in United States of America or United States by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    I know where you're coming from.

    I'm sitting on my couch here in England, the Land controlled by the United Kingdom Corporation, Limited (it's on Dunn & Bradstreet, look it up). The UK ("The UK", or "United Kingdom") is a short form of the United Kingdom Corporation, Limited, which is the Legal Entity created by the Crown (the 5 biggest banks in the World, nothing to do with the Queen), which through Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs collects tax to pay interest on loans taken out way back in the second decade of the last Century.

    Great Britain, in my mind, ceased to exist in April 1972 when the European Communities Act came into force; this was the first step of Hitler's dream given form less the gas chambers. Europe under one flag, one currency, a Federated Superstate of homogenised regions ordered by *number* not *name*. The days of the Empire were numbered from that point on. As was our ability - nay, our *right* - to self-govern. Our grandparents fought to retain that right for SIX YEARS. The traitors in Government from 1970 until now spit in the faces of our War Dead, they make a mockery of true democracy and they continue to stomp all over the rights of the Population with impunity.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  7. Re:Except by Third+Position · · Score: 4, Interesting

    \

    Still pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around. This administration has not been very forthcoming when it comes to things like tax payers' money flushed down the toilet propping up "green" companies, where bailout money has been spent, how American made weapons are ending up in the hands of illegal alien murderers, and why there are so many illegal aliens in this country in the first place.

    As if the next administration will do any better? Surely you jest. I suspect that at this point we're in a death spiral. I'm not sure that at this point even an honest reformer could clean up the mess.

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
  8. Re:We in United States of America or United States by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait, so England actually does have the equivalent of the American delusional separatist gun nut?

    Strange, it was believed that all their ancestors migrated to, well, America...

  9. Re:Except by anagama · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Obama cannot win. He has raped his base beyond belief. In fact, we will probably have more freedom if a Republican wins, because then the Democrats will go back to PRETENDING to care about civil liberties. No amount of Democratic party spin however, will cover up the unmitigated disaster Obama has been for peace, the environment, civil liberties, openness, and transparency. As astounding as it is, Obama has taken the Bush II depths even lower. His record speaks for itself and what it says is: Hi There, My name is Obama and I'm a big fat neocon!
    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  10. You left out number four. by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    It was a real easy answer,

    #4. Blame Bush

    Though you were being nice we have gotten worse than your list.

    1) Have Secret Laws.
    2) Have Secret Courts
    3) Use intimidation and threat of force to keep them
    4) Blame Bush
    5) Stay in Power, I mean profit

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  11. Re:Except by Stradivarius · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's not being a troll.

    The concern is not simply that they're American-made. It's that the executive branch (you know, the one Obama and his appointees lead) intentionally sold those 2000+ guns to known members of Mexican drug cartels. They knew at the time that these people were murderous thugs. But the officials overrode the objections of the gun dealers and some of the field agents to sell them anyway. This was allegedly to track where the guns would go, but A) the operation lost track of where most of the guns went, until B) some of those weapons were later used to kill a Border Patrol agent, not to mention in numerous Mexican crimes.

    The debacle was called "Operation Fast and Furious". While investigations are ongoing, it's been reported that at least one of Obama's Cabinet members knew of the program - Attorney General Holder was briefed mid-program, in contradiction of his testimony to Congress.