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."

Comments

No Problem!

[Greyfox]

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

Re:No Problem!

[L4t3r4lu5]

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>

The secret to a good FOIA enquiry...

[Tastecicles]

...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.

Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry...

[Tastecicles]

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."

Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry...

[blindseer]

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.

Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry...

[Tastecicles]

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.

Re:The secret to a good FOIA enquiry...

[Hatta]

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.

You're about 35 years late.

[RingDev]

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

Re:Except

[Third Position]

\

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.

Re:5 Step Program

[anagama]

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.

Re:Except

[Stradivarius]

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.

Re:What if they are lying about not lying?

[Zak3056]

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.