BS: New rules for FOIA

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:54 PM

IF the ACLU is seriously concerned, perhaps the regulation will be revised. *I* am not well enough versed in the complexities of law & bureaucracy to analyze the consequences of the regulation....but I do admit it.

I am sufficiently versed in argument form to see the flaws in the presentation of both the original editorial and the way it was introduced in the thread.


"As for letting the article stand without comment, I have been dumped on when I did that- NOW you dump on me when I state why I post something???"
*I* did not 'dump on you' for stating WHY you posted, but about the tone and 'chip-on-the-shoulder' attitude.

   There is serious comment, and then there is specious assertion about 'double-standard'. THAT is my concern. IF you see, or have specific comparisons re: double-standard, then explain them. Don't just use 'double-standard' as a generic accusation about everything we naughty, flaming liberals have done or probably will do.

Basic debate about HOW liberals & conservatives argue should be left to a different occasion. It is a wide topic.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:53 PM

>>Folks, why not address the issue, which deserves addressing, rather than attack each other? <<

>>I was, until attacked for doing so. <<

The only issue you seem to have addressed is a lame assertion that "Examiner Editorial" doesn't get treated equally with New York Times investigative reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:34 PM

there is NO issue, There is NO supporting evidence for Mad GUEST, beardedbruce's assertions, and that's what people want... hard, verifiable evidence (one rather dubious press clipping isn't enough).
Is that a too harder concept to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:29 PM

Oh, Please, Beardie- DO get professional help for your delusional obsession.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:46 AM

I was, until attacked for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:44 AM

Folks, why not address the issue, which deserves addressing, rather than attack each other?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:43 AM

999,

And I note not a single comment about the FACT that the ACLU thinks what the Obama administration is proposing is a bad idea- just that I should not be so nasty as to point it out.


As for MY anger and belligerence, when I see you make similar comments about those such as Bobert who are far more so, I will then consider what you are saying as worth listening to. If you want to apply rules to me, MAKE DAMN SURE you apply them to those you agree with, or you have no standing.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:42 AM

the original "article was bullshit, it doesn't get any less so the more you hammer at it, so why oh why is there arguement about something the simply doesn't exist?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:36 AM

"Are YOU prepared to treat it with the SAME standard you treat the posts by those YOU agree with from NYT editorials????

Or are you now saying that only those YOU agree with are permitted????"

You have a bad case of the red-ass, Bruce. First, I don't quote the NYT, editorial or otherwise. Second, your attitude is deplorable. You started the thread belligerent as all get out and you're keeping at it.

I do not care for Obama all that much; however, I admit to detesting Bush. Speaking of which, I recall not a single post by you when that president usurped your country's legal system. So save your anger for someone else, OK?

And please stop using those damned series of question marks. You know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:33 AM

So let me 'splain it to you:

Present case:

In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." ******Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court.******



Proposed rule:

the component
utilizing the exclusion will respond to the request as if the excluded
records did not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:29 AM

This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:29 AM

A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don't exist.
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.

The draft FOIA revisions were first published in March, but the Justice Department re-opened comment submissions in September after several open-government groups raised objections. A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is committed to public input and transparency, which is why it re-opened public comments on the rule -- an unusual step in the process.

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."



Maybe this time the mudelves will let the post stand, instead of removing it...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:20 AM

So any comments here about the ACLU being concerned about what CONSERVATIVES do should also be ignored????

The post where I state the current status negates what Art has stated, and explains the ACLU concern.

As for letting the article stand without comment, I have been dumped on when I did that- NOW you dump on me when I state why I post something???

Maske up your mind, or admit that you will dump on me, and NOT dump on others for the same thing.


THAT says more about you and YOUR biases than about what I post.

I see NO criticism here when people comment on conservatives, to match the shit piled on any comment that does not match the "Party Line".

SOrry if I think your comments lack relevance to the ACLU being concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:12 AM

...and artbrooks makes a good case for not worrying too much about the change.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:10 AM

Bruce... to me, it's not whether there is a possible clause in the proposed regulation(s) that 'might' be considered as 'weakening the FOIA', but rather another example of your formulaic argument that "liberals would have, or did have, a fit when/if Bush et al did something vaguely similar."

Either the editorial stands on its own, or it doesn't. Either the proposed regulation is a problem, or it isn't....it is not necessary to begin a discussion with baiting remarks like: "Now, why do I expect a deafening silence from most here? Could it be a further example of a double standard, where conservatives are dumped on for the things that liberals get a pass on?????"
   I could find many examples on Fox of '..a double standard, where liberals are dumped on for the things that conservatives get a pass on.', but that muddies the discussion from the start.


...ummm...I also find, as several have noted, that one interpretation of the situation from an obviously biased source is as convincing as a review or two from several 'general' news or analysis sources.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:06 AM

Yes, I see that now. It makes no real sense unless read along with 5 USC 552(c).

I can see a purpose for this, however: if anyone - individual, news organization, whatever - makes a FOIA request for, for example, all records pertaining to a confidential intelligence investigation, it would be better to deny the existence of the investigation rather than to reveal its existence by going into a detailed explanation of why the information can't be revealed...perhaps the FBI would rather not have a Jonathan Pollard know he's being investigated.   

522(c) refers to investigations in progress, in which the subject either doesn't know he's being investigated or the subject is classified. The existing rule says that, in reference to FOIA requests, that records like these should be treated "as not subject to the requirements of this section". It really isn't much of a change.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:17 AM

"Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court."



Amazing how so many who used ACLU concerns during the Bush administration are turning a blind eye now.

[beardedbruce]

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:04 AM

"(2) When a component applies an exclusion to exclude records from
the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), the component
utilizing the exclusion will respond to the request as if the excluded
records did not exist. This response should not differ in wording from
any other response given by the component."

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:44 AM

Bloody keyboard!

It's not really an issue of attacking the source.
It seems to me that on the internet there is a common fallacy that an opinion that is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere is somehow more legitimate and credible than the same opinion simply written in a post. It isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:39 AM

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:28 AM

Thank you for the link, BB. I read this in detail, and it does not seem to change FOIA (which I worked with for some 30 years) significantly. I could not find the specific clause pointed out in the Washington Examiner's article, that is, that it"directs 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 relevant part of the regulation, in the proposed change, reads as follows: "Sec 16.6(c) Adverse determinations of requests. A component making an adverse determination denying a request in any respect shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. Adverse determinations, or denials of requests, include decisions that: the requested record is exempt, in whole or in part; the request does not reasonably describe the records sought; the information requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; the requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or the requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester. Sec 16.6 (d) Content of denial letter. The denial letter shall be signed by the head of the component, or designee, and shall include:
    (1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
    (2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the component in denying the request..."

Perhaps I have missed something; could you possibly point out the clause to which the article refers?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:28 AM

Art,

"None of them have a link to the page in the Congressional Record or any other official document where this "proposed regulatory change" has been posted for comment as required under the law. May we have that, please."


See above.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:21 AM

that the proof demanded here was NEVER provided when it was the Bush administration

Bollocks, Beardie. Get profesional help.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:28 AM

999,

"
"On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie

By: Examiner Editorial | 10/30/11 8:05 PM"




Unlike some here, I stated in the opening post IT WAS AN EDITORIAL.


Are YOU prepared to treat it with the SAME standard you treat the posts by those YOU agree with from NYT editorials????


Or are you now saying that only those YOU agree with are permitted????

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:11 AM

And I note that the fallacy of attacking the source rather than the facts is continuing to be the ONLY method attempted by those id disagreement.


"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.

The draft FOIA revisions were first published in March, but the Justice Department re-opened comment submissions in September after several open-government groups raised objections. A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is committed to public input and transparency, which is why it re-opened public comments on the rule -- an unusual step in the process.

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.""

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:03 AM

I find it significant that the proof demanded here was NEVER provided when it was the Bush administration, nor given when asked for, then.

And it seemed that an editorial from the Liberal NY Times was always accepted without question.


So, here you are:


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-21/html/2011-6473.htm

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:56 AM

It is from something called The Washington Examiner. It ran as an editorial on 10/30/11 8:05 PM. It is a free daily paper owned by Philip Frederick Anschutz. He's a billionaire, deemed to be the 34th richest person in the US according to some info on the www. There seems to be a dearth of facts in the editorial. "More matter; less art."

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:26 PM

there is no link, never was one

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:25 PM

Why? He sees no need to provide'em & never has done.

He also hasn't tumbled to the fact that Dumba & the BuShites actually DID the things complained about.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:43 PM

Rather than gratuitous rudeness, perhaps we could give BB a chance to locate a link?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:13 PM

bruce that's a sizeable chip on your shoulder.....poor, poor, persecuted bruce...awwwwww ver ver, baby have his bottle in a minute...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:55 PM

And this is the bullshit that"informs", enlivens and motivates a good 30%-40% of the electorate in the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave.

No wonder the country is terminally fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:48 PM

RE: BS: New rules for FOIA GUEST,beardedbruce

the saying if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with bullshit comes to mind

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,999
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:43 PM

LORD POLONIUS
This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.

QUEEN GERTRUDE
More matter, with less art.

LORD POLONIUS
Madam, I swear I use no art at all.
That he is mad, 'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity;
And pity 'tis 'tis true: a foolish figure;
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
Mad let us grant him, then: and now remains
That we find out the cause of this effect,
Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
For this effect defective comes by cause:
Thus it remains, and the remainder thus. Perpend.
I have a daughter--have while she is mine--
Who, in her duty and obedience, mark,
Hath given me this: now gather, and surmise.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,999
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:41 PM

It is from something called The Washington Examiner. It ran as an editorial on 10/30/11 8:05 PM. It is a free daily paper owned by Philip Frederick Anschutz. He's a billionaire, deemed to be the 34th richest person in the US according to some info on the www. There seems to be a dearth of facts in the editorial. "More matter; less art."

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:08 PM

no...wait he didn't write this all on his lonesome did he?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:31 PM

All I asked for was some facts.

From Beardie? This is a joke, right?

... it is yet another example of internet bull shit.

No, its a further example of Beardie Bullshit, which is related, but not quite the same.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:24 PM

The Washington Examiner has nothing

This right wing loony has nothing


there's nothing out there, I'm going to presume that this so-called report is totally bogus

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: gnu
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:03 PM

Bullshit is one word. Other than that, I have little comment except to agree with artbrooks.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:46 PM

I looked at six or so of the viral copies of this on the web. None of them have a link to the page in the Congressional Record or any other official document where this "proposed regulatory change" has been posted for comment as required under the law. May we have that, please. Otherwise, I will assume that it is yet another example of internet bull shit.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:24 PM

"People don't want to be informed; they only want the illusion of being informed."

          --Roger Ailes (chair of Fox News, ex-executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show, one-time imagemaker and political consultant to Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Rudy Giuliani) in New York Magazine, 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:36 PM

SIgh. All I asked for was some facts. You just want to fume. I wou8ld have liked a lot more facts about Bush, too, but his administration was far more secretive and fascistic than this one even at its worst.

Who did what, when, and why, exactly?


A

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:22 PM

"But I notice in your own leap to judgement you assume that Obama must have had a hand in it. It seems to me more likely, although I do not know for certain, that this stupidity is the work of some swell-headed fatmouth in the middle-management levels of the Justice Department. I'd be interested to hear, also, the details of the context and the actual proposals, as this writer seems awfully anxious to get you to react as you have. Not much of a sign of empirical soothsaying."



And you said WHAT about Bush when HIS administration did similar things?? I note you don't apply the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush with such great relish. So, YOU can react to YOUR perceived notions about Bush, but I can't react to MY thoughts about Obama??????


As I said...

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM

there was no need for that final part paragraph, I think brucie baby is spoiling for a scrap....

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM

The "Judical Watch" guy got to say "Orwellian" didn't he?

I think it is more than a little "Orwellian" that "Judical Watch" is watching the White House. Was the "Ministry of Peace" too busy waging war?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:51 PM

Who is getting a pass? You are reading the editorial aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:49 PM

Oh, Bruce, stop it. This is a "bad move" on the part of justice. But I notice in your own leap to judgement you assume that Obama must have had a hand in it. It seems to me more likely, although I do not know for certain, that this stupidity is the work of some swell-headed fatmouth in the middle-management levels of the Justice Department. I'd be interested to hear, also, the details of the context and the actual proposals, as this writer seems awfully anxious to get you to react as you have. Not much of a sign of empirical soothsaying.


A

Subject: BS: New rules for FOIA
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:44 PM

"On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie

By: Examiner Editorial | 10/30/11 8:05 PM

It's not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration's lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.
There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar's rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are not theirs but belong to the Secret Service. "Every day," Farrell notes, "the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House -- all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It's truly Orwellian." The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama's proposed "license to lie.""




Now, why do I expect a deafening silence from most here? Could it be a further example of a double standard, where conservatives are dumped on for the things that liberals get a pass on?????