Interesting new rule "The Obama Rule"

[Gaspar]

The Obama administration has proposed a new rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don't exist,  even when they do. Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what's known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The new proposal, brought up by the DOJ, would direct government agencies to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

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

One small step for President Obama, one giant leap (and sigh of relief) for Eric Holder. 

Again I ask, are these people too stupid to understand that there are citizens who pay attention to this stuff, or do they just assume that everyone tunes in to ET and the Daily Show and goes to bed?

[dbacks fan]

Considering the number of people I know that based their vote for Obama based on watching the Daily Show, I'd say there are quite a few.

[Townsend]

So instead of "We cannot confirm they exist or don't exist." It's "They don't exist."

Either way you don't get the info.

It's crap whether you go by the old way under one administration or the new way under the current admin.

[Gaspar]

So instead of "We cannot comfirm they exist or don't exist." It's "They don't exist."

Either way you don't get the info.

It's crap whether you go by the old way under one administration or the new way under the current admin.

Glomar denial was based on the fact that it was illegal for a government official to lie to the public/reporter when asked about classified information.

This new rule makes it perfectly legal for the government to lie.

You may not care much about this "baby-step," but it is indeed a very big deal.  The precedent it sets will make it legal for any government agency or individual to lie to the public without consequence, as long as "they" deem it is in the best interest in national security, and it expands the government's freedom to lie to simple federal law enforcement information requests.

Currently, our federal officials are bound to tell the truth, or at least not tell a lie.  When asked, a government official can answer "NO" when no information exists. When an official says "I can neither confirm or deny that" it sends the message that they cannot answer your question because the information would threaten national security.  This is a respectful way of saying "the information exists, but is not public information as of yet."

Government officials are bound by these laws to restrict their power.  Giving them blanket authority to deny information is very dangerous!

This is not a liberal v.s. conservative argument.  This is a Libertarian+liberal v.s. conservative argument.  We should be on the same side for this one Town. 

Liberal groups including the ACLU are gearing up to do battle with this ruling.

[Townsend]

There's just nothing more to add when you make up answers for everyone else.

Feel free to argue with others that agree these rules are wrong.

I'm done with you.

[we vs us]

http://www.propublica.org/article/government-could-hide-existence-of-records-under-foia-rule-proposal

Good coverage there. 

It seems, based on the article above, that there's already a bit of case law that would invalidate the Obama admin's new rule, and even if not, they've reopened the comment period on the proposed change, so that "open government groups" can register objections. 

So, while it looks like a poorly constructed rule, it also looks as if the Administration is allowing the validity of it to be worked through appropriate channels.   

[Gaspar]

There's just nothing more to add when you make up answers for everyone else.

Feel free to argue with others that agree these rules are wrong.

I'm done with you.

Did you arrive on this thread simply to disagree with me?

[nathanm]

Currently, our federal officials are bound to tell the truth, or at least not tell a lie.

That's not actually true. I wish it were. Besides, I'm much more concerned about them being allowed to lie when it's our freedom at stake than in any other situation.

[Gaspar]

http://www.propublica.org/article/government-could-hide-existence-of-records-under-foia-rule-proposal

Good coverage there. 

It seems, based on the article above, that there's already a bit of case law that would invalidate the Obama admin's new rule, and even if not, they've reopened the comment period on the proposed change, so that "open government groups" can register objections. 

So, while it looks like a poorly constructed rule, it also looks as if the Administration is allowing the validity of it to be worked through appropriate channels.   

I'm not sure it could survive constitutionally anyway.

[Townsend]

Did you arrive on this thread simply to disagree with me?

Just reading things the way you want to read them apparently.

Who disagreed?  I was pointing out that the situation's change was small.

You seem to think that since you're claiming all this is coming from Obama that you'll be attacked.

It seemed to me that either way is a lie.

[Hoss]

Just reading things the way you want to read them apparently.

Who disagreed?  I was pointing out that the situation's change was small.

You seem to think that since you're claiming all this is coming from Obama that you'll be attacked.

It seemed to me that either way is a lie.

Consider the source...

[Townsend]

Consider the source...

Freaking A.

[AquaMan]

It seemed to me that either way is a lie.

Talk about cutting to the chase.

When someone tells you that they can neither confirm or deny the existence, they are lying. They know one way or the other. It is policy that precludes them from telling you which one.

Either way they are lying to you.

[guido911]

http://www.propublica.org/article/government-could-hide-existence-of-records-under-foia-rule-proposal

Good coverage there. 

It seems, based on the article above, that there's already a bit of case law that would invalidate the Obama admin's new rule, and even if not, they've reopened the comment period on the proposed change, so that "open government groups" can register objections. 

So, while it looks like a poorly constructed rule, it also looks as if the Administration is allowing the validity of it to be worked through appropriate channels.   

I read that article after the original post. This part stood out to me:

In a recent case brought by the ACLU of Southern California, the FBI denied the existence of documents. But the court later discovered that the documents did exist. In an amended order, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the "Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court."

DOJ's draft FOIA rule was first published in March, but DOJ re-opened comment submissions in September at the request of open-government groups. The new comment period ended October 19.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment. We will update as soon as it does.

[Emphasis added].
Whatever happened to this:

[Gaspar]

I read that article after the original post. This part stood out to me:
[Emphasis added].
Whatever happened to this:

I guess my primary confusion is why would anyone on the left defend this rule?

The only thing I can conclude is that no matter what President Obama suggests, his groupies will lovingly march in that direction.