Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: After 43 Years, Activists Admit Theft At FBI Office That Exposed Domestic Spying - NBCNews [View all]progressoid
(52,877 posts)65. Here's why
Freedom of Information Regulations: Still Outdated, Still Undermining Openness
Majority of Agencies Have Not Updated FOIA Rules to Meet Either Obama's 2009 Order or Congress's 2007 Law
Washington, DC, March, 2013 A clear majority of federal agencies have failed to update their Freedom of Information Act regulations to comply either with Congress's changes to the law in 2007 or President Obama's and Attorney General Holder's changes to the policy in 2009, according to a revised government-wide audit published today by the independent non-governmental National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) to mark Sunshine Week.
...
Because agencies have not changed their FOIA regulations, some are still charging improper FOIA fees (and being defended in court by the Justice Department), and OGIS has had to conduct agency-by-agency outreach to inform FOIA shops of its mission which includes working to solve FOIA disputes through mediation rather than court battles.
An even larger number of agencies 59 out of 100 ignored the 2009 Obama-Holder guidance in their regulations. That guidance declared a "presumption of disclosure," encouraged discretionary releases even when the information might technically be covered by an exemption, if there was no foreseeable harm, ordered proactive online publication of records of greatest interest to the public, and told agencies to remove "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles."
Despite Holder's guidance, the government used the "discretionary" b(5) exemption 66,353 times last year, actually rising 17.9 percent from the previous year. (The number of FOIA requests processed rose only 5.3 percent.) Though there have been some examples of proactive posting of documents (including the Department of Interior's and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ongoing posting of Deepwater Horizon documents), "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles" such as petty fee disputes and endless interagency referrals still frustrate requesters and lead in some case to twenty-year-old FOIA requests.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB417/
Majority of Agencies Have Not Updated FOIA Rules to Meet Either Obama's 2009 Order or Congress's 2007 Law
Washington, DC, March, 2013 A clear majority of federal agencies have failed to update their Freedom of Information Act regulations to comply either with Congress's changes to the law in 2007 or President Obama's and Attorney General Holder's changes to the policy in 2009, according to a revised government-wide audit published today by the independent non-governmental National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) to mark Sunshine Week.
...
Because agencies have not changed their FOIA regulations, some are still charging improper FOIA fees (and being defended in court by the Justice Department), and OGIS has had to conduct agency-by-agency outreach to inform FOIA shops of its mission which includes working to solve FOIA disputes through mediation rather than court battles.
An even larger number of agencies 59 out of 100 ignored the 2009 Obama-Holder guidance in their regulations. That guidance declared a "presumption of disclosure," encouraged discretionary releases even when the information might technically be covered by an exemption, if there was no foreseeable harm, ordered proactive online publication of records of greatest interest to the public, and told agencies to remove "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles."
Despite Holder's guidance, the government used the "discretionary" b(5) exemption 66,353 times last year, actually rising 17.9 percent from the previous year. (The number of FOIA requests processed rose only 5.3 percent.) Though there have been some examples of proactive posting of documents (including the Department of Interior's and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ongoing posting of Deepwater Horizon documents), "unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles" such as petty fee disputes and endless interagency referrals still frustrate requesters and lead in some case to twenty-year-old FOIA requests.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB417/
OR
FOIA Requests Being Denied More Due To Security Reasons Than Any Time Since Obama Took Office
People submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 more than 603,000 a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.
When the government withheld or censored records, it cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year. In most cases, more than one of the law's exceptions was cited in each request for information.
...
U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.
"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."
People submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 more than 603,000 a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.
When the government withheld or censored records, it cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year. In most cases, more than one of the law's exceptions was cited in each request for information.
...
U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.
"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."
OR: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024294717
ETC ETC ETC
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
After 43 Years, Activists Admit Theft At FBI Office That Exposed Domestic Spying - NBCNews [View all]
WillyT
Jan 2014
OP
Sen. Wyden was warning about problems with the surveillance of some sort before Snowden
JDPriestly
Jan 2014
#26
Congress IS capable of conducting hearings in closed session, and if you don't think that staffers
MADem
Jan 2014
#33
I get the impression Rand Paul is only making a big deal out of this....
Hassin Bin Sober
Jan 2014
#55
What happened to the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity and undercover work? So Congress held
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#74
Code Pink made a mockery of those hearings, which resulted in very little coverage.
MADem
Jan 2014
#75
Can't answer the question? I can, NOTHING happened to the leaker. Thanks Congress.
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#78
What do you mean, "can't answer the question?" Your memory is faulty. The leaker was convicted.
MADem
Jan 2014
#79
Libby was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. You know what that means don't you? He
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#80
I and most Democrats are more than familiar with all that happened during what at one time, looked
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#83
So what's your solution? "Slash and burn?" "Throw 'em all out" because they didn't
MADem
Jan 2014
#86
My solution was to elect Dems in 2008. Remember? What is yours, to give up and accept it? All the
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#87
Mmm, Ellsberg suffered the same attacks when he decided that the welfare of the country and the
sabrina 1
Jan 2014
#73
Ellsberg didn't run away, and he didn't write letters to foreign governments offering his services.
MADem
Jan 2014
#76
Actually, he did go into hiding. But, quite a few people at the RAND corp knew were certain who
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#82
No. I won't give it up. And so happy that these people who allegedly were you, praised Snowden
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#19
Your itch, in less than eight paragraphs, is infected. Get some ointment on it. nt
MADem
Jan 2014
#34
Indeed. I have. You are my ointment. And a very satisfying ointment you are.
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#36
Clearly. You haven't a clue. Looking forward to your 8 paragraph rebuttal
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#11
Really. You cover yourself with the mantle of those who exposed FBI un-Constitutional surveillance..
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#24
If they are so honorable, why didn't they expose themselves from the get go?
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#29
I think the poster is pointing out that some others here would call them cowards
Fumesucker
Jan 2014
#51
I would be more impressed with their courage if they had nof waited 43 years to come forward.
Jenoch
Jan 2014
#31
Hahahaha!!!! Their courage was the original theft. They've come forward to support Snowden.
Luminous Animal
Jan 2014
#32
I guess it proves the FBI was no more competent 43 years ago than they are now
Savannahmann
Jan 2014
#46
I wonder about the posters here, who have a problem with the people exposing unlawful and
RC
Jan 2014
#59
Posted this earlier, but wanted to add here that this story is currently on (free) Hulu
Le Taz Hot
Jan 2014
#77