Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Oh yeah, I remember! Apparently Obama has done... something... that made it government policy to lie to people? Like, official stated policy, "We are going to lie to you about this if we feel like it", in regards to material released under FOIA requests - even to the judiciary and other branches of government requesting the information.

Is that the only information you have? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like to engage in Progressive Rage over what amounts to a rumor involving Obama doing "something".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Is that the only information you have? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like to engage in Progressive Rage over what amounts to a rumor involving Obama doing "something".

Found it.

Oh yeah, I remember! Apparently Obama has done... something... that made it government policy to lie to people? Like, official stated policy, "We are going to lie to you about this if we feel like it", in regards to material released under FOIA requests - even to the judiciary and other branches of government requesting the information.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants-license-lie

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.

Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence.

ITT: TERRORISTS! WE'RE TAKING ALL YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE! Now, return to your homes, citizen. Only terrorist sympathizers would violate curfew, making you eligible for indefinite deportation to special detention camps in order to preserve national security. God Bless America. [/hyperbole]

But seriously, I am going to be so glad when people learn to reject fearmongering bullshit in general. Oh, who am I kidding, that'll never happen.

[scriver]

Ironic, seeming as you just mongered fear yourself in the paragraph above. Even with the hyperbole declaration.

[Pnx]

So... the only change is that they don't have to say "the document you're not getting may or may not exist". Instead they just say "the document you're not getting doesn't exist"?

Or does this have implications other than that? It seems a little unclear.

[SalmonGod]

the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist

They already do this... This is a big reason why the Iraq & Afghanistan War Logs leaked by Bradley Manning were such a big deal, because a lot of that was records that the military/government staunchly maintained for years that they did not have.

And this is the biggest reason I'm not a fan of Obama.  I understand he's tried to do some good things and has been stonewalled in senate & congress, but he's also been a blatant two-faced liar about government honesty, transparency, and support for whistleblowers and activists.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ironic, seeming as you just mongered fear yourself in the paragraph above. Even with the hyperbole declaration.

....Which was the purpose of the hyperbole declaration. I'm making my point about people giving up (well, more like having them taken by force, but whatever) their civil liberties systematically ever since 9/11, without actually saying that because everyone already knows about that well enough to get the point through a hyperbolic statement such as the one I typed. Or rather, that's how it is supposed to work, given that it apparently did not register as such to you.

[Nadaka]

So... the only change is that they don't have to say "the document you're not getting may or may not exist". Instead they just say "the document you're not getting doesn't exist"?

Or does this have implications other than that? It seems a little unclear.

The implication is very severe. If they say  "the document you're not getting may or may not exist" you can appeal to a federal judge, if they say "the document you're not getting doesn't exist" you have no legal recourse.

[GlyphGryph]

Basically, it continues Obama's policy of enshrining government malfeasance as right and proper, in my view. I guess I didn't really rage that much about it... mostly because I wasn't suprised.

The thing is, apparently they can repeat the same lie to judges that are seeking the information out as well, and they are legally in the clear. It's not right - and yes, we knew they did it in secret, but at the very least they weren't, technically, supposed to. This was the sort of thing many people were hoping he would be acting against, not actively supporting.

[ggamer]

I thought we agreed a long time ago that the acts of some who classify themselves as members does not mean all members are also of the same mind.  It doesn't matter if we are talking about Texans, Southerners, Arabs, Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, Liberals, Women, Men...

One of my friends has a good metaphor for this.

"When you say that all muslims are related to the Taliban, it's like saying all people from Georgia are related to the KKK."

Is that the only information you have? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like to engage in Progressive Rage over what amounts to a rumor involving Obama doing "something".

Found it.

Oh yeah, I remember! Apparently Obama has done... something... that made it government policy to lie to people? Like, official stated policy, "We are going to lie to you about this if we feel like it", in regards to material released under FOIA requests - even to the judiciary and other branches of government requesting the information.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants-license-lie

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.

Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence.

ITT: TERRORISTS! WE'RE TAKING ALL YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE! Now, return to your homes, citizen. Only terrorist sympathizers would violate curfew, making you eligible for indefinite deportation to special detention camps in order to preserve national security. God Bless America. [/hyperbole]

But seriously, I am going to be so glad when people learn to reject fearmongering bullshit in general. Oh, who am I kidding, that'll never happen.

This is why I voted for John Mccain.

Not because he was a republican, or white, but because he had experience. He knew first-hand what came of hiding information from the people. He was tortured in Vietnam for extended periods of time. He has extensive experience in politics. Nah, let's vote for Obama because he's a better speaker.

Or Mitt Romney. Experience out the figurative and literal wazoo? Nah, Hermain Cain of The-Rent-Is-Too-Damn-High Party for me.
[/tangent]

We need to find a balance. Take away the freedoms, and what do you have worth protecting? Leave the freedoms, and you have nothing left to protect.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We need to find a balance. Take away the freedoms, and what do you have worth protecting? Leave the freedoms, and you have nothing left to protect.

Do you want to know the horrible truth?

Spoiler: The Horrible Truth (click to show/hide)

We are safe. Nothing bad will happen if we retain our freedoms. No terrorist attack has any realistic chance of succeeding in the United States after 9/11. We've lost these freedoms for nothing.

[SalmonGod]

Not to mention, terrorism might not be such a problem if people didn't have so many legitimate reasons to be pissed off, often after being left with nothing to lose........

[Heron TSG]

Or Mitt Romney. Experience out the figurative and literal wazoo? Nah, Hermain Cain of The-Rent-Is-Too-Damn-High Party for me.
[/tangent]

Eh, tangent or not, it's an important topic.

If I had to pick one of the three Republican frontrunners, I would (grudgingly) choose Romney. Perry promotes social inequality and is horrible at being a Governor, and Cain's economic policies would raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich... exactly the opposite of what we need. (In addition to promoting social inequality.) At least Romney would most likely not gut Obama's healthcare bill, considering that he made his own in Massachusetts.

[Nadaka]

I refused to vote McCain after he endorsed torture as a US policy. And yea, Obama is to damn right wing fascist for me. But I don't really have an alternative.

[ChairmanPoo]

 I said it before in the other thread: as it is now (everywhere, not just the US)  the'whole system relies on offering you two options which are carbon copies except for some cosmetic differences. In truth it resembles this quite quite a bit, except there's no need for outright electoral fraud: we run like hamsters in a wheel from one candidate to the next, without wondering how for all these changes of goverment everything stays the same.

[SalmonGod]

I see it as a giant good cop/bad cop routine, but with the added feature that everyone will have a different idea which is which.  The population is left to quarrel over that detail, while the "cops" are free to further their united agenda in the midst of the distraction.