Goodbye FOIA

[Kathianne]

So much for openness and transparency:

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


Government Could Hide Existence of Records under FOIA Rule Proposal
A proposed 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 – part of a lengthy rule revision (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-03-21/html/2011-6473.htm) [1] by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."


Open-government groups object.


"We don’t believe the statute allows the government to lie to FOIA requesters,” said Mike German, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the provision.


The ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpenTheGovernment.org said the move would (http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/FOIA%20552c%20Comment%20-%2010-19-11%20-%20FINAL.pdf) [2] “dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government to be twisted.


The Glomar denial arose in the mid-1970s when a Los Angeles Times reporter requested information about the CIA’s Glomar Explorer (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nukevault/ebb305/index.htm) [3], built to recover a sunken Soviet submarine and the CIA’s attempt to suppress stories about it.


But the advocacy groups propose another response: You have requested “…records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA...”

They prefer such language because a last resort is to sue to obtain the records, something people requesting information might not do if they assumed that no records existed.

...

[Thunderknuckles]

Eric Holder is a disaster and needs to be thrown out of office before he's allowed to do more damage.

[ConHog]

So you have a problem with the government telling you that documents you aren't currently allowed to see don't exist? That makes no sense.

I in fact believe that there are certain things our government does that we shouldn't know about. Now , those things should be narrowly defined, but I believe this fits the criteria, national security.


For instance, the little cyrbabies should have been told "doesn't exist" when they first asked about Guantanamo.

[logroller]

So you have a problem with the government telling you that documents you aren't currently allowed to see don't exist? That makes no sense.

I in fact believe that there are certain things our government does that we shouldn't know about. Now , those things should be narrowly defined, but I believe this fits the criteria, national security.


For instance, the little cyrbabies should have been told "doesn't exist" when they first asked about Guantanamo.

Well the Glomar issue is clearly an issue of national security and if the public (and enemies) were made aware of what was occurring, it would compromise the mission. IMO, GITMO doesn't qualify for exclusion to FOIA because knowing about the GITMO detainees doesn't undermine the government's pursuit of the mission. It allows us to question the validity I guess; but we're still carrying out the mission, so obviously the info wasn't too damning and, in general, people agree it is necessary to national security. But Holder bringing this up with the egg still on his face from fast and furious; an information cover-up fiasco which didn't stand up to public scrutiny as being necessary to national security, makes me question the integrity of his proposed changes all the more- you can see that right?

[ConHog]

Well the Glomar issue is clearly an issue of national security and if the public (and enemies) were made aware of what was occurring, it would compromise the mission. IMO, GITMO doesn't qualify for exclusion to FOIA because knowing about the GITMO detainees doesn't undermine the government's pursuit of the mission. It allows us to question the validity I guess; but we're still carrying out the mission, so obviously the info wasn't too damning and, in general, people agree it is necessary to national security. But Holder bringing this up with the egg still on his face from fast and furious; an information cover-up fiasco which didn't stand up to public scrutiny as being necessary to national security, makes me question the integrity of his proposed changes all the more- you can see that right?



I absolutely believe Holder is the worst thing about this Administration. It's not even close in my opinion. So please don't think I'm defending that POS. I'm not. I'm merely stating that in SOME cases people are compromising our national security with their belief that they are entitled to know anything and everything that the government is doing.

I'm not saying anything more, nor anything less, with my comments.

[Thunderknuckles]

So you have a problem with the government telling you that documents you aren't currently allowed to see don't exist? That makes no sense.

I in fact believe that there are certain things our government does that we shouldn't know about. Now , those things should be narrowly defined, but I believe this fits the criteria, national security.


For instance, the little cyrbabies should have been told "doesn't exist" when they first asked about Guantanamo.
It's one thing to say they cannot confirm or deny the existence of something and another thing to legally lie about it. In the first case, we know it's probably something we are currently not allowed to see for the sake of national security. That's cool. But to be able to lie about it in perpetuity? Not cool and sets a dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences.

[ConHog]

It's one thing to say they cannot confirm or deny the existence of something and another thing to legally lie about it. In the first case, we know it's probably something we are currently not allowed to see for the sake of national security. That's cool. But to be able to lie about it in perpetuity? Not cool and sets a dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences.


I didn't read anything about perpetuity. I would imagine that their "right" to lie about the existence of the material would end at the same time as it's classified status does. For example, if a document is classified top secret for 50 years , well then for 50 years they can deny it even exists.

[Kathianne]

Well the Glomar issue is clearly an issue of national security and if the public (and enemies) were made aware of what was occurring, it would compromise the mission. IMO, GITMO doesn't qualify for exclusion to FOIA because knowing about the GITMO detainees doesn't undermine the government's pursuit of the mission. It allows us to question the validity I guess; but we're still carrying out the mission, so obviously the info wasn't too damning and, in general, people agree it is necessary to national security. But Holder bringing this up with the egg still on his face from fast and furious; an information cover-up fiasco which didn't stand up to public scrutiny as being necessary to national security, makes me question the integrity of his proposed changes all the more- you can see that right?

Indeed. That's been in place for like ever, then again, if one read the article they'd know that. ;)

[ConHog]

Indeed. That's been in place for like ever, then again, if one read the article they'd know that. ;)

Indeed, so what does this new law really do? Oh all it does is prevent people from even knowing a document they couldn't see anyway exists. Exactly as those silly groups said "now we won't know to sue when we're told those documents are kept from us"

I'm for ANY thing that keeps silly cases out of courts.

[Kathianne]

Indeed, so what does this new law really do? Oh all it does is prevent people from even knowing a document they couldn't see anyway exists. Exactly as those silly groups said "now we won't know to sue when we're told those documents are kept from us"

I'm for ANY thing that keeps silly cases out of courts.

So you are just going to 'trust' that all those that 'don't exist' really don't? Are all national security? "Hey! We're the government, fuck you and send money! We don't owe you the truth, we lie and it's law!"

Yep, that's what the implications are. Lies codified by law. Not, "We are not releasing sensitive information.Take it to court."

[ConHog]

So you are just going to 'trust' that all those that 'don't exist' really don't? Are all national security? "Hey! We're the government, fuck you and send money! We don't owe you the truth, we lie and it's law!"

Yep, that's what the implications are. Lies codified by law. Not, "We are not releasing sensitive information.Take it to court."

No , of course there needs to be more standards set, but guess what, there already are. Unless you are advocating that EVERY document produced by the government needs to be accessible via FOI laws?

On that end nothing changes. The ONLY thing that changes is that now when you ask for a document that you didn't have access to before and don't have access to now you can be told that the document doesn't exist.

That changes NOTHING in your ability to obtain documents that you could already obtain.

Oh by the way there are already lies codified by law. Example, police can legally lie to you when they have you in custody.

[Kathianne]

No , of course there needs to be more standards set, but guess what, there already are. Unless you are advocating that EVERY document produced by the government needs to be accessible via FOI laws?

On that end nothing changes. The ONLY thing that changes is that now when you ask for a document that you didn't have access to before and don't have access to now you can be told that the document doesn't exist.

That changes NOTHING in your ability to obtain documents that you could already obtain.

Oh by the way there are already lies codified by law. Example, police can legally lie to you when they have you in custody.

Didn't read or didn't understand? The rules are changing. Yeppers, try again.

The police are one facet of the government, one that is often taken to court. We want they to lie to criminals, when it leads to the truth. Now you are mixing apples and oranges.

[ConHog]

Didn't read or didn't understand? The rules are changing. Yeppers, try again.

The police are one facet of the government, one that is often taken to court. We want they to lie to criminals, when it leads to the truth. Now you are mixing apples and oranges.

Umm what?

[Kathianne]

Umm what?What did you fail to understand? Questioning whether you read the OP or understood it? That police do have the right to lie to those they are questioning, but that has 0 to do with FOIA?

[ConHog]

What did you fail to understand? Questioning whether you read the OP or understood it? That police do have the right to lie to those they are questioning, but that has 0 to do with FOIA?

Of course it has nothing to do with FOIA, but YOU did bring in the question of the government being able to lie, by law, and that is already established, as evidenced by the fact that the police can lie to detainees.

This new law won't prevent you from getting any document you can presently get. You understand that, correct?

[Kathianne]

Of course it has nothing to do with FOIA, but YOU did bring in the question of the government being able to lie, by law, and that is already established, as evidenced by the fact that the police can lie to detainees.

This new law won't prevent you from getting any document you can presently get. You understand that, correct?

I didn't bring up a question about police, which has nothing to do with FOIA, the title and topic I did bring up.

I have yet to file a FOIA request, however I read many news stories that get their information from that, such as Fast & Furious, for instance.

[DragonStryk72]

So you have a problem with the government telling you that documents you aren't currently allowed to see don't exist? That makes no sense.

I in fact believe that there are certain things our government does that we shouldn't know about. Now , those things should be narrowly defined, but I believe this fits the criteria, national security.


For instance, the little cyrbabies should have been told "doesn't exist" when they first asked about Guantanamo.

Uh, no, Gitmo was just all kinds of wrong. I refuse to accept that the US just HAD to abandon due process for those pussies in AQ and Iraq. I'm sick of treating those twins anthills like they're some sort of real god damned. they're not, they are outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed by our military and intelligence agencies. They got off exactly ONE good shot at us in that whole damned time, and ever since then, we've beat like they owed us child support.

the second problem is this: it nevers stays narrowly defined. It was Reagan who stated that government rarely relinquishes power once it gains it. And Example:

"Hi, under the Freedom of Information Act, I'm requesting the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama."

"I'm sorry sir, those files don't exist."

[Missileman]

Uh, no, Gitmo was just all kinds of wrong. I refuse to accept that the US just HAD to abandon due process for those pussies in AQ and Iraq. I'm sick of treating those twins anthills like they're some sort of real god damned. they're not, they are outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed by our military and intelligence agencies. They got off exactly ONE good shot at us in that whole damned time, and ever since then, we've beat like they owed us child support.

the second problem is this: it nevers stays narrowly defined. It was Reagan who stated that government rarely relinquishes power once it gains it. And Example:

"Hi, under the Freedom of Information Act, I'm requesting the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama."

"I'm sorry sir, those files don't exist."

There wasn't/isn't anything wrong with Gitmo, the facility. They should have been running the prisoners through the miltary tribunal mill all along. Try them, sentence them, and press on.

[ConHog]

Uh, no, Gitmo was just all kinds of wrong. I refuse to accept that the US just HAD to abandon due process for those pussies in AQ and Iraq. I'm sick of treating those twins anthills like they're some sort of real god damned. they're not, they are outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed by our military and intelligence agencies. They got off exactly ONE good shot at us in that whole damned time, and ever since then, we've beat like they owed us child support.

the second problem is this: it nevers stays narrowly defined. It was Reagan who stated that government rarely relinquishes power once it gains it. And Example:

"Hi, under the Freedom of Information Act, I'm requesting the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama."

"I'm sorry sir, those files don't exist."

First of all, someone would be hard pressed to show that Barry's birth certificate would reveal matters of national security.

Second of all, there are many that believe the document in fact doesn't exist. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

First of all, someone would be hard pressed to show that Barry's birth certificate would reveal matters of national security.

Second of all, there are many that believe the document in fact doesn't exist. :laugh2:

If it doesn't exist, whether or not it was or wasn't national security is really, really moot.

[ConHog]

If it doesn't exist, whether or not it was or wasn't national security is really, really moot.

No you see , the government has to satisfy certain requirements before they can classify a document. Some staffer can't just say "okay this document is classified, lie when people ask if it exists."

Faux rage extraordinaire in this thread, essentially nothing has changed. You still have access to the same documents via FOI that you had before.

[Kathianne]

No you see , the government has to satisfy certain requirements before they can classify a document. Some staffer can't just say "okay this document is classified, lie when people ask if it exists."

Faux rage extraordinaire in this thread, essentially nothing has changed. You still have access to the same documents via FOI that you had before.

Sure they do, when they don't exist. I remember you being so certain of the OnStar tracking being much about nothing. Until they totally admitted how misleading they were. Ever think the government would undo a bad?

[Kathianne]

Notice to those who have trouble with segues; this is related to the 'non-transparency' part of the post, but nothing to do with FOIA. National security? Other than trying to avoid scandals that might 'tear the country apart' and further landslide elections:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-investigation-into-private-email-accounts-at-sec-securities-exchange#.Tq_9rC5zQ-M.twitter


November 01, 2011
CREW Calls For Investigation Into the Use of Private Email Accounts at the SEC



http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/images/user_uploads/SEC_Buildingcontent.jpgWashington, D.C. – Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Inspector General (IG), H. David Kotz, to investigate reports that SEC employees are using private email accounts to conduct agency business. According to a report in Bloomberg, these actions were taken with the express purpose of evading a series of recent IG investigations.


Click here to read CREW’s letter.

(http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Legal/Letters/11_1_11_Letter to H David Kotz re SEC use of private email.pdf?nocdn=1)

“This is just the latest instance where SEC employees seemingly thumb their nose at federal law in the hopes of avoiding public review of their actions,” said CREW Chief Counsel Anne Weismann. “It is incumbent on the IG to fully investigate this latest incident and bring some much needed reforms to this troubled agency.”


The Federal Records Act requires agencies to preserve all records that document how the agency performs its mission. Regulations allow for the use of private email (such as Gmail or Yahoo) only if a system is in place to capture and preserve those emails. Such a system does not seem to be in place at the SEC.


“Whether it’s Karl Rove in the Bush White House, or SEC employees in the Obama Administration, the practice of public employees using private email to avoid potential disclosure is simply wrong,” said Ms. Weismann. “In the wake of reports of serious enforcement failures at the SEC, it is more important than ever for the public to have access to these emails to hold the agency accountable for its actions.”

[ConHog]

Notice to those who have trouble with segues; this is related to the 'non-transparency' part of the post, but nothing to do with FOIA. National security? Other than trying to avoid scandals that might 'tear the country apart' and further landslide elections:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/crew-investigation-into-private-email-accounts-at-sec-securities-exchange#.Tq_9rC5zQ-M.twitter

Which is why national security is and should be narrowly defined. Nowhere did I say that they should just be able to sweep whatever they like under the national security umbrella to keep us from knowing.

[Kathianne]

Which is why national security is and should be narrowly defined. Nowhere did I say that they should just be able to sweep whatever they like under the national security umbrella to keep us from knowing.

Hmmm, and who is going to define and live up to those definitions? Oh yeah, the government. You have been arguing to give them carte blanche, which the police do NOT have, as whatever they find by their 'lies' will be seriously be questioned if brought to court; questioned and judged by defense attorney, judge, and jury where appropriate.

OTOH, with the proposed changes to FOIA, they can permanently deep six anything they wish, in the name of national security. Seems SEC folks are just avoiding the discussion altogether.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IG-_FjM7KjA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

the judge brings up a few good points. the one that strikes me most is if the Gov't can lie to us to "protect us" why i can't i lie to gov't to "protect" myself.

the case that the gov't over classifies documents has been made for years by people on the right and left. Obama promised more sunshine and declassification and that "that the era was over", um er... but it's not.
Many things are classified "secret", "top secret", "classified" etc as a CYA procedure. And this law is ANOTHER CYA move becuase they've been doing this as well as destroying documents that they don't want the public to see. For example the CIA shredding docs and tapes that showed they were doing nothing wrong at gitmo .

Con, yes, we all agree that there are instances where some docs shouldn't be seen by the general public for a few years, maybe, but those cases should be RARE and be subject to review by a judge if people request them. If the request itself is so sensitive that to even acknowledge it would be a problem then the reply should be just that. "We cannot even reply to that request for security reasons."

[ConHog]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IG-_FjM7KjA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

the judge brings up a few good points. the one that strikes me most is if the Gov't can lie to us to "protect us" why i can't i lie to gov't to "protect" myself.

the case that the gov't over classifies documents has been made for years by people on the right and left. Obama promised more sunshine and declassification and that "that the era was over", um er... but it's not.
Many things are classified "secret", "top secret", "classified" etc as a CYA procedure. And this law is ANOTHER CYA move becuase they've been doing this as well as destroying documents that they don't want the public to see. For example the CIA shredding docs and tapes that showed they were doing nothing wrong at gitmo .

Con, yes, we all agree that there are instances where some docs shouldn't be seen by the general public for a few years, maybe, but those cases should be RARE and be subject to review by a judge if people request them. If the request itself is so sensitive that to even acknowledge it would be a problem then the reply should be just that. "We cannot even reply to that request for security reasons."

I agree that the cases should be rare. I also agree that there should be some oversight. I disagree that that oversight should be citizens suing the government because they want access to a classified document.

By the way , you CAN lie to the government to protect yourself. It's called the 5th Amendment. That is in fact lying by refusing to answer a question. Or if you need another example. If the police knock on your door and ask if you have anything illegal in your home , you can tell them no , even if it is a lie; and if at some point they discover you have lied to them, there is no penalty for said lie.

[logroller]

I didn't read anything about perpetuity. I would imagine that their "right" to lie about the existence of the material would end at the same time as it's classified status does. For example, if a document is classified top secret for 50 years , well then for 50 years they can deny it even exists.
After 50 years of denying its existence-- if it did exist, it doesn't anymore-- that's what FOIA was intended to prevent from happening. For example, what was our role in the overthrow of Iran and the installation of the Shah? those documents, confirmed to have existed by those in the know, would have shown our govt's explicit intentions and service in a matter of national security-- but they're long gone. The ramifications of those actions continue to this day; and maybe it wouldn't have mattered, that we would support the overthrow of what was a democratically elected govt for reasons laid out in those classified docs--but thanks to hush-hush policy, we'll never know. Holder and the Justice Dept like that way...I'm not so keen.

[ConHog]

After 50 years of denying its existence-- if it did exist, it doesn't anymore-- that's what FOIA was intended to prevent from happening. For example, what was our role in the overthrow of Iran and the installation of the Shah? those documents, confirmed to have existed by those in the know, would have shown our govt's explicit intentions and service in a matter of national security-- but they're long gone. The ramifications of those actions continue to this day; and maybe it wouldn't have mattered, that we would support the overthrow of what was a democratically elected govt for reasons laid out in those classified docs--but thanks to hush-hush policy, we'll never know. Holder and the Justice Dept like that way...I'm not so keen.

Oh come on. One thing about the government they love their paper trails. And they create SO much paperwork that there is noway someone could possibly remember to go back and destroy something before it becomes unclassified.


This thread belongs in the conspiracy forum.

[revelarts]

Oh come on. One thing about the government they love their paper trails. And they create SO much paperwork that there is noway someone could possibly remember to go back and destroy something before it becomes unclassified.


This thread belongs in the conspiracy forum.

Gov't secrecy is the reason WHY there are so many Conspiracy threads.

And the Country has covered up items that where considered Con Theory UNTIL the gov't FINALLY fested up.

The treat level chart Orange red etc was used as a political tool was considered a Theory until Tom Ridge Blew the whistle.
and BTW

Log mentioned the U.S. overthrow of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected official in a foreign country IRAN done secretly and DENIED for Years.

I believe it was considered Conspiracy theory until the some docs or personal papers where release , EVEN THOUGH there was other evidence available to give a good indication that that was the fact. Good people didn't want to believe it becuase of our own idea of what the U.S. does around the world. Supposedly supporting Democracy not toppeling democracies and propping up dictators for the sake of oil. but that's what happened.


Among other items that were secret but had been considered theory but now shown to be facts:

•The Mafia, organized Crime, the federal gov't denied it's existence for years and it's influence in politics etc.. but it's real.
•MK-ULTRA: Secret gov't mind control experiments on U.S. citizens even children with lsd and emotional manipulation.
•Operation Mockingbird: cCIA and other Fed agencies feeding the media "news" and paying reporters to write what they want.
•The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and other medical experiments: Gov't run experiments on U.S. citizens, U.S. prisoneers and U.S. soldiers to "test" the long term effects of diseases and to test the effects of chemical warfare agents, and radiation and who knows what else. not reveald for years. most people scoffed at the idea that the gov't would EVER do such a thing. Finally the documents came out and a few people talked.
•Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s like COINTELPRO: MLK said the gov't was spying on him and others an he was right but not believed by many. But the docs tell the story in greater detail than most would imagine. But That would never happen today though.
•Operation Paperclip: Getting "useful" Nazi's out of europe and out of war trials if they worked for the U.S. gov't.. "never mind the past, it's not like your a NAZI or sumthin."

etc,

We've got to be able to open the books on the gov't we can't just trust that the gov't will do whats right or in the citizens or countries best interest.

[logroller]

Oh come on. One thing about the government they love their paper trails. And they create SO much paperwork that there is noway someone could possibly remember to go back and destroy something before it becomes unclassified.

Oh they didn't destroy, or rather, purge all of it; much survives. They just don't say who said or ordered what or when or if the president knew what was going on-- you know, to protect the innocent...or implicate anybody.(sounds a lot like fast and furious, doesn't it) Even with what is available on the Iranian coup, it clearly wasn't only, if even primarily, about national security; there were other interests (oil) at work which, thanks to the FOIA, fall under the public purview. And whatever info they do release, is so heavily redacted, it bears no witnesses from which any inquiry could be made. I believe our ability to scrutinize the government's methods and reasoning on any matter, even national security, serves to keep our government diligent in it's service to the people. Obviously those who feel constrained by this may have intentions to go beyond the scope of lawful duties-- which is exactly why we passed the FOIA.


This thread belongs in the conspiracy forum.

So you admit it is a conspiracy-- or did you mean conspiracy theory?

Were I to premise this as a conspiracy theory, I'd have mentioned the chance meeting of the Shah and vacationing Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles at a hotel in Rome the very day before the Iranian government was overthrown. But that's just crazy to think there was any connection-- it's just such a small world.:laugh:

[ConHog]

Gov't secrecy is the reason WHY there are so many Conspiracy threads.

And the Country has covered up items that where considered Con Theory UNTIL the gov't FINALLY fested up.

The treat level chart Orange red etc was used as a political tool was considered a Theory until Tom Ridge Blew the whistle.
and BTW

Log mentioned the U.S. overthrow of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected official in a foreign country IRAN done secretly and DENIED for Years.

I believe it was considered Conspiracy theory until the some docs or personal papers where release , EVEN THOUGH there was other evidence available to give a good indication that that was the fact. Good people didn't want to believe it becuase of our own idea of what the U.S. does around the world. Supposedly supporting Democracy not toppeling democracies and propping up dictators for the sake of oil. but that's what happened.


Among other items that were secret but had been considered theory but now shown to be facts:

•The Mafia, organized Crime, the federal gov't denied it's existence for years and it's influence in politics etc.. but it's real.
•MK-ULTRA: Secret gov't mind control experiments on U.S. citizens even children with lsd and emotional manipulation.
•Operation Mockingbird: cCIA and other Fed agencies feeding the media "news" and paying reporters to write what they want.
•The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and other medical experiments: Gov't run experiments on U.S. citizens, U.S. prisoneers and U.S. soldiers to "test" the long term effects of diseases and to test the effects of chemical warfare agents, and radiation and who knows what else. not reveald for years. most people scoffed at the idea that the gov't would EVER do such a thing. Finally the documents came out and a few people talked.
•Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s like COINTELPRO: MLK said the gov't was spying on him and others an he was right but not believed by many. But the docs tell the story in greater detail than most would imagine. But That would never happen today though.
•Operation Paperclip: Getting "useful" Nazi's out of europe and out of war trials if they worked for the U.S. gov't.. "never mind the past, it's not like your a NAZI or sumthin."

etc,

We've got to be able to open the books on the gov't we can't just trust that the gov't will do whats right or in the citizens or countries best interest.

and not a single one of those things qualifies as national security and so I don't believe non of them should be FOIA exempt.

[Thunderknuckles]

Update:
The Justice Dept. is dropping the proposed change. They were made to see the error of their ways. Cheers.

[Kathianne]

Update:
The Justice Dept. is dropping the proposed change. They were made to see the error of their ways. Cheers.

and I did bring up *Onstar!* LOL!

Do you have a link on this TK?

[Thunderknuckles]

and I did bring up *Onstar!* LOL!

Do you have a link on this TK?
I read it on fox news. Can't find the link anymore but found similar story from Google search:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/Justice_Department_pulls_controversial_FOIA_regs.h tml