"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 by the Department of Justice, would direct government agencies to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

So what the DOJ wants to do, you request information under the Freedom of Information Act, instead of telling you that this is a matter of national security, or giving you redacted info, they would be able to tell you that these records do not exist. So, what could they exclude? I guess anything they choose under this provision. Can't take them to court and make them prove that the information shouldn't be released. So, whatever they decide?

I studied the FOIA while at the Justice Department in DC years ago--we had tests on how we processed FOIA requests.

Having the option of flat out lying as to whether a record even exists sort of negates the entire purpose of FOIA, doesn't it?

-Ron-

The Record on CURVEBALL: Declassified Documents and Key Participants Show the Importance of Phony Intelligence in the Origins of the Iraq War

Washington, DC, November 5, 2007 - CBS News' 60 Minutes exposure last night of the Iraqi agent known as CURVEBALL has put a major aspect of the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq back under the spotlight.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan's charges that Iraq possessed stockpiles of biological weapons and the mobile plants to produce them formed a critical part of the U.S. justification for the invasion in Spring 2003. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's celebrated and globally televised briefing to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, relied on CURVEBALL as the main source of intelligence on the biological issue.

Today the National Security Archive posts the available public record on CURVEBALL's information derived from declassified sources and former officials' accounts.

While most of the documentary record on the issue remains classified, the materials published here today underscore the precarious nature of the intelligence gathering and analytical process, and point to the existence of doubts about CURVEBALL's authenticity before his charges were featured in the Bush administration's public claims about Iraq.

Good try at obfuscating. Look at the very top of your link. It was updated in early 2004. I'm talking about the Downing Street Minute documents that John Conyers and other Congressmen requested formally on June 30, 2005. Remember then Tony and Dubya had that meeting to concoct a WMD strategy so they could invade Iraq?

-Ron-

That's the standard for the CIA - neither confirm nor deny.

Certain law-enforcement and national security requests will be affected - you can thank the never-ending war on terror. From the examples in the article, the government was already doing this, until caught - several times - and is now formalizing the practice.

I agree with this from the first link:

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.

Ron, if those documents existed, it doesn't mean they had to be made available, and you could sue for them under the FOIA, which doesn't even then assure that you will get them. But under this administration, if this passes, they could have simply told you the documents did not exist, even if they did, and that would be the end of it.

In the article that you reference, this has been done before - dating back to the 1970s - but now instituted as a standard practice.

Again, I cite the article you reference, and quote from that article the objection of advocacy groups. What are you disputing?

they could have simply told you the documents did not exist, even if they did, and that would be the end of it.

According to the article, not true. Here's the quote:

They prefer such language [see above] 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.

Are you sure that you have read the entire article?

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.

What this DOJ is proposing to do, is to completely deny the existence of documents. Thereby for all intents and purposes, voiding the FOIA.

FOIA is not being voided - certain exceptions are made for law enforcement and national security documents, as you noted. (FOIA is used for a wide variety of documents.) If a document is denied release, or denied to exist, a lawsuit is available. The advocacy groups are requesting wording to make it easier to determine if a lawsuit should be initiated - they're operating on limited funds and would like to make the best use of their resources.

FOIA requests are not automatically approved; this will not change if the proposed standard is dropped.

btw, "national security" has been the catch phrase - going back many administrations - when something is to be buried so deep as to never see the light of day.

This is not the patriot act kt. This is the DOJ, as it stands now, even under the FOIA, documents that deal with national security do not have to be released, or can even be redacted. Under this new provision, the DOJ can simply say they do not exist and that is the end of it. And no, I don't want our government to operate in complete secrecy. Do you really want to go down that path?

Now you're complaining?

That's right...I forgot...under the Bush administration, the ombundsman who's responsibility is to monitor/mediate the FOIA decisions...his position was MOVED to the DOJ. Now doesn't that make sense?

-Ron-

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.

MIGHT NOT DO - not CANNOT DO.

See the difference?

From your comments, I take it that you're newly concerned with accessability to government documents because it's not that unusual to see lawsuits for the release of information. There are non-profits / advocacy groups that specialize in these requests - Center for Constitutional Rights being one.

As I wrote earlier, the CIA's standard procedure is to neither confirm or deny, so questions about torture, agents, support of death squads, involvement in coups - all blown off.

How many times did the Congressional investigation of Iran-Contra have to retire to closed-door sessions because of some administration official invoking "national security" when questioning closed in on wrongdoing?

No memory of VP Cheney's meetings with the oil industry? When asked for disclosure of the discussions, we were told to take a hike.

Once information is declared as classified, there is little accountability to the public. And as the Wikileaks documents show, press clippings can become classified documents. The government can classify, or reclassify any document that it wishes.

And to repeat David's comment:

Now you're complaining?

Rape rampant in US military

On December 13, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups filed a federal lawsuit seeking Pentagon records in order to get the real facts about the incidence of sexual assault in the ranks.

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.

"They" being the ACLU and other advocacy groups. "They" prefer such language, rather than, "documents do not exist".

Obama can also declare some documents to be "secret" or classified and not release them until someone sues for their release. What he cannot do is have the DOJ deny the existence of such documents.

Someone brought up Bush and documents that he wouldn't allow to be released. At least you knew there were documents, someone could sue to have them released. Would it have been better if he could have just claimed that no such documents existed in the first place?

Good times, good times......

The attack against FOIA began almost immediately after it was instituted, and continues today. The howls of protest were loudest from the GOP, and continue today. No administration is inclined to release that which reflects poorly on its decisions, and national security is the handy excuse.

Now you're outraged?

I'm guessing before the week is over, they'll be lying about ever saying they wanted to lie.

The federal government will pay a Texas law school $1 million to do research aimed at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press and public through freedom-of-information requests.

Beginning this month, St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio will analyze recent state laws that place previously available information, such as site plans of power plants, beyond the reach of public inquiries.

Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at the law school, said he will use that research to produce a national "model statute" that state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially dangerous information "stays out of the hands of the bad guys." [...]

Critics say the research plan overstates the need for secrecy and is likely to give state and federal governments too much discretion to withhold material. "Restricting information (for) security and efficiency and comfort level, that's the good story," says Paul McMasters, a specialist in public information law at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. "The bad story is that it can also be a great instrument of control. ... To automatically believe that the less known the better is really not rational."

Congress added the grant to this year's Defense Department budget. It is being administered through the Air Force Research Laboratory, Addicott said. The laboratory in Rome, N.Y., specializes in information technology, according to its website. [...]

Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says the research program is in keeping with a recent federal trend to use "homeland security" as an excuse to restrict unrelated material.

"Decisions (on requests for public information) are being handled in progressively less friendly ways," she said.

Not rational, at all. The people have a right to know what our government is doing, how our money is being budgeted and spent, and what is going on. Knowledge is power, and shared information is that knowledge... unless the government has something to hide from its own people, which it shouldn't. We are a supposedly democratic republic, governed by the people for the people, with certain rights and freedoms.

Granted, there may be certain military information best kept under wraps, but for the most part, information should flow freely. An informed public is a good thing, making for a strong nation.

But a fearful nation practically begged the government to take certain freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security... and we got exactly what we asked for. If we're left in the dark, it's our own fault for giving too much power to those who are supposed to represent our interests.