Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A congressional hearing is scheduled for this week to investigate this administration's reported interference with the Freedom of Information Act. Doesn't sound like "transparency." In fact, it sounds more like censorship and politics. It will be interesting to see what comes of this hearing.
"WASHINGTON — Insiders at the Homeland Security Department warned for months that senior Obama administration appointees were improperly delaying the releases of government files on politically sensitive topics as sought by citizens, journalists and watchdog groups under the Freedom of Information Act, according to uncensored emails newly obtained by The Associated Press."
"The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more transparent, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas. People can request government records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent."
"But at the Homeland Security Department, since July 2009, career employees were ordered to provide political staffers with information about the people who asked for records – such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters – and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican." (highlight mine.)
A congressional hearing is scheduled for this week to investigate this administration's reported interference with the Freedom of Information Act. Doesn't sound like "transparency." In fact, it sounds more like censorship and politics. It will be interesting to see what comes of this hearing.
"WASHINGTON — Insiders at the Homeland Security Department warned for months that senior Obama administration appointees were improperly delaying the releases of government files on politically sensitive topics as sought by citizens, journalists and watchdog groups under the Freedom of Information Act, according to uncensored emails newly obtained by The Associated Press."
"The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more transparent, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas. People can request government records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent."
"But at the Homeland Security Department, since July 2009, career employees were ordered to provide political staffers with information about the people who asked for records – such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters – and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican." (highlight mine.)
This is very troubling. Freedom of information is exceptionally important in our society. The transparency issue continues to be a problem for me, in light of what Obama said he would do while campaigning, and what has happened since his administration has taken control. I realize that some of these decisions are not solely Obama's, but there are transparency issues cropping up all across the board. I was infuriated by Cheney's secrecy during the previous administration, and that Bush did little to address that. I think this might become an issue during the 2012 election. Americans don't trust their government. It's lack of transparency is one of the reasons.
Obama....Mr. Transparency....has actually been LESS transparent than GWB on matters involving FOIA. I'll see if I can dig up the article...it was a pretty damning piece of campaign fodder for sure.
This is what happens when a person is elected on celebrity and sky high rhetoric. Barack Obama simply didn't know how hard it would be to keep his promises. So what does he do? Tightens the FOIA spigot. The people will never know if they can't get the information, right?
This is very troubling. Freedom of information is exceptionally important in our society. The transparency issue continues to be a problem for me, in light of what Obama said he would do while campaigning, and what has happened since his administration has taken control. I realize that some of these decisions are not solely Obama's, but there are transparency issues cropping up all across the board. I was infuriated by Cheney's secrecy during the previous administration, and that Bush did little to address that. I think this might become an issue during the 2012 election. Americans don't trust their government. It's lack of transparency is one of the reasons.
I agree. I don't know of a more recent one, but here is a poll from a year ago that shows a historically low trust in government. Only 22 % trust our government. Also shows one in three Americans believe Government poses a threat to their individual freedoms and want big government reigned in. If I were in office, I'd be working my tail off trying to be more transparent and regain some trust (unless I had something big to hide, that is .)
Obama....Mr. Transparency....has actually been LESS transparent than GWB on matters involving FOIA. I'll see if I can dig up the article...it was a pretty damning piece of campaign fodder for sure.
This is what happens when a person is elected on celebrity and sky high rhetoric. Barack Obama simply didn't know how hard it would be to keep his promises. So what does he do? Tightens the FOIA spigot. The people will never know if they can't get the information, right?
A congressional hearing is scheduled for this week to investigate this administration's reported interference with the Freedom of Information Act. Doesn't sound like "transparency." In fact, it sounds more like censorship and politics. It will be interesting to see what comes of this hearing.
"WASHINGTON — Insiders at the Homeland Security Department warned for months that senior Obama administration appointees were improperly delaying the releases of government files on politically sensitive topics as sought by citizens, journalists and watchdog groups under the Freedom of Information Act, according to uncensored emails newly obtained by The Associated Press."
"The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more transparent, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas. People can request government records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent."
"But at the Homeland Security Department, since July 2009, career employees were ordered to provide political staffers with information about the people who asked for records – such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters – and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican." (highlight mine.)
They want the records of everyone that has legally purchased a firearm, to be open to all the public.
They want the records of everyone that has legally purchased a firearm, to be open to all the public.
Wonder if that includes whether the owner is a Republican or a Democrat? (As has apparently been illegally vetted with requested disclosure of government documents supposedly available to us indiscriminately under the increasingly (anti) Freedom of Information Act???
Did anybody notice the source of maja's OP? When I looked at it I wondered if George Soros will be handing much more money to Ariana Huffington. I don't believe you would ever see anything like that story coming from Media Matters or Think Progress, and for very obvious reasons.
The information released during a request for freedom of information act is usually abridged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.)
