Bush just signed a new order changing FOIA

[nicknameless]

What are the implications of this?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2334892&mesg_id=2334984

[merwin]

1. Looks like just another BS 'try to do better' order.

Nothing harmful in it that I could see though.

[nicknameless]

3. I cringe whenever I hear that they are "improving" anything. n/t

[Pachamama]

10. Same here....because sometimes, even the "subtle" changes that folks think

isn't that big of a deal, has later some huge implication that no one thought of before.

And what is so scary, is that it is almost as if they plan this in advance...

The Reagan era may have brought the term "Trust but Verify"...the Bush Era has brought "Don't Trust, Verify, and Verify again"...

[nicknameless]

2. The Order's title and a link:

"Executive Order: Improving Agency Disclosure of Information"

Can only imagine that it's function will be in direct opposition to its name, similar to "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214-4.html

Any DU legal eagles care to comb through this?

[aquart]

4. Don't know. Should I be bothered by this passage?

(A) use of information technology in responding to FOIA requests, including without limitation the tracking of FOIA requests and communication with requesters;

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214-4.html>

Does making a FOIA request put a citizen in a permanent database?

[nicknameless]

6. I'm bothered by it too. I wonder if that was added through this Order.

Hmmm: "without limitation" and "tracking of ... communication with requesters".

Sounds bad on the face of it, IMO.

[Richard Steele]

9. Yup, sounds like filing an FOIA request= surrendering all rights.

Look at just that single sentence describing that paragraph of the law:

The paragraph concerns people who file FOIA requests,
and how they shall be:
Responded to
communicated with
And, best of all:
TRACKED.

WITHOUT LIMITATION.

Think about those two words again: WITHOUT LIMITATION.
Those word are legal code for "American Democracy is no more".

Frankly, the entire reason we HAVE a 'Constitution'
is the (world-shaking idea at the time) notion
that ALL political or social power shall have clearly defined LIMITS.

ANY law passed by Congress which contained the phrase "without limits"
could be instantly struck down by the Courts; rejected as moot without further comment.

But the courts have no say in this one,
because it isn't a LAW-
It's just a sheet of paper with Dubya's signature at the bottom.

And the constitution only deals with LAWS-
it doesn't even mention random pieces of paper with some guys signature at the bottom.

THAT is the kind of insane neo-logic which underpins all of
the actions undertaken by B*shCabal™.

To sum up ALL of their "justifications":
"Congress, the Courts, and the CONSTITUTION
were created and empowered to create and oversee the execution of LAWS.
Since the B*sh Administration does not conform to any LAWS,
Congress and the Constitution do not apply to them."

[patcox2]

13. It says tracking the progress of the request, and communicating

with requestors, it does not say tracking requestors.

Please, its certain that part of this is to smokescreen an administration attempt to stonewall foia requests whereever possible (there are numerous references to foia exemptions which the admin can try to assert, but there is no need for paranoia.

[Rex]

14. Yes

nt

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. I wouldn't be bothered by this passage

The tracking refers to the requests, not the requesters.

I was once the FOIA Officer in my capacity as Staff Judge Advocate for a Navy installation. Problem was, not every FOIA request initially came to me, but was instead received by the person in charge of the particular department to which the request pertained. Keep in mind also that not every FOIA request contained the phrase "FOIA," since citing the act was not necessary. It would thus occasionally happen that the original recipient would not even inform me that a request had been received until after the statutory dealine to respond had passed, which meant headaches for my CO, and thus for me. Tracking requests is important both for the FOIA officer and to ensure no request falls between the cracks.

[BrotherBuzz]

5. Executive Order: Improving Agency Disclosure of Information?

Snarky comments cross my mind when I see ' Improving Agency' and Bush* in the same sentence. Bush*s improvements of Clinton's well oiled FEMA comes to mind.....

[flordehinojos]

7. just reading the "subject" of your post my stomach is upset and i don't

think i can even go into the linked article and get upset further by whatever it is that bush has done to keep us in the dark of whatever it is he is doing.

the man is pure evil...his parents (or pickles herself) ought to have him committed to an insane assylum--he eally belongs there.

[me b zola]

8. It seems like a shell game

Sounds as if they are gearing up for the shit that is about to hit the fan because of their refusal to comply with the FOIA law. They make a lot of mention of the "back log of requests", as if that is normal.

It also seems to me as if they are creating a shield for the executive office by creating another bureaucratic layer to the process.

[nicknameless]

11. More info from Angry Girl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2334892&mesg_id=2335262

[bear425]

12. kick. This seems like an important topic to research further. n/t

[texpatriot2004]

16. Is there something more to this? Thanks for posting. nm

[nicknameless]

17. I really don't know.

I've been waiting for DUers, with a legal background, to weigh in on what the changes to FOIA would mean.

[bear425]

18. Ok, I'll kick it and hope for a DU weigh in on this, too. n/t