Obama Administration wants License to Lie Op/Ed

The Examiner
October 31, 2011

It’s not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration’s lack of transparency has brought the two together. 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.

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn’t exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

Under FOIA’s current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document’s existence, “the agency should simply respond that ‘we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.’ This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation.” Such a response would preserve a requestor’s right to appeal to a federal court.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar’s rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. “Every day,” Farrell notes, “the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House — all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It’s truly Orwellian.” The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama’s proposed “license to lie.”

 

NO Rights for Terrorists!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

So I have been thinking, with all this terror that exists today around the world, where mindless idiots blow themselves up in order torights avenge their countries and fight our freedoms in the western world, we should all be worried.  So, does the government say.  Reading through government papers and documents like the MIAC report, the Patriot Act and listening to talking heads on television, and politicians from 7 developed nations in the world, I began to wonder.  Who do we need to be afraid off and why?

The threat of terrorism as portrayed by the oppressor governments does not exist.  There aren’t terrorists out there who want to kill us for our freedoms.  White Al-Qaeda does not exist either.  The Tea Party is not a racist movement.  The militias are not anarchists as Homeland Security says.  Libertarians, Ron Paul followers, Tea Partiers, WeAreChange and other people like that are not violent as the Main Stream Media preaches.  As we found out today, the Hutaree Militia was released with bond, because the judge said their right to free speech cannot be violated, and also because there was not any proof that they were planning to attack the government.  The whole war on terror is a sham, to suppress our civil liberties, rights and even our duties.  Instead of closing the borders, effectively inspecting cargos and protecting us at home, the governments simply decides to fight a war against an invisible enemy, an enemy that can exist forever.

That is why the government itself plans and executes false-flag attacks, in order to keep the boogie-man alive.  And when one boogie-man goes away, a new one comes alive.  The only time when groups of citizens commit violent events is when they are incited by government infiltrators.  The recent Times Square incident where a Nissan was supposedly holding a bomb was all a lie that the media gladly hyped.  How do I know that?  Well, if one studies the history of terrorism, it is clear that terrorists always want to get attention from the government and the media.  So what a better way to get that attention than perpetrating attacks on civilians or civilian targets?  That is why when the government orchestrates attacks, they are greatly exaggerated at first, and then quietly labeled as misunderstandings.  That is why when a supposed attack happens, citizens are immediately labeled as responsible, (Tea Party members) but then quietly dismissed as non guilty.  It occurred with the Hutaree Militia, Joe Stack, some of the 9/11 hijackers, and countless other citizens who are first accused of violating laws, but then released because there is nothing to prove the claims.

Previous to 9/11, the United States, Spain, Ireland and other countries used to give the least amount of air time and importance to real terrorist attacks exactly for the same reason mentioned above: All the terrorists want is attention in order to get what they demand.  But after 9/11, suddenly everything is terrorism and everyone is a terrorist.  However, the real terrorists are easily let in, flown in and out with the help of intelligence agencies (the underwear bomber was let on the plane by an intelligence officer).

So who do we need to fear?  Let’s review.  The governments have decided they have the power -although we did not give it to them- to label anyone they wish as a terrorist.  This means you, me or anyone we know can be called a terrorist and be accused of terrorism or of  inciting it, get stripped of rights such as due process, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so on.  As if that was not enough, today I read on the press that the government intends to take away the rights of those citizens who are found to be terrorists.  And who has the prerogative to decide a person is a terrorist?  The government.

Flip-flopper Joe Lieberman has been pushing this idea for a while, but it now seems to be picking up more steam than before due to the false-flag terror attempt in New York City.  Lieberman has championed the causes of the government for the past 9 years and now he is proposing to rid us of our rights if he or Obama or Homeland Security believes we belong to a terrorist group.  “If you’re attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war you lose the rights that come with citizenship,” Lieberman told reporters.  That is right.  Not only has the government the power to call you a terrorist, detain you indefinitely, torture you, and make you disappear.  Now, Mr. flip-flopper wants to rape the Constitution and simply turn citizens into what would I say… Prisoners of war?

According to the Raw Story, Lieberman stated that “any individual apprehended, American citizen, who is found to be involved with a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights.”  Again, who has the power to designate a citizen a terrorist?  That is right, the government.  Do you see where my concern comes from?  “If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States to try to kill Americans I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” said Lieberman.

In a separate event, Barack Hussein Obama spoke at a commencement and arrogantly warned the audience and those who watched the event to stop criticizing the government, especially his Health Care Reform.  This criticism, he said, is not kosher because ‘we are all the government’ and in a Democracy, if we criticize the government we impair ourselves.  How about that?  Mr. Obama forgot two things.  First, the U.S. is not a Democracy, and second, that in a free Republic, the rights of the people such as freedom of speech, come first.  If we think the government is doing a bad job, we say it!  Neither will Obama’s warnings nor Lieberman’s attacks on citizens will deter our right to denounce the government, the corporations that control it or the existence of false-flag terrorist attacks.  You can take that to the bank!