4 ms·

Original AP article about the "FOIA scandal": http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EGBVVmj9Pg6AllECgh9wD9H3O8OO2 http://www.google.com/hos

by zeteo 16y ago

Original AP article about the "FOIA scandal": http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EGBVVmj9Pg6AllECgh9wD9H3O8OO2 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz_vYVn2EG... Basically, out of 103,000 FoIA requests last year, DHS delayed about 500 more than the customary 3 days, because Janet Napolitano's staff wanted to find out more about the people making those requests.

fleitz 16y ago
Doesn't DHS answer to the people and not vice versa?
- jbooth 16y ago
  I've never worked there, but I bet most of them answer to "cover your ass" before anything else.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    That would be the case at any bureaucracy, public or private.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Yeah, plus with DHS we have a bureaucracy that deals in skirting the line with people's rights by its very nature, and for kicks it's a hastily assembled bureaucracy of bureacracies. If we figure double for each of those factors, that's 4x.
roboneal 16y ago
The scandal is really about the policy put in place by the Obama administration. From the article you cited: "Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, 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." That's a dangerous politicization of DHS and the FOIA process and certainly goes against the spirit of "transparency" the Obama administration was voted in on.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Yeah I can't believe anyone thinks that gathering that type of information is ok. You should be able to get any information through FOIA anonymously.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 16y ago
  Ok, sure, it's against the spirit of transparency but I'd be willing to bet that in 90% of the cases that got sent upstairs, it actually was quite transparent scandal-fishing. Still, agree on the principle, you're right there. But as for policy put in place by a given administration.. citation? Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this? Remember that whole "Department of Justice actually frickin prosecuting people on poltiical grounds" thing?
  - jdminhbg 16y ago
    "Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this?" I just reread his post, and it doesn't look like it.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      "Put in place" kinda implies that it wasn't happening before, no? And if both administrations that have presided over a DHS practiced similar policies, then it's still a scandal but it's not about only one of them.
      - roboneal 16y ago
        From the article: "But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it." So yes - the Obama administration "PUT IN PLACE" this policy. It's not a long article. Read it.
      - 16y ago

by zeteo 16y ago

fleitz 16y ago

Doesn't DHS answer to the people and not vice versa?

jbooth 16y ago
I've never worked there, but I bet most of them answer to "cover your ass" before anything else.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  That would be the case at any bureaucracy, public or private.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Yeah, plus with DHS we have a bureaucracy that deals in skirting the line with people's rights by its very nature, and for kicks it's a hastily assembled bureaucracy of bureacracies. If we figure double for each of those factors, that's 4x.

roboneal 16y ago

The scandal is really about the policy put in place by the Obama administration. From the article you cited: "Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, 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." That's a dangerous politicization of DHS and the FOIA process and certainly goes against the spirit of "transparency" the Obama administration was voted in on.

dantheman 16y ago
Yeah I can't believe anyone thinks that gathering that type of information is ok. You should be able to get any information through FOIA anonymously.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 16y ago
Ok, sure, it's against the spirit of transparency but I'd be willing to bet that in 90% of the cases that got sent upstairs, it actually was quite transparent scandal-fishing. Still, agree on the principle, you're right there. But as for policy put in place by a given administration.. citation? Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this? Remember that whole "Department of Justice actually frickin prosecuting people on poltiical grounds" thing?
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  "Are you alleging with a straight face that the Bush administration wasn't doing this?" I just reread his post, and it doesn't look like it.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    "Put in place" kinda implies that it wasn't happening before, no? And if both administrations that have presided over a DHS practiced similar policies, then it's still a scandal but it's not about only one of them.
    - roboneal 16y ago
      From the article: "But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it." So yes - the Obama administration "PUT IN PLACE" this policy. It's not a long article. Read it.
    - 16y ago