Obama's transparency: It's a mirage
Confirming that the Obama administration's much-vaunted, supposedly unprecedented “transparency” is merely a mirage conjured by lip service, its Justice Department now says it hasn't challenged any federal agency's withholding of records sought via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests even once since 2009.
In a 2009 memo, Attorney General Eric Holder directed “federal agencies to update their FOIA regulations and operate under a ‘presumption of disclosure'” — yet “the number of FOIA lawsuits filed against the federal government has increased dramatically” under President Obama, The Washington Free Beacon reports.
This administration's FOIA problem was first uncovered in December via an audit by George Washington University's independent National Security Archive. When it sought FOIA-related details through a March FOIA request, Justice responded that the requested records “were exempt from disclosure.”
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform concerns about that FOIA request's denial led Justice to admit its utter lack of FOIA action — and to outrageously maintain that no problem exists. That's an assertion that borders on the Orwellian.
The Obama administration is so woefully disconnected from reality that its “transparency” is the polar opposite of genuine openness. It's a chilling approach to governing and has a chilling effect on government accountability's very basis: the people's right to know.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Host a Super Bowl?: False prophets/profits
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The atom smasher
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- The Thursday wrap
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Open records: Hold the phone?
- State of surveillanc: The DEA database