Difference between revisions of "US/Freedom of Information Act"
(history) |
(fix) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
===2014=== | ===2014=== | ||
| − | + | See the example on the right to grasp the kind of denials now routine in 2014; the [[DEA]] redacted the name of a method its trainers and legal auditors deemed not only constitutional but also palatable to the public. This shielded tactic is “tips and leads paradigm” that is the "primary methodology for protecting [intelligence community] information that is shared with [law enforcement agencies]." The DEA scrubbed all mention of this method throughout the entire document release by claiming FOIA exemption b(7)E, which protects law enforcement techniques from disclosure. Redactions extended even to a separate presentation devoted to the constitutionality of this method.<ref>https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/04/method-so-acceptable-dea-cant-even-tell-you-its-na/</ref> | |
| − | In 2014 U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch questioned the [[FBI]]'s failure to produce court documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the matter of [[9/11]], noting that the FBI had | + | In 2014 [[U.S. District Court]] Judge William Zloch questioned the [[FBI]]'s failure to produce court documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the matter of [[9/11]], noting that the FBI had |
* Provided records with "apparent" and unexplained chronological "gaps." | * Provided records with "apparent" and unexplained chronological "gaps." | ||
* Presented to the court "located documents" that "seem incomplete." | * Presented to the court "located documents" that "seem incomplete." | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 1 June 2014
 US/Freedom of Information Act    | |
|---|---|
| Type | law |
| A now more or less defunct law, widely flouted by many organs of the US government. | |
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, was a federal freedom of information law that allowed for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. The act still exists, and FOIA requests are still filed and responded too, in US and in other countries where similar legislation exists.
History
The Freedom of Information Act was initially introduced as the bill S. 1160 in the 89th Congress. When the two-page bill was signed into law it became Pub.L. 89–487, 80 Stat. 250, enacted July 4, 1966, but had an effective date of one year after the date of enactment, or July 4, 1967. During the period between the enactment of the act and its effective date, Title 5 of the United States Code was enacted into positive law.[1] For reasons Wikipedia describes as "now unclear but which may have had to do with the way the enactment of Title 5 changed how the law being amended was supposed to be cited", the original Freedom of Information Act was replaced. A new act in Pub.L. 90–23, 81 Stat. 54, enacted June 5, 1967 (originally H.R. 5357 in the 90th Congress), repealed the original and put in its place a substantively identical law. This statute was signed on June 5, 1967, and had the same effective date as the original statute: July 4, 1967. Ironically, it was Lyndon Johnson who signed the act into law, in spite of misgivings.
Post 9/11 Decline
After September 11th, 2001, in the face of the routine censorship under the "war on terror" dogma, John Young reports increasing stonewalling by US government officials and these days almost no information of value is forthcoming. He said in 2013 that he makes only about 1 FOIA request per year and that he thinks that "the FOIA system should be closed as a money-wasting fraud."
2014
See the example on the right to grasp the kind of denials now routine in 2014; the DEA redacted the name of a method its trainers and legal auditors deemed not only constitutional but also palatable to the public. This shielded tactic is “tips and leads paradigm” that is the "primary methodology for protecting [intelligence community] information that is shared with [law enforcement agencies]." The DEA scrubbed all mention of this method throughout the entire document release by claiming FOIA exemption b(7)E, which protects law enforcement techniques from disclosure. Redactions extended even to a separate presentation devoted to the constitutionality of this method.[2]
In 2014 U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch questioned the FBI's failure to produce court documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the matter of 9/11, noting that the FBI had
- Provided records with "apparent" and unexplained chronological "gaps."
- Presented to the court "located documents" that "seem incomplete."
- Submitted "summary documents" that "do in fact seem to contradict each other."[3]
UK FOI legislation
Similar legislation was enacted by the UK Parliament on 30 November 2000. [4]
References
- ↑ The enactment of Title 5 into positive law was done by Pub.L. 89–554, 80 Stat. 378, enacted September 6, 1966. This means that while Title 5 existed before, it was merely a compilation of laws but not the law itself. Only about half of the U.S. Code is positive law, meaning the law itself. See [1] for background on positive law codifiation of the U.S. Code.
- ↑ https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/04/method-so-acceptable-dea-cant-even-tell-you-its-na/
- ↑ http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140408/OPINION/304089997?tc=ar
- ↑ Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Wikipedia page
