Where is the "Freedom of Info Act" lacking?

[muh_roads]

That seems like a powerful underutilized anomaly that the aristocrats haven't fully squelched yet. It should be strengthened, talked about, and used more.

 

[phill4paul]

Where is the "Freedom of Info Act" lacking?

Penalties for non-compliance and enforcement thereof.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Penalties for non-compliance and enforcement thereof.

This.

They simply ignore them, often.

 

[DamianTV]

Where is the "Freedom of Info Act" lacking?

In both Freedom and Info, sadly...

 

[milgram]

Ryan Shapiro is constantly filing FOIA requests. Here's an interesting interview he gave last week.

Apparently the NSA believes they are exempt from the FOIA.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/25/exclusive_nsa_fbi_dia_sued_over

The NSA is a very difficult nut to crack as far as FOIA is concerned. Not only does the NSA invoke national defense here, as well as the Espionage Act, they also invoke the NSA Act of 1959, which—though the NSA Act of 1959 was passed years before the Freedom of Information Act was passed, the NSA has succeeded in convincing the courts that the NSA Act of 1959 exempts the NSA entirely from the obligations of FOIA. And so, the only times the NSA complies with the Freedom of Information Act is when it wants to, which is when the release of records will make the NSA look good, and it should therefore be unsurprising that the recent AP report found that the NSA failed to comply with the—or, denied FOIA requests 98 percent of the time last year.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

 

[Carson]

With being able to wade through the ■■■'s files naked to see what sticks.

I don't think what they are doing is legal but as long as there are those that want to argue so, it should be open to access.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Penalties for non-compliance and enforcement thereof.

This.
They simply ignore them, often.

I thought it was possible you were a sincere American phill4paul, but the apparent fearful, judgemental ambiguity of your post relating to my effort to use prime constitutional intent of free speech clouded that possibility. Your position on the FOIA indicates you may be sincere about defense of our constitution. It's a shame I have to learn the possibility this way rather than directly.

Related to the FOIA, correct. No auto penalty for ignoring it.

A citizen has to sue and collusion between courts and gov often makes the info totally unavailable, even with serious issues such as life dependent matters.

With such matters, subpoenas are also ignored and courts will not find gov in contempt of court.

Agendas of unconstitutionality are maintained if ANY form of secrecy is involved and gov does not have to explain anything about that, not even to the court in chambers off the record.

kcchiefs6465, yes, often simply to avoid precedent for present or future liability. Which is against the intent of the law and the purpose of the court.

 

[RJB]

I think they see the FOIA as the NSA is free to gather all the info it wants, but nobody else is.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I think they see the FOIA as the NSA is free to gather all the info it wants, but nobody else is.

That could be said, but it negates the agenda of tyranny we suffer under.

Or it implies an environment of fairness . . . that actually does not exist.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Has anyone posting in this thread personally used the FOIA?

I have and it relates somewhat directly to NWO secrecy or to the infiltration of government and directly to mental health care, drug/alcohol recovery or the illegal, immoral maintenance of the police/prison state.

If interested I'll assemble the substantial elements of proof for a thread on a computer later. Let me know here.