More from the secrecy files

The United States said Monday that it would release documents to the independent panel investigating the United Nations' Iraq oil-for-food program, after the inquiry's chief complained about lack of cooperation from the United States government.

[...]

In an interview with The New York Times last week, Mr. Volcker said, "I hate to make a sweeping statement, but we get better cooperation from many other countries than we do from the United States."

  NY Times article

The U.S. Commerce Department's Boulder labs on Broadway house the "atomic clock" and employ 1,700 workers. Two years ago, the feds announced plans to fence in most of the 217-acre site “which was given to the government by Boulder citizens and which has been used as public open space for five decades.

Boulder residents and (we now know) many federal scientists reacted with disbelief and pointed questions: Why is this fence necessary? Who really wants to blow up the atomic clock? How much will this "security" cost?

The Commerce Department didn't answer. But it did hold obligatory public hearings in which federal bosses told the riff-raff that the fence was a fait accompli. As for why the fence was needed, well, it was needed because they said it was. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

[...]

A local group called FightTheFence.org was so frustrated by the feds' secrecy last February, it filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request for all documents pertaining to the proposed fence. By last September, the group was so angered by the non-responses (most of the released documents were critical notes to the department's bosses) that it sued the government for allegedly violating FOIA.

In March, the Camera also sought meaningful answers, wielding the sword of the Freedom of Information Act. Since then, the Commerce Department has given the Camera seven parcels of documents, totaling about 1,000 pages. But virtually none of the documents actually answers any vital question.

[...]

On one page only one three-sentence paragraph was fully released. The feds say the redaction is legal because the censored material relates "solely to the internal rules and practices of an agency."

It's a brave new world with such falsehood in it. A dubiously necessary security fence cannot “on the face of it” relate "solely to internal rules and practices." But this is how the government answers a citizen's questions: with nonsense and contempt.

  Daily Camera article

Because they can. Nyah, nyah, nyah.