Phacil has also posted a job listing on its own website for a specialist in FOIA citing an “immediate need a FOIA Analyst [sic] to support a very high-profile government customer in Washington D.C.” Included in the scope of the work is “Redacting or withholding agency records citing appropriate exemptions and generating response letters; and Responding to requestors concerning the agency’s disclosure determination by generating response letters.”Note also in the article that Phacil and it's founders are not exactly disinterested players here.
Even more unbelievably, among the qualifications requested is: “Use of FOIA/PA exemptions to withhold information from release to the public.”
Information, is power. Barry and his comrades know that well, which is why they want to control the information you get about them to the greatest extent possible.
3 comments:
Nice oxymoron. The current establishment was founded on them.
Cheers,
sesameball
A FEW INCONVENIENT FACTS:
1. The contract was awarded during the Bush Administration.
2. Contributions reflect the geography of where the company is located and the fact that the local elected representatives are Democrats.
3. Contributions have been made to Republicans.
4. One of the founders is a Registered Republican who voted for Bush...TWICE.
5. When hiring people to handle Government information you want to make sure they can be trusted to act responsibly with it and treat it in a lawful fashion....so that it doesn't wind up on Wiki Leaks
6. The company responded but no one bothered to publish the facts.
7. All laws were STRICTLY followed...the company has no discretion...under Bush, Obama or Palin if she gets elected
To the second "Anonymous":
First, I cast a very skeptical eye - and a nose, both ears and most of my goatee - at information provided by anyone who will not at least sign a name to that information. Even the good manners of a 'Nom de Net' would do (see first 'Anonymous' post, above). All of what you say may be quite the fact, but a name, plus some links or other method of corroboration would go a long way to making your case.
Second - A long, long, time ago, in a uniform buried far, far, back in my closet, I held a 'Secret' clearance. I understand about handling sensitive information with discretion. I'm not asking that all government information be put out in the public without review, or that this is some kind of government conspiracy. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. But the reading of the advert does sound rather, um, suspect - especially given the predilection of this Administration to see transparency the same way Gollum saw sunlight.
Third - The information you provided sounds as if you are quite close to the company mentioned in the article. Which begs the question - why are you posting this here - at a dinky site like mine - and not at the Washington Examiner, which was the original source?
I await your kind reply.
Post a Comment