Slashdot Log In
White House Ordered to Preserve All Email
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Nov 13, 2007 08:41 AM
from the IT-at-that-place-just-got-harder dept.
from the IT-at-that-place-just-got-harder dept.
Verunks writes "A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether e-mails have been destroyed in violation of federal law. The issue surfaced in the leak probe of administration officials who disclosed Valerie Plame's CIA identity. ' The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. Justice Department lawyers had urged the courts to accept a proposed White House declaration promising to preserve all backup tapes. The judge's order "should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery," said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: White House Tape Recycling Possibly Erased Emails 251 comments
Pojut points us to a Washington Post story which details the White House's admission that it routinely recycled backup tapes from 2001 to 2003, possibly destroying e-mail records from that time period. While the tapes are being analyzed to determine if any of the data can be recovered, the White House also indicated that some e-mail through 2005 may not have been preserved. We discussed the beginnings of this investigation a few months ago. From the Post:
"During the period in question, the Bush presidency faced some of its biggest controversies, including the Iraq war, the leak of former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's name and the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm afraid they're too late (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm afraid they're too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.
It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.
InnerWeb
Parent
Re:I'm afraid they're too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm afraid they're too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting the facts out into the open. Yes it would be nice if lawbreakers were punished for breaking the law but as we've seen sometimes that's practically impossible. In lieu of that, we can look for a conviction in the court of public opinion, a decision no pardon can reverse -- see Nixon. Or Scooter Libby for that matter. Scooter's conviction was damaging to the administration and the Republican party. If we can score even more solid dirt on someone as high or higher up than Scooter was, that would be even more damaging.
That's a reason for them to stop breaking the law -- getting people to believe that these are lawbreakers and can't be trusted in office. Irreparable damage to political careers may not be as satisfying as jail time, but it is something. The fear of losing elections should help keep the rest of them in line. For a while anyway. I know how this goes. But if you don't do anything, just throw up your hands and say there's no point, then you've done worse than a token gesture of dissatisfaction, you've given tacit permission.
Parent
Re:I'm afraid they're too late (Score:4, Insightful)
a) Scooter Libby didn't leak Plame's name to anyone.
b) Anybody without BDS knows that Richard Armitage "leaked" her name to Novak. I'll even give you a CNN link:
Duh, it's the conspiracy to cover up the leak that's more interesting than the leak itself. It's this administration's incredible desire for secrecy in all things -- especially regarding their fuck-ups -- that is why issues like this email retention policy are so important.
p.s. Oh yeah:
c) Libby wasn't pardoned.
No, his sentence was only commuted by President Bush. Nice weaseling there; he's still not going to jail like I was saying. So the conviction still stands -- that's the 'ruined political careers' thing I was talking about. That's about all we can hope for these days. Bush was considering a full pardon until he realized what the political fallout would be for him. Libby was in either case ruined as a political figure.
What I find funny is how Scooter was convicted basically of lying, and you're satisfied with the explanation that it was just an accidental slip of the tongue that was coincidentally politically expedient to discredit a detractor and confirmed by Karl Rove who mysteriously knew about all this. Even though we know that not all the facts are available since they were, again accidentally and again conveniently, deleted. And then you're splitting hairs over a pardon, versus not suffering the full penalty of the law due to the personal intervention of Pres. Bush. Oh yeah, that's totally different, and definitely not just a political compromise.
I'm finding it hard to figure out what your point was. My point I hope was clear: That these kinds of cases, even if they don't result in jail time because the President's friends are immune to that, are at least politically damaging and thus worth pursuing. Scooter is a perfect example.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm afraid they're too late (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, every communication they make regadless of media is subject to the Presidential records act.
I have some personal experience of this, during the Clinton administration every communication had to be surrendered to the arcivist, even if it was nothing more than a comment scribbled in the margine of a printed paper. The use of an external mail system from the Executive Office of the President was completely forbidden.
The difference between using the Whitehouse system and the RNC email servers is that the Whitehouse systems are privileged for an initial five years after the President leaves office and can be extended for a further seven. The RNC email system is not a government system, is not covered by any form of privilege whatsoever.
The other difference is security. The Whitehouse email systems are subject to security review by the NSA. The RNC system was not, they didn't even do security reviews of employees. The systems were not partitioned from systems serving other customers either. So as a result I would not be at all suprised if when the RNC denies having copies of some embarassing email or other if the Ambassador from Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or the like would 'helpfully' turn up with a hard drive full of the missing messages.
Parent
Re:Way too late (Score:5, Informative)
Googled August 20, 1998 [google.com]
Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," Clinton pounded the bejesus out of al Qaeda locations. Note: Iraq was not on the list. Note: Taliban released a report confirming that OBL wasn't killed, despite our efforts.
So what was the response to this attempt to nab him?
Glad you asked. [washingtonpost.com]
Not some bystanders. Not some pundits. Senators. Saying that maybe OBL was "diversionary motivation". Saying that trying to nab him put "a cloud" over the presidency. Brushing it off as "this issue." You might have noticed which side of the political divide they're all on.
You know: you can listen to as much spin and lies and distortion as you like, but it's not going to alter the past no matter how much you repeat it. You don't redefine the history that's already written, and viewable with just the easiest of Google searches, by repeating a lie. You can watch all the dramatic made-for-TV pieces you like that try to rewrite history to your liking
Either live in reality, or keep your delusions to yourself.
Cheers.
Parent
Re:Way too late (Score:4, Interesting)
The parent of my answer started in this thread with dismissiveness. I've seen it used before by many others as a tactic to downplay the gravity of a situation they don't wish people to openly discuss, especially when it comes to politics (and in this case, American politics). It gets marked as funny, fair enough. But +3? Really?
The post I specifically answered mentioned one historically inaccurate sleight concerning Slick Willy Clinton in that he didn't go after OBL. This post, a few minutes ago, was at +3. I showed, with no error, he did. I countered with two links. Both from the same week in 1998. One showing Clinton going after OBL, the second one showing the lack of support the American C-in-C received from 'across the aisle', as they'd say in Washington.
This was marked down one point before being marked +1 for informative.
Disagreeing with me politically? Makes the world go around. But seriously: if you think that fellow geeks, or history, or myself, will think the facts are anything other than the facts because I get marked down by a few people with a conservative American political agenda on Slashdot? Good luck with that. How's that working for you in Iraq and possibly Iran?
Hell, I'd accept a Flamebait for this clarification as justification of just how much many Americans (and some are in this forum) will dismiss cited facts because of the cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org] it sets up in their minds, if it strokes their poor delicate and shattered egos. It's not as though that mental process is particularly complex [chowk.com].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Johnny: Jimmy did it too!
Check with AT&T? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Check with AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.
+5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".
Parent
Re:Check with AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
Defensive much?
I don't give a damn about whether Bush or Clinton or Mahatma frickin' Gandhi started the domestic wiretapping program. I just care that it exists, an affront to everything America stands (or rather, "stood") for. Like torture, any debate over the "legality" of it misses the point completely.
As for your curious defense of TweedleDum(R) over TweedleDee(D), I also don't care that Bush calls himself a Republican. Clinton? Scum of the Earth, and I wouldn't let him within 50 yards of a female relative; through Janet Reno, he singlehandedly destroyed the last shred of respect people had for the DOJ.
But Bush??? Personally, I would consider him the single worst, and the least Republican, president in US history - And I include FDR, "The Great Socialist" in that comparison. Republicans (claim to) believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and minding their own business to the point of isolationism; Bush has racked up a debt that dwarfs his predecessors; made the government bigger and more intrusive than ever; and followed a foreign policy of busybody-ism resulting in massively decreased security for not just us but the whole world.
And you want to view it as a game of left-vs-right? We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.
Our government, regardless of meaningless party affiliations, has declared war against its own citizens. If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.
As an aside, the letter that appears on my driver's license might surprise you. So do me the credit of having a better argument than whining that "Clinton did it first", hoping that I'll have no comeback to that, as though it excuses anything.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Okay, I have a lovely platinum set of cufflinks. They are round and have a bias relief of an eagle. The eagle's eye is made out of a small (don't know the carat offhand) diamond.
You are up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, Clinton wasn't any prize either.
The worst thing is that they are both just symptoms of the real problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Storage requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Another question. (Score:2, Interesting)
First, how do yo prove that emails were deleted? And if you can prove it, how do you prove that they weren't deleted maliciously?
Second, I once asked a member of the Bar here in GA (a lawyer) about deleting emails and the legal ramifications. He said that as long as I have a company policy of deleting them after X amount of time, then nobody could claim that I was deleting them for
Re: (Score:3)
Three things that could happen:
1. The judge can find that your deletion creates a presumption that the e-mails were damaging.
2. The judge can enter sanctions against you for discovery abuses.
3. Depending on the laws the court is operating under, the other side might be able to sue you for spoliation of evidence. Not all locales have this tort though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Storage requirements? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, given the nature of the decisions which are coming out of the White House
This stuff is supposed to be historical record; I thought they were already obligated to keep all of this stuff (except for that whole sending through Republican Party addresses debacle). The White House has helicopters, airplanes, fleets of limousines, chase cars, private chefs, security personnel, communications officers, Stewards, housekeepers, and what have you.
If the official correspondence of the head of state isn't worth keeping, then, WTF is worth keeping?? A tremendous amount of resources go into keeping the President doing his work and plugged in. Surely to fsck the technical issues of archiving this shit is a surmountable problem.
If they're not archiving it now, it's because someone decided to stop the audit trail, not because the resources weren't there.
Cheers
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Computer security is all about taking care where the effort warrants it. You don't create invulnerable systems, you create systems where the expected value of threats is negligible.
What's bugging you isn't that the users are using the email system as a shared file system; what's bugging you is that they're doing that and nobody but you thinks it is worth spending the money to deal with the potential consequences of that.
I'd say it's worth investing in some serious redundancy and backup
White House spokeswoman clarifies. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're at work, you keep or delete email based on your employer's records retention policies, not your own whims.
When you're at home, go ahead and do as you like.
Parent
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)
And so it continues...
pfft... (Score:2)
That'll work...
What's the problem? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Our company was required to delete emails (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except, there have been court rulings which say that e-mail is considered to be a corporate record, and subject to retention rules. So, in discovery, if you can't produce something you're obligated to, you're fsck'd.
Now it falls into the category of things which if you delete before the allowed tim
Careful what freedoms we give away (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always felt that freedom is better served by people hiding their truths.
No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.
So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and
That's a nice idea, but just watch... (Score:2)
He's the president, and his communications should be kept private until such time as they are deemed relevant to an investigation into corruption, illegal war, whatever.
Re:Careful what freedoms we give away (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Careful what freedoms we give away (Score:5, Funny)
I think that probably covers everyone on Slashdot.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea that we can't or shouldn't be able to get at this information is absurd.
The funny part of all this is that most of the administration uses GOP-provided email services to protect themselves from such req
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
~Pev
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Already the case? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, a Bush Executive Order in late 2001 [wikipedia.org] seems to allow almost anything from the President's or VP's office to be made off limits: Hopefully, this loophole can be closed and tighter retention policies put in place [wikipedia.org], not just for this case, but for all Presidential Papers. To put the Administration's opacity in perspective, Bush's executive order on this subject superceded one put in place by Reagan, and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a clarification: the manner of the preservation isn't specified by law, only that the preservation be done.
As another
Two accounts (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the likelihood of what they are looking for are actually in the RNC emails, those are the ones that should be under federal order not to be destroyed. The current administration (under the direction of Karl Rove) was directed to have most of their communication about political strategy (under which the whole Plame event would have qualified) to be routed through RNC accounts.
Bush, of course, does not use email. As loath as I am to say so, if he wanted to be secret, not using email is a pretty good way to achieve the lack of culpability for any political shenanigans.
Cavity Search Bush (Score:4, Funny)
If you're not guilty, you won't mind being searched - so now we have to search you much more closely. Mr Bush, please drop your drawers.
Two words, Executive Privilege (Score:5, Insightful)
However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, no, you have Separation of Powers exactly backwards.
"Separation of Powers" does not mean that each branch holds absolute power within its domain, and none of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you dittohead nitwits keep regurgitating that refrain? Libby was a leaker as well and the leaking "campaign" was probably initiated by Libby, though he may not have made the first phone call. Libby was busted for lying about his involvement. Check out the Washington Post's Libby timeline [washingtonpost.com].
It was the CIA who requested the investigation into the leak, not the Democrats on a "witch hunt." And, the only reason Armitage wasn't brought up on charges is the leaker statute is too weakly worded to nail
Re:Authority of the Courts (Score:4, Insightful)
The White House data retention policies are dictated by law. The court absolutely has the power to order the executive branch to comply with the law.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)