Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail

Posted by timothy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 02:39 PM
from the that's-one-way-not-to-have-seen-the-rules dept.
Government Communications The Courts United States News Politics
epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: White House Refused to Open E-Mail it doesn't like by epfreed (238219)
This discussion has been archived.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.

White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gat0r30y (957941) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:41PM (#23939569) Homepage Journal
    Frankly I'm pretty sure my boss would give me the sack for that sort of BS.

    • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Inglix the Mad (576601) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:43PM (#23939589)
      And legally, wouldn't fall under something similar to "willful blindness"?

      i.e. deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence Willful blindness involves conscious avoidance of the truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge of the crime in question.

      /not sure

      • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Funny)

        by cavis (1283146) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:46PM (#23939637)
        I think it is like an ostrich with his head in the sand. Except the ostrich is "Dubya", and the sand that he has his head in is really his ass. Judging by these and other events, he likes the view in there.
        • He's not the only one with their head in their ass, errr...sand:


          The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

          ...did someone misplace a decimal?

        • Personally, I think Congress should vote directly on such a massive regulation that could impact hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of economic development.

          That's far, far too much power to be wielded by officials not directly elected by the people. And, worse, have their non-election touted as a benefit by supporters...of the regulations. They don't have to "worry about politics."

          Not a very Founding Fathers-ish attitude. Break part of the separation and limitations of powers simply because, you know, you can get your laws, i.e. regulations, jammed down the throats of people that way.

          There was a reason Congress was expressly forbidden from delegating its lawmaking authority. This was so it couldn't avoid passing laws the people might not want, and would cause them to lose the next election. Shielded by this layer, with unpopular regulations they could just throw up their hands and lie, "Gee, I wouldn't have voted for that!" Uhh, you can vote to reverse it, though. "Yeah, we'll get around to that as soon as possible."

          It isn't an issue of the value of the regulation, i.e. law. It's an issue of Constitutional propriety. If a law is so necessary, it should be passed by vote with little or no problem.

          • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DrEldarion (114072) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:54PM (#23940791) Homepage

            Some things need to be out of the hands of the people because, quite honestly, the people are dumb and shortsighted.

            They're fine with denying people rights because of race/gender/sexual preference.
            They're fine with their own rights being stripped away because of some vague promise that it'll help fight "terrism".
            They're fine with destroying the earth as long as they can save $0.20 a gallon on gas for the next year.

            There are certain things that should not be up for vote by the people, and the environment is probably at the top of that list.

              • It is the job of Congress to create laws. It is the job of the Executive Branch (i.e. the President) to enforce laws, and regulation is part of that (regulations are basically statements about how laws are to be enforced). It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law. In this case, Congress passed a law (the Clean Air Act), and the Executive created regulations outlining how the law was to be enforced. The Supreme Court determined that those regulations did not sufficiently uphold the law, and told them to try again. This is a case where the Executive did not act according to the will of the people, as enacted by Congress; was slapped down by the Supreme Court for it; and is now trying to pretend that the issue never existed.

              • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Maxmin (921568) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @10:11PM (#23944679)

                wasn't aware that we had the power to destroy the earth

                Ah yes, the deniers favorite redirection - that we're simply not able to "destroy the earth." Not such a cute canard anymore, that one.

                For the record, it means "destroy our world," our world means those aspects of the Earth and its habitats that we human beings occupy, grow food in, take water from, excrete back into, etc. *That* world is the one folks are concerned about polluting, changing the chemistry of, etc.

                But you already knew that, didn't you?

        • Americans now know how it's like to be ruled by a ten-year old. "Nuh uh, I'm not going to open the e-mail." "Sir? Mr. President, that's the EPA's conclusions. It's important." "I disagree." "Respectfully, Mr. President, you should read it first." "Not gonna do it."

      • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Funny)

        by Kenrod (188428) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:23PM (#23940301)

        Are you suggesting the govt would voluntarily hold themselves to the same legal standards as the rest of us?

      • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sorak (246725) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:51PM (#23940761)

        And legally, wouldn't fall under something similar to "willful blindness"?

        i.e. deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence Willful blindness involves conscious avoidance of the truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge of the crime in question. /not sure

        IANAL, but wouldn't it fall under contempt of court? The willful blindness analogy would hold up if it were a case of someone else committing a crime in the White House and the people being prosecuted had looked the other way, but this is a case of the defendants losing the case and simply ignoring the verdict by ignoring the EPA.

        It's like if I refused to pay my house payment, and then the mortgage company sued me, won the case, with the judge saying "you bill him and he had better pay that bill", and I tried to weasel out by immediately throwing away any mail that came from my mortgage company. How would that NOT be contempt of court?

        • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Informative)

          by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @04:28PM (#23941221) Journal

          IANAL, but wouldn't it fall under contempt of court? The willful blindness analogy would hold up if it were a case of someone else committing a crime in the White House and the people being prosecuted had looked the other way, but this is a case of the defendants losing the case and simply ignoring the verdict by ignoring the EPA.
          It's far worse than contempt of court, since the court in question is the Supreme Court and the violator in question is the Chief Executive.

          This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.

          The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the exective branch. The executive branch said it was; the judicial branch found differently and told the executive to do better. The exectuive branch plugged its fingers in its ears and ignored the order.

          This is a prime example of direct non-compliance with the US Constitution.

          Now, I don't think we should waste the resources on impeachment proceedings at this point. However, I think there needs to be a full investigation by the Senate so that all the details are entered into the historical record before they disappear. As GWB has often alluded to, history will judge him. I hope he is haunted to the end of his days by what he has done and by what historians write about him.

    • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Paranatural (661514) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:50PM (#23939711)

      It's like a never-ending spiral downward to see how absolutely slimy these people can be without actually getting forcibly ejected from the WH. Seriously, how badly do these bastards have to behave before they can be impeached? Bill got a hummer and has impeachment hearings brought against him, the Bush admins just flat out break law after law and absolutely nothing happens. What the hell?

      • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:4, Informative)

        by Kenrod (188428) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:25PM (#23940335)

        Bill was impeached for lying under oath. The only place you can get impeached for getting a hummer is Alabama.

        • OK ... to further that then.

          Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR! ... not for the war itself.

          • For one, because he was never under oath.
            Second, he never exactly lied, they merely "selectively observed" some facts, and "selectively neglected" others. Obviously completely different from lying, and completely out of the realm of lying under oath.

            More seriously, IMHO the Administration's problem is that they believe that they can force their wished version of reality into the world, and make is to, evidently by sheer force of will and political determination. Disagree with the facts? Reinterpret them until they agree with you!

            The real and impeachable crime here is misfeasance - sheer incompetence.

            • GW has been under oath from the moment he took office. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution. He's failed at that. It's well past time to impeach.

                • I believe the lie that lead to the impeachment was about Monica Lewinsky. Wrong adulterous affair.

                  In any case, it somewhat begs the question. I think the strongest case conservatives made was, essentially, the "rule of law" argument: our country doesn't have rulers, but has a system of law that no one, regardless of office, can be held to be above.

                  The question, however, is: do we really believe that, or not? Because the defense of the Clinton administration boiled down to, "Well, these laws weren't broken in any matter that relates to the function of the office," and the conservatives replied -- I think correctly -- that it doesn't matter. Yet the defense of the Bush administration's actions boil down to, "Well, as long as we can make a plausible argument that we're breaking these laws in the service of national security, we shouldn't be held accountable." Would any conservative buy that argument if it had been made by Clinton? His wife? John Kerry? Barack Obama? Unless the answer is, "I would have absolutely no problem giving a Hillary Clinton administration the same sweeping surveillance powers and immunity from oversight," I would argue that's a serious disconnect.

            • Your selective excerpts, Mr. Hiatt, only support the weak, in fact trivial assertion, that some of the tales that George Walker Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Ari Fleischer and Richard B. Cheney told the U.S. voters about Iraq prior to invading it, destabilizing the region and harming already difficult relations with Iran, were true. For your claim to be true ("It found nothing"), the full text of the report must not contain a single instance of conclusions that were not "generally substantiated by intelligence information."

              It's strange, making me suspicious of your thesis, that with all the hyperlinks in that Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com], not one points to the full text of the report it discusses, nor even to complete paragraphs or even complete sentences that specify, for example, on [sic] nuclear or biological weapons, just which of the "president's statements 'were substantiated by intelligence information.'" And it's strange that, among so many excerpts, all the excerpts from that article are sentence fragments, necessitating the improper grammar repeated ad nauseam, "On [fallacy]?. The president's statements 'were substantiated [by ...].'" Did the complete report not begin those sentences with subjects that support the desired thesis? I wondered, so I checked, and in fact this is obvious within the first paragraph [msn.com], you lazy, pathetic excuse for a "journalist":

              The major key judgments in the NIE, particularly that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects - research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War," either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting provided to the Committee.
              I can admire loyalty, even misplaced loyalty, up to a point. But willful ignorance of obvious facts [huffingtonpost.com] is never admirable. If the subsequent excuses [Saddam was bad, he might have wanted to have nuclear yellow-cake from Nigeria despite never hearing of it, liberating the people of Iraq though we didn't do a thing about Darfur and now watch Zimbabwe like it's just a movie] offered by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and McCain had any validity, they should have been sufficient arguments in 2002/2003. Those were not valid arguments, and are still not now, as evidenced by our non-involvement in Zimbabwe and Darfur. They all lied. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it's obvious that in lying about matters of national security, with the result of initiating war despite lack of any clear and present danger in the world of fact, they all knowingly undermined the United States' ability to confront our real enemies, thus giving them comfort. Ergo, they all committed treason.

              And, no, most of Congress did not know at that time anything but the cherry-picked version manufactured by Douglas Feith & co.

            • Re:The WH's boss is still we the people you know (Score:5, Insightful)

              by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @04:37PM (#23941321) Journal

              Just as an aside, remember the 9/11 Investigations where Bush and Cheney agreed to talk to the commission, but not under oath? Now you know why.

    • John McCain says he's completely computer illiterate, and has to rely on other people to do anything on the computer for him. Now, given that George W. Bush has said that "doesn't read newspapers" - what're the odds *he's* computer literate? Or that either of them would hire (or keep) people who felt that skill was far more important than they did?

      Whether you think this is genuine incompetence or just plausible deniability - the fact remains that we collectively "hired" someone who said he lacked a vital skill for the job, and a fair portion of Americans are seriously considering hiring another one.

      If you were willfully ignorant, and had to rely exclusively on the caliber of people a willfully ignorant person would hire as advisers - you too would end up having to:

      -Say things like "$4.00 a gallon gas? I hadn't heard about that".
      -Wait until your staff put together a DVD for you to illustrate what a "heckuva" job that ex-Head of an Equestrian club manager you hired to run FEMA was doing responding to a Category 5 hurricane that hit a below sea level city.
      -Claim that "Everyone thought he had Weapons of Mass Destruction".
      -Respond that "No one could have predicted" terrorists would fly highjacked jumbo jets into the building they previously tried to blow up with a truck bomb.
      -Assume that promising to "Protect and Uphold the Constitution" consisted primarily of keeping your hands of the interns, and doing a lot of bicycling.

      So let's not complain about this too much folks. We hired an incurious idiot to run the company. Just be thankful the company didn't go completely bankrupt before we started paying more attention to applicant's resumes.

      I'm actually far more surprised than thankful. If we make it to 2009 without China foreclosing on us, it's going to feel the way it does to wake up safe in bed when you have no memory of how you got home from the previous night's party: thankful you got home alive but still worried about kind of damage you've done to your car, credit line, or reputation in the process.

  • time paradox (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumHobbit (976542) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:41PM (#23939573)
    How did they know about the rules if they never opened the e-mail?

    Also after 7 years, is anyone surprised?

  • works for /. (Score:5, Funny)

    by notgm (1069012) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:41PM (#23939577)

    i didn't want to rtfa. so i didn't click on the link.

  • Well, if it works for the Whitehouse... (Score:5, Funny)

    by seanonymous (964897) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:41PM (#23939579)
    Looks like I won't be opening many work emails from now on. Those emails from my bank might go unread, too. It's about time they showed some leadership!

  • Would you expect any less (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:44PM (#23939593)
    The only thing sadder and more despicable at this point than the Bush administration are the Democrats in Congress who have been on their knees for the last two years after promising to hold this imperial administration accountable.

  • A Bush official, with fingers in his ears, was quoted as saying: "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! ...."

  • LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU (Score:5, Funny)

    by spazdor (902907) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:46PM (#23939629)

    Awesome! So it's cool if I just leave all that important-looking IRS mail in an unopened pile by the door, right?

  • I wouldn't open it either. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snarfies (115214) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:46PM (#23939639) Homepage

    Given the government's poor record with computer security, I wouldn't open ANY documents emailed me. I would imagine there are policies in place that would forbid the acceptance of such messages. This story could well be somebody at the EPA insisting on total asshattery.

    And if its something official and important, why is it being emailed anyway? Shouldn't it be, like, printed out and physically handed to somebody? Maybe signed, stamped, notarized, and whatever else?

  • Wait a sec (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DnemoniX (31461) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:49PM (#23939691)

    IANAL but doesn't this amount to the whole ignorance of a law isn't a defense kind of thing? If an individual or a company violates EPA standards and they get caught they get spanked with fines and such. So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right? Works for me!

    • Re:Wait a sec (Score:4, Funny)

      by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:53PM (#23939759)

      So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right?

      Well, kinda. If the government doesn't publish or provide any way to read the rules, you'd be off the hook. Otherwise, you just violated Catch-22... oh, I don't have to show it to you.

    • Re:Wait a sec (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gat0r30y (957941) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:05PM (#23939975) Homepage Journal
      It wasn't actually even about rules, it was an assessment. It stated that the country would save between 500 Billion and 2.5 Trillion dollars over the next 50 or so years by implementing some environmental protections through the clean air act. The White House didn't like the sound of that - so they refused to open/read the assessment until the EPA backed down.

  • Subject of the Email (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kentamanos (320208) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:50PM (#23939695)
    Maybe the EPA shouldn't have mentioned V1agra in the subject...

  • Why use email? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adrianbaugh (696007) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:50PM (#23939699) Homepage Journal

    This is a nuts use of email. For something this important you'd expect the documents to be sent by courier or registered post, signature on delivery etc. That way, you can prove they've received it and if they've chosen not to read it it's their bad. Anyway, why should the White House need to see this? The court has decided the EPA has the authority to introduce the rule and it's then up to the judiciary to enforce it. The legislature is surely out of the loop by this point.

    • Re:Why use email? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:12PM (#23940093) Journal

      Um, no, that's not how it works. The legislature (that's the House and Senate) writes laws. The President either vetos or enforces those laws. After enforcement, the judiciary judges whether or not said law has been broken.

      The primary law that all other laws must conform to is the Constitution. If the Constitutions doesn't say Congress has the power to pass a certain law, than said law doesn't have to be obeyed (in theory, of course).

  • This is perfectly legitimate. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StefanJ (88986) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @02:56PM (#23939809) Homepage Journal

    Based on the experience of the last seven years, non-reality-based decision making is a powerful tool for gathering and holding power. We should celebrate the Bush administration's success in contesting or ignoring every bit of evidence that contests their highly profitable worldview. After all, didn't a lot of people vote for Bush because they wanted a president who says what he means and means what he says?

    Anyway, listening to scientists just encourages to make up stuff that upsets people. Evolution, the germ theory of disease, the greenhouse effect . . . we'd all be happier and more content if we all behaved like Ben Stein would like us to: God-fearing authority-worshipping dumbfucks.

  • True test of ignorance? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:00PM (#23939871)
    If you think "If I ignore it, it'll go away", then you're probably ignorant. If you're the President of the United States and you think to yourself, "If I ignore this official message sent here by the EPA, maybe it'll go away", then you're criminally ignorant.

  • Subject line? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cavis (1283146) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:01PM (#23939885)
    I bet George would have opened it if the subject line said "Exxon reports $14B loss in first quarter"

    Other possible subject lines: "Get Viagra / Cialis without a prescription"
    "VP Cheney shot another friend in the face"
    "Bum Fights Vol 3 now available on DVD"
    "American Idol canceled"
    "Mobilize the Navy! North Dakota invades South Dakota"
    "Senator Byrd called you a pussy!"

  • Carbon Dioxide (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:02PM (#23939913) Journal
    From TFA

    The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agencyâ(TM)s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled...
    That doesn't sound controversial at all. That's because it's a piss poor summary. The greenhouse gass in question is Carbon Dioxide. [csmonitor.com] Which is far more controversial, considering it is emitted by everything in the animal kingdom, aside from those living near thermal vents. The term greenhouse gas also includes CFC's, but that's not the same, is it?

  • Checks and Balances? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Illbay (700081) on Wednesday June 25 2008, @03:02PM (#23939929) Journal
    Thomas Jefferson said: "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." [Letter of TJ to Abigail Adams, 1804, commenting on Marbury v. Madison]


    For the past sixty years or more, judicial despotism has increased until now, you have governors and legislators of states waiting to see what some court will rule on an issue before they can proceed. This is NOT what the Framers intended, and unless we get things back to the balance of powers between the branches of government things are going to become more despotic.

  • The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch.
    All power of the Executive Branch comes as proxy for the Chief Executive.
    The Executive Branch does not have the authority to create obligations which the Chief Executive officer does not want.
    The EPA is part of the Executive Branch.

    The SCOTUS ruling endorsed the authority of the EPA to create such regulations, it did not empower the EPA to create them exclusive of the Executive Officer. The SCOTUS did not somehow turn the EPA into a fourth branch of the Federal Government.

    There's no "there" there.

    It really is that simple.

        • Re:EPA's only authority comes from the President (Score:5, Insightful)

          by julesh (229690) on Thursday June 26 2008, @04:17AM (#23946411)

          Where, exactly, did the SCOTUS or the Clean Air Act COMPEL the EPA to act?

          Have you read the Clean Air Act?

          The relevant paragraph is this one:

          (a) Authority of Administrator to prescribe by regulation
          Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section--
          (1) The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life (as determined under subsection (d) of this section, relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certification), whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution.

          There's a phrasing there that does in fact compel the EPA to act. Or have you read the SCOTUS decision?

          The
          fact that DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting
          mileage standards may overlap with EPA's environmental responsibilities
          in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public
          "health" and "welfare," 7521(a)(1). Pp. 25-30. ...
          Under
          the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if
          it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate
          change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it
          cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they
          do. ...
          Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by
          noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate
          change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate
          at this time. ...
          On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for
          action or inaction in the statute.

          Sounds like a lot of compelling to act is going on there too.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.