White House Must Answer For Missing Emails 256
Lucas123 writes "A District Court judge this week ruled in favor of a Washington-based watchdog group, allowing them to question White House officials about missing emails involving controversial issues. The subjects include the release of the identity of a former CIA operative, the reasons for launching the war in Iraq and actions by the US Department of Justice. The group had filed suit [PDF] last May against the White House Office of Administration, seeking access to White House email under the federal Freedom of Information Act. The discovery ruling is bringing to light issues of email retention in businesses and other private organizations. We've previously discussed the White House's difficulties with email."
Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks, but political operators learned from nixon. Don't keep evidence of malfeasance. Don't lie explicitly, just claim to not remember or not be in the loop. Delay, delay, delay, delay. This isn't going to be a watershed event. Odds are if those emails really ARE incriminating, then they are long, long gone.
How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, I'm forgetting what the the request was but Congress asked the Attorney General to investigate someone. The reply: "That was a pointed and direct request so I will make sure my answer is pointed and direct: no."
So, what's the next step, send the sgt. at arms to haul their asses in?
Emails? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
We agree on one thing, there was (and still is), very little oversight. It should stand as our enduring shame that senate and house oversight committees are spending time going after baseball and football scandals while our constitution burns.
How do you lose email? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you *have* to conspire to completely delete emails of such mass quantities, then why isn't this all just a matter of finding the guilty party?
If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire.
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:3, Insightful)
And, IMO, the imminent threat theory is a terrible, terrible, terrible legal justification, what a shame that no one is in a position to lecture this guy on it.
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
They just smashed the joint up. They fired or forced to resign what amounts to hundreds to thousands of person-years of experience in government. They politicized every office they could get their hands on. they enriched cronies in brazen fashion. They used a national fucking tragedy to secure political control of congress. They pushed a TRIPLE FUCKING AMPUTEE who was a Vietnam veteran out of office because he had the temerity to stand up to their bullshit. They completed the circle of lobbyist control in congress started by Tom Delay. they made supine the court system and the legislature, and now they stand to do it again.
Getting dome in the white house doesn't begin to compare. We will go decades and not be able to access the wreckage honestly.
theywontanyway (Score:5, Insightful)
This administration needs a slap in the face with a nail-filled board. I don't see these courts doing that any time soon... although I'm sure that "they really mean it this time, you have to give it to us!" Unfortunately, that'd be compromising "national security". Must say I'm not sure how rigging an election qualifies as national security, but since I don't quantifiable know what's in those emails, I'll just take your word Georgie.
Sigh. If this is the price, I'd rather watch out for myself - it's cheaper that way.
OT: hardware? why?
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Waterboarding anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a witch hunt. The fact that the democrats are willing to excercise a modicum of oversight should come as a slight relief, not rejected. Think about it:
This is what CLinton did:
Lied about getting dome in the white house while under oath. Suggested that his mistress lie under oath in order to protect him.
This is what bush did:
Used political operatives in the white house and the justice department to prosecute democrats during election seasons. Fired uncooperative prosecutors.
Used 9/11 to illegally wiretap large volumes of conversations over telephone and email. Didn't even use a secret court designed for such surveilance SIMPLY TO DECLARE THAT THE WH WAS BEYOND THE REACH OF THAT COURT. Lied about it even after it was discovered by the NY times 4 years later.
Deliberately moved a detention facility outside of US court jurisdiction in order to prevent detainees from getting basic human rights afforded to them. Violated the geneva conventions. authorized and lied about torture.
Replaced government professionals with political operatives and like minded conservatives. Used appointed officials to stifle press releases AND to eliminate oversight, resulting in (likely) the mine collapse disasters and the mismanagement of Katrina.
The list could go on. Those aren't partisan accusations. They aren't crazy conspiracies. They aren't unsubstantiated attacks. they are fucking facts, confirmed by former WH officials, members of congress, informants, or statements of the presidents adivsors while still in office. I didn't even include most of John Woo and David Addington's rape of our constitution or the iraq war. How has the partisan, liberal, democratic congress responded to these blatant examples of misconduct? About as meekly as a churchmouse.
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Torture is wrong.
Its what the enemy is supposed to do, not us (or I should say you, since I'm Canadian), it doesn't matter if you can magic the constitution into yet-another-bible to be interpreted into supporting whatever you feel like.
And frankly, if you do torture someone to get important info, and you get caught: you say "sorry, it was wrong," and you fire/jail the guy that did it. What kind of government are you running down there anyway? Why are these guys still in power?
I was watching Red October the other day, and was amused that the 1st officer was looking forward to defecting because he could go from state to state without papers.... we'll see how long that lasts...
(I'm not wearing my tin foil hat, so posting anonymous)
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that was our mistake. We should have stuck with people who know what the constitution says. The US constitution, even with all it's shortcomings, at least provides some protection. Even allowing for differences in interpretation, it still provides some protection.
But if you put a guy in office who believes that he can do anything as long as it is right for his country, and who further believes that he gets to determine what is right and nobody can second guess him, then he can do anything.
You see, the issue is not 'is torture wrong?', the issue is 'is torture unconstitutional?'
We had a close call a few years back, almost impeaching a guy for a blow job. We scared ourselves on that one. Each self-rightous politician was determined to be greater in his criticism of the prez than the next guy, and it kinda got out of hand. Everybody knew that we really shouldn't do it, but nobody seemed to know exactly when to stop. I mean, nobody wanted wanted to be the guy who said 'Hey, I think blow jobs from interns are ok.' But eventually, enough people realized that if it went through, they wouldn't be getting blow jobs in the future, so it fell apart. When asked why they were changing their minds, they couldn't really come out in favor of blow jobs, so they invoked the constitution, noting that he really hadn't reached the constitutional definition of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Like a sailor who tacks back and forth across his intended course, sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other, we sort of follow the constitution. Sometimes we are too liberal, sometimes too cautious.
Right now, post-blow-job, we are erring on the side of being too cautious. So faced with a president who probably does deserve to be inpeached for incompetence and the pointless deaths of 4000 of his countrymen, we pretend that the best way to get rid of him is just to let him serve out his term and then we will put someone else in by election.
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of the constitution is to limit the government. This means that sometimes you have to let the guilty go free, because an unrestrained government is far more dangerous than the few criminals who go unpunished.
What Scalia is saying is the opposite: that you can ignore the constitution based upon individual circumstances: in particular, that you can duck the constitution based on an imminent threat. Who gets to decide if the threat is credible? Who gets to decide if it is really imminent? Well, apparently, the president. As Scalia sees it, the president can order the torture of anyone with no judicial or congressional review. This is what I mean by completely ignoring the constitution.
By contrast, interpretation of the constitution would be something like saying 'waterboarding is not cruel and unusual.'
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:4, Insightful)
And what are the telcos being granted retroactive immunity for again?
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really care if you are a rush listener or not. I also don't care if you have looked up Ad hominem enough on wikipedia to feel comfortable using it in conversation. When people say things like "liberal media" as a means to discount factual information, I have learned that they are usually operating from a standpoint of ignorance.
I know what the clinton whitehouse did. I know what the clintons did before getting to DC. I don't feel that those 8 years were good ones for politics. I feel that a number (though not most) of their policy decisions were bad and I feel that they continued down the same line of expansionist imperial executive thinking that continued into the bush administration. I feel that the clinton's shared mendacity cost this nation many things, not least among them the political capital to impeach bush in his second term.
None of this somehow equates the two email scandals or the scandals of the two presidencies. I really don't care WHO you are, as long as you aren't willfully ignorant, you can't help but see the bush administration as demonstrably worse on all accounts. WE may actually never know how bad they were, as republican loyalties run deep and there arne't likely to be substantive tell all stories. Regardless, this email fiasco is a small subset of the wreckage of our democracy wraught by the gang in charge--the real mess isn't likely to be sorted out with a change in the guard.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the GP was not arguing Clinton vs. Bush, so all of your parent's arguments are straw men.
Second, none of his points make the case that the incidents in question had lasting, significant repercussions for the political atmosphere of the nation and the role of the executive office, so your parent is also offtopic for the thread.
I personally disagree with the GP, but, when your post is a deliberate troll or even an unintentional red herring (they are often indistinguishable), some harsh treatment by mods shouldn't be any kind of surprise.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the Bush administration replaced the head of NARA [archivists.org] with a more obedient, political appointee. Presumably that is to ensure that key records find ways not to be around [oah.org] when requested.
Sure, we have all the tapes. Yep, stored exactly as specified, retensioned, the whole nine yards. Yep, 68 degrees, 38% humidity. Oh? No, you mean 68 degrees Fahrenheit [clir.org]? Oops, sorry about that.
That's just with the physical medium. Giving records the wrong or mispelled descriptor (aka tag or keyword) will hide them in a database or catalog nicely. Or it will prevent them from being earmarked for longer storage, etc.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was a troll, it should have been marked that way. But the only way is would have been is if his parent was a troll also. The point wasn't Clinton vs. Bush either. It was that it isn't the end of the world of the worst thing ever like the his parent post claimed. Either way, it doesn't matter because I help draw enough attention to it that mods made it appropriately to it before my post was buried. Which was my sole point.
BTW, modding something overrated to bury it's presentation without the chance of metamods correcting it is the chicken shit way of modding. If it really was a troll, it should have been marked that way. There has been sort of a conspiracy to do nothing but hide decent to the populist opinion or the opinion being pushed as the populist opinion. They do that with using over/under rating because of the lack of oversight.