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."
Recycling (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Funny)
You don't get it, do you? When you mess with the Presidential Records Act, you're messing with the entire National Archives system. That means they take away your National Archives Library Card. Want to check out that official copy of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, or the Marine Mammal Protection Act? Sorry, buster. You're gonna have to make do with a photocopy. And guess what? Without that card, you can still get in to see the Constitution... but not after hours.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Funny)
Huh, and I was just talking [slashdot.org] about wingnut hypocrisy, too. You talk [slashdot.org] about how Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he didn't do [huppi.com]) and two minutes later you blow off any impeachment of Bush and Cheney (who have broken many laws and Constitutional amendments) as "political witch hunt"? You're even faster than Pudge. [slashdot.org] You need to be taken out back and pistol whipped for being intolerably full of shit. Repeatedly.
Re:Expected answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike previous witches, there are strong indications of guilt for these.
Just a few things that come to mind:
- Lying about the reasons to wage a war - the executive branch sure had intel that showed there were little reason to believe Iraq had acquired WMDs and sure they want it to be hidden, thus the violations of the PRA.
- Asking the Congress to authorize a war based on presumably known faulty intelligence.
- Destroying any good will the US had after the 9/11 attacks in a frivolous war. More people hate the US now than probably ever and it will be ages before you recover from it.
- Assigning reconstruction contracts, according to shady criteria, to political allies.
- Compromising positions in Afghanistan because resources are being spent on a war that worsens things even more.
- Overthrowing the only non-theocratic regime in the region, giving way to a civil war that will eventually result in another theocracy. The US should have negotiated with Saddam. It's not that hard to negotiate when you can nuke someone.
- Shielding themselves from prosecution behind a "national security" veil. Misuse of this veil compromises its credibility and is extremely erosive to civil rights.
The current office is a disgrace for the US. I used to have more faith in your democracy.
There will be a lot of rebuilding to do after they are gone.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Besides, in any case, the AC said that he modded down cause he disagreed. That is pretty much sucking as a moderator, by definition.
It wasn't the sex (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
You can claim anything you want. But if he didn't take the actions he did, he wouldn't have ever been impeached for lieing to a court (note having sex). And given the situation we are in today with bush, I wish lieing to a court was looked at more seriously. But that's the legacy of Clinton for you.
Re:Expected answer (Score:4, Insightful)
And what are the telcos being granted retroactive immunity for again?
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Or lying under oath.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you have evidence with which to impeach Bush (and I'm not disputing that), then why isn't he impeached? Who is eligible to start the impeachment procedure in the USA?
For that matter, who is eligible to bring War Crimes charges against Blair in the UK? Something he is also guilty of for lying about WMD to get a war started.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?q= [google.com]"i+do+not+recall"
I wonder if the questioning will be under oath & videotaped.
At the minimum it'll make for a funny highlight reel.
/dev/null (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Interesting)
In fulfilment of a legal obligation. a request will be made to administrators and office staff to check their email accounts for the 'missing email'. The managers will accept the word of the staff under them, who will typically eyeball their inbox in Outlook before reporting 'no, haven't got it'.
Don't assume they're grepping through their servers because if they're just responding to a freedom of information request, they're not. They will restrict themselves to a search that seems 'reasonable' in the eyes of a technological illiterate, that's all.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
From this point, it depends on several external factors, such as whether there's a general understanding around the office that if the email(s) are found, it could mean trouble for an individual with seniority, or a general sort of trouble for people involved in the matter. Also, it depends on what would happen if someone found the email. I don't think anyone involved will not be under the impression that merely finding it would imply a sort of guilt by association. For example, suppose someone did find the email. Questions will follow, e.g. 'where did you find it?', 'how did you find it?', and then move on to 'why didn't you find it earlier?'. What would then happen is a search on the employee's record for any suggestion of a history of impropriety, with a view to establishing whether it's possible to scapegoat that employee when it's time to go public by saying 'X was untrustworthy - it was his fault - officials are investigating the authenticity of the alleged email in the light of the way it was discovered and the official responsible, etc.'
In summary, if nobody has any personal advantage in finding the email, then the mechanism for 'searching' for it will first involve making it generally understood that this is an 'important' email and its content may have implications for senior people (to make individuals anxious about the limelight falling on them in a negative way), and then a lax method of searching for the email will be deployed (i.e. literally asking people to do a quick 5-minute check and then give an assurance that they don't have it). This way, managers are covered. Everyone will understand that if the email is found, the press office and policy unit will have sole responsibility for producing a cover story, and heads will have to roll. And when on board a ship, some levels are more expendable than others - ultimately the bridge and the captain have to be protected at all costs.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Provided that those two actually answer for their crimes, "Watergate" won't be an example of how to get away with it anymore.
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.
This is not at all true (Score:2)
He didn't literally wreck the place. He simply carved his initials into all of the furniture.
Re:This is not at all true (Score:2)
Best I could find, as I'm not digging up the daily show excerpt where stewart goes on about sportcasters and the word literally [barelyfitz.com]
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've said.
Re:Expected answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Expected answer (Score:5, Informative)
Not even remotely true. [commondreams.org] I have work tomorrow and it's late. You're a blatant troll and I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted. It should be enough to just throw out your first argument... but I'll even add a bonus link... Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. [thinkprogress.org] Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin... but only the current president hid conversations using RNC accounts and fired attorneys in the middle of their term for purely political reasons (The only attorneys fired in the middle of their terms from 1981 to 2006 were for misconduct... which was never cited as a reason for the current firings).
Like I said, it's late and I have work. Quit trolling and read some real information.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/ [cnn.com]
Oh, and the Republicans were not much better in the '90's, but at least they didn't follow through with it. Otherwise, NY would have a different Senator and Bill would be in a blue collar prison somewhere provided that he wasn't pardoned, of course.
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:Expected answer (Score:2)
What Bush did:
Today (from TFA)
August 23, 2000 (from GP's link [cnn.com])
Re:Expected answer (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
1) Firing of WH attorneys. This is a witch hunt. No one minded that Clinton fired more attorneys when he was president. Now, those same silent people are all up in arms over Bush firing his attorneys. They use the excuse that Bush was out to press charges on Democrats and the attorneys that wouldn't cooperate got fired. However, if that were true, we'd see the fruits of the labors of the remaining attorneys now who would be making all kinds of legal trouble for Democrats. Instead, it seems that it is the other way around.
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction and lead up to the Iraq war. I have two words for this. Slam Dunk. [cnn.com] The war happened. We are winning. Get over it already!
3) Leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press. I thought this was over. It was Armitage, not Libbey who leaked the name. Why are we all over this again.
Besides, Bush is out of office in less than a year. For the love of the country, stop beating this dead horse. You people hate Bush more than you love America. We got it. You've made your point clear. Seriously. Do you think America will be stronger if all leading Republicans are frog-marched? Or will it help these people on their little march to power and let them have the satisfaction of knowing that they took down the mighty Bush at the cost of the country.
It's over already. Hell, it's been over for over seven years. Be good loser, shake the other teams hands and say, "good game". Now go hang your Cuban-Che flags and campaign for Obama.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
We aren't going to see eye to eye. Ever.
All I can say is I love this country and I spent the better part of these past 8 years fuming that it was being systematically fucked over. You're going to have an excuse for everything. You're going to tell us to "get over it" just like you did the mess in florida in 2000, just like the illegal wiretapping of americans, etc. etc. etc.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Bush. Fucking. Admitted. The. War. Was. And. Is. About. Oil.
Beyond that, we are not winning. Even the damn army thinks we've been incompetent this whole time.
Who really gives a damn, is more what you should have said. Regardless of why we started this war, or how we've managed it up until this point, we don't have the choice to just pull out.
Disclaimer: I am an Independent. That being said, any republican that went along with the new party platform - that was written by the Bush administration when it first came into power - with out a fuss, when it obviously was 180 degrees away from the platform they ran on in 1996, yes. That would be a breach of trust between that official and every single one of his constituents. Not that there seems to be much complaint from the sheeple of our country, who think "Republican" or "Democrat" is a set of ideals, not a constantly changing hive mind.
Oh, and "Taking down Bush" would go a long way towards bringing our country back to glory. NO ONE is above the law, even if there are separate laws for certain groups. I won't be truly happy until a few of our top brass and government officials are charged no only for their disregard for US law, but with War Crimes for the way we've handled enemy soldiers and civilians, and how we have broken international treaties.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
It proves nothing of the sort.
The Republicans made a series of complaints about the failure of the archive system that was meant to have archived mail from the Veeps office during the transition from One Per Desk to Exchange. To give you some perspective here, the OPD system was an X.500 OSI mail server gated to the Internet through another system. They had a system in place that was intended to archive all the emails but failed in a way that corrupted the data. They then spent 18 months recovering the data. No evidence of wrongdoing was uncovered as a result.
The question at issue in that instance was the question of whether the vice president was soliciting funds in a federal building if he was to make a fundraising phone call from the Vice President's official residence.
One question at issue here is whether the Attorney General, the President and his staff conspired to pervert the course of justice. Amongst other means by corruptly soliciting unsupported prosecutions of political opponents and by corruptly suppressing prosecutions of political allies by terminating the employment of the prosectors working on their cases. In every case the prosecutors who were fired had either brought a prosecution against a major Republican party figure (Cunningham, Ney), were about to bring a prosecution against a major Republican figure (Jerry Lewis) or had refused to bring trumped up prosecutions of Democrats on ballot rigging charges. All the GOP cases brought against Democrats on those particular charges were since dismissed. There is one outstanding case where a Democrat was convicted in a case where the judge appears to have been corrupt as well.
Another question at issue is how the country was got into a war that has cost $2 trillion, 4,000 US servicemen's lives on claims that have since been found to be utterly untrue.
It is not just the emails that have disappeared. The executive branch has invented a new doctrine whereby it is no longer accountable to Congress.
There are no criminal sanctions for breaking the Presidential Records Act but there are political sanctions and there are criminal sanctions for lying to Congress or refusing to testify to Congress. Today two members of the administration were held in contempt by Congress. If as it threatens to do, the Administration refuses to prosecute we might well see the first use of inherent contempt in living memory. Under the Constitution the House can order the Sargeant at Arms to arrest the contemnors and bring them to the House to testify.
Looks like that is a little more serious than anything that was ever claimed, let alone proven during the Clinton years.
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Bush didn't steal the election. Bush stopped Al Gore from stealing the election.
(Given these facts, shouldn't you hate Al Gore as much as you hated George Bush before reading this? No? Then you are a partisan.)
Re:Expected answer (Score:2)
Re:"I do not recall." (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't you make fun of Roosevelt for not jogging on the Whitehouse lawn?
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?
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:2)
Technically the congress could order the sgt. at arms to haul the people in to testify, but it is more likely that they will sue the white house, as I think the last time they compelled testimony w/o the DC US attorney was like 1860 something.
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Informative)
Wilson Livingood [wikipedia.org] or Terrance W. Gainer [wikipedia.org]
I say send in Gainer to 'em soften up before Livingood can come in and finish the job.
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:2)
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:2)
Its a House contempt proceeding so it would be Livingood's office. He does not have to do it himself, he has a staff. They are trained cops or secret service. They have guns and stuff.
The potential for this to all spiral out of control is quite significant. The Whitehouse is determined not to budge an inch. The House have every right to demand answers to their questions.
The Republican party can hardly want this particular fight to be taking center stage, reminding voters of the odious Mr Bush they hate while Mr McCain is trying to distance himself as far as possible from Mr 30%.
If there is a trial in the House the Democrats would be well advised to start the fall session early for it. Start the first day after Labor day. [wikipedia.org]
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:3, Informative)
Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.
However, the House could order DC Sherrif to prosecute Bush and Cheney as individuals maximum.
I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service.
I can see the headlines in Fox TV now: "President under attack by crazy cops. 11 dead. News at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:2)
No, we need Kurt Russell. Put him in his Snake Plissken outfit and give him a sub-machine gun and they will come as quietly as he will let them.
Or, we could send in David Hasselhoff. Not only could he hog-tie them with a rubber band and a piece of chewing gum, but after singing to them in German [google.com], I'm sure they will be begging to testify!
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, here it is. We don't torture, never tortured, oh wait, we tortured three people. So now will we investigate? No. Fucker.
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:2)
Poor man! I know he would not be a wolf
But that he sees the Romans are but sheep.
He were no lion, were not Romans hinds.
Re:How will they appeal it? (Score:2)
You favor impeaching a Supreme Court justice for doing his job and providing his interpretation of the Constitution?
I don't support the use of torture, but jesus, the consequences of impeaching justices for not interpreting the Constitution the same way you do are far, far worse.
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:How will they appeal it? (Score:2, Informative)
If you're torturing someone for evidence in a trial....
... and if it's not as a means to collect evidence for a trial, then clearly due process of law is not being followed, which means you can't torture the person* (ie, deprive them of life) or detain the person (ie, dperive them of liberty). Or, simple put, torture is prohibited by the 5th Amendment.
I always love it how those who wish to do narrow the rights of others so gravity towards focusing on a narrow interpretation of one Amendment or clause, completely disregarding how another smacks in the face of their analysis.
*Note: This isn't mean to say that you could legalize torture, just that this clause alone doesn't stipulate the absolute illegality of torutre.
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're referring to John Conyers asking Mukasey about the CIA tapes, then that was the question. Conyers asked if Mukasey was prepared to begin an investigation into the possibility of criminal wrongdoing in the case of destroyed CIA tapes. Mukasey said "that's a direct question, so let me give a direct answer: no I am not."
The Daily Show may be a fake news show but there's information there.
Re:How will they enforce it? (Score:2)
Emails? (Score:3, Insightful)
So am I the only one holding my breath? (Score:2)
Re:So am I the only one holding my breath? (Score:2, Funny)
Wait a little longer and see... (Score:2)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
They couldn't refute that without admitting that they were traitors to begin with.
Still, that comment would backfire. They'd volunteer for the torture, suffer, and live through it. My guess is they've already been subjected to worse. I mean why else would anyone drink the koolaid?
Re:Well... (Score:2)
remember, kids, its not torture if its done to the government.
or, if it yields 'more justice'. one huge lesson we have learned from our good friend mr. bush, any action is justified if Higher Good(tm) comes from it.
find the guilty people in our government who are ruining america. yes, use torture on them. they have set their own precedent.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I sometimes wish that they didn't do the things they did so maybe additional attacks would have happen and people like you would be chanting the opposite, or feeding worms. But you see, that would be bad because innocent and undeserving people would have been effected too. So I guess I am glad that they gave you the opportunity to ridicule them.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
They thought it was a good idea at the time and didn't know enough to know better - not much of an excuse really. These people are mocked for a very good reason.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
They may deserve ridicule and mockery. I'm just commenting on "who" and "why" they did it so maybe in between jabs, you can thank your lucky stars that someone cared for you more then you care for them. That's all. Nothing more, you can go back to mockery and verbally attacking the people who subjected themselves to this as well as the calls for them to be placed in prison when they thought they are going to save your life.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
And AS the current, albeit declining, superpower, we set an example for the rest of the world. We lead by actions. If our actions are wrong we invite others to follow. On this note, we lose the right to judge. How can we claim torture to be wrong when we do it? Is it okay for an Iraqi insurgent to torture and American to find out when OUR next attack is? How, if we condone torture?
High-Falutin' ethics out of the way, two points towards the practicality of torture: the first veers on philosophy still, by definition we do not know guilt of foreknowledge of a crime BEFORE torture, if we did we probably wouldn't need to. By this reasoning we are harming innocents on the mere CHANCE that they can be instrumental to our needs. This is ethically dubious. Second torture is well known to be the least efficient form of information gathering, we only need a sight towards history for proof of this. Unless New England and most of Europe was REALLY full of witches and baby eating Jewish communities, then I guess torture has been proven as historically accurate. People under sever duress say things to remove themselves out of that situation. These things are less likely to be true, than what the interrogator wants to here.
That said, we SHOULD heavily interrogate extremely PROBABLE suspects, with a VERY careful eye towards ethics and our value system. Every person we question is an international statement, as well as a human individual much like us, our families, and the rest of humanity. We should procure suspects by some other means that our "turn in your neighbor" bounty programs, which fill Guantanamo with people of dubious intelligence value. We should allow due process to ALL, since the system can be wrong, and we have the duty to protect ALL innocents from harm and prosecution.
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.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course given the nature of email, it's probably not provable that the email is genuine. And it doesn't help that Palast has a bit of a muckraker reputation. From what I've seen, he does have a bit of a bias, but I've never known him to fabricate his evidence. Personally I'm inclined to believe the emails are real, but, like I said, I'm not sure you can prove that. Unless of course they also turn up in the White House archives.
Oh, right. Nevermind.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Larry Craig's accidental disclosure [blogspot.com]
FBI accidentally gives suspect evidence that they are illegaly wiretapping him, then asks for it back [wired.com]
Re:How do you lose email? (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong. Not that I don't agree with you...
Sp no evidence is evidence? Wha???
Re:How do you lose email? (Score:2)
Re:How do you lose email? (Score:2)
It is highly suspicious, if not damning, that the loss comes to light only when those particular records are needed.
Sure (Score:2)
"The terrorists hate our freedome."
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?
I don't get it (Score:2)
They already gave an answer (Score:2)
Re:They already gave an answer (Score:2)
Hey! This is America, mate!
It was a coyote!
Re:They already gave an answer (Score:2)
Please be specific.
Waterboarding anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a simple explanation for all of this. (Score:2, Funny)
Case closed.
they should have stayed on Lotus Notes (Score:2)
Re:But at the end of the day.... (Score:3, Funny)
Except that, due to oversight, it will not be left to the Attorney General.
Re:But at the end of the day.... (Score:2)
Re:mondo can of worms. (Score:2)
Re:mondo can of worms. (Score:2)
Re:mondo can of worms. (Score:2)