Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit 345
DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."
CHANGE (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
missing emails .. (Score:5, Insightful)
who would do the work? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno. (Score:5, Insightful)
One month... (Score:5, Insightful)
The new Administration has fallen far short of a lot of people's expectations, including mine. Two points though. One, it's been only a month. And two, if you consider the situation that they have been handed, I think they are at least trying to do best that they can. I can't comment on the e-mail case specifically, but I have done a lot of reading on the black hole of illegally held terrorism suspects. In that case, they have two choices: bring lawsuits against a greater part of the current government and past governments involved, or do the right thing from here on out.
Personally, I would love to see every senior officer kicked out in disgrace over what they have done to American principle. Even if it's often violated in secret, at least we could pretend that we had some moral standards. But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job. If the new Administration spent years wringing the necks of officers following orders, would the chain of command still work?
Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail. And sure, the economic crisis may be something that the Obama Administration is intentionally overplaying in order to have some breathing room on everything else. They're not stupid, so they either believe the situation is that dire, or they are pretending to for political purposes.
For the sake of argument, imagine if you bought out a poorly run company. You may find mountains of incriminating papers, a staff that was half corrupted, and accountants who deserve to be set on fire. But if you're to turn this company around, would the smart thing to do be to march them all into the street for a mob lynching, or quietly and over time reform the company without completely ruining it's reputation in the process? The absolutely right thing to do is probably bankrupt the company and start over. It may be that in the current steaming pile of shit situation that the Bush dynasty has left us, re-forming the government is correct, but reforming the government is prudent.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
We must not allow the government to operate in secret. It is our lack of vigilance that put us where are today, with a government that becomes more corrupt with every passing day. We don't need you making excuses for them.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Economic policies have long lag times. It has taken 6 years to the results of Greenspan's low interest rate regime. Similarly, Volcker's policies were very unpopular when they were implemented, but they paid off 3-4 years later.
You judge a president by whether he has the balls to not push the cost on to future generations and make politically unpopular decisions. A good president would say "we've spent way more than what we have, so let's take the pain for the next 4-5 years and make sure our children are not burdened".
Don't hold your breath to see someone like that.
Every president ever has done something like this (Score:2, Insightful)
Every president since the concept of executive privilege has fought tooth and nail for it. This includes defending your predecessor's use of it. Regardless of intent, Obama could be hurt by a ruling against the previous administration.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I can expect a little more from my government than cash in my pocket and no occupying forces in my neighborhood. In particular the way the government treats minorities of various kinds (both in terms of physical characteristics and ideological views) is very important - even if the average person ends up better as a result. Should I be happy if the government institutes slavery if it makes me weathier and doesn't cause a war - I should think not!
I can't say I'm surprised by the current administration - it is all working out basically how I thought it would. I'm sure that Obama will right some of Bush's wrongs, and create more than a few wrongs of his own. Republicans will hail him as the antichrist, and Democrats will hail him as the messiah. Eventually the Democrats will make some major blunder and the Republicans will sweep in to save the country. Lather, rinse, repeat... No doubt the promoted special interests will be different, but corruption will be there.
The one thing that gives me hope is that it would be very difficult for the next four years to be as bad as the last four were. It is certainly possible, but I'd think it would be difficult to pull off even by design. That doesn't give the current administration a free pass when they blunder, and it doesn't make any Republican proposal not worth considering...
Slashdot versus Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot articles about Obama are hilarious. There's always the initial, hysterical article about how Obama is doing something oh-so-terrible (e.g. killing net neutrality). Then, some days or weeks later (if we're lucky) there will be a followup article calmly stating that the previous article was overreacting (e.g. nothing against net neutrality in the stimulus bill).
Remember all those complains about the stimulus package being full of pork? Then we discover that the supposed "pork" is actually money for schools and Internet access.
I have no doubt that this effect is replaying itself yet again. It's a good sign that there are so few real scandals that we have to invent our own, but a bad sign that we are so eager to be distracted by scandal.
Re:It's government corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. Bush administration officials [...]
I know /. news tends to be a bit behind the times, but I would have thought folks would have noticed by now that Bush isn't part of the U.S. government any more.
Re:One month... (Score:3, Insightful)
i mostly agree with you. i'm gonna godwin myself, though, and say that
"But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job."
is exactly what all the nazis said at nuremburg. "i was just following orders." well, some orders are just evil. and it's every human being's responsibility to know that. if i showed up tomorrow and my boss said, "lock this guy up. don't let him see a lawyer. don't tell him what he's done wrong. then beat the crap out of him and pour water down his throat until he's starting to die a little" i would NOT DO IT. neither would you. THAT's the real issue.
Re:It's government corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, all of the the talk of transparency was lip service, either that - or they have been made aware of what the content of those emails will show.
Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month. It's not like he is reneging on a campaign promise, it sure makes it seem like practically his ENTIRE stated message about transparency in government was total bullshit.
I wanted Ron Paul, and I think that anybody who understands how our government really functions these days, the constitution, the lessons of history as they relate to empires and our debt based Federal Reserve manipulated economy who got a chance to hear his message likely did too...
Unfortunately I think the current state of the economy and it's effect on the day to day lives of most Americans is spec-fuckin-tacular compared to where it's headed - We're following the path of the Weimar Republic here, and guess how that turned out...
I live right next door to independence hall - it's literally something I see when I walk outside of my home every morning; I see that, and the eternal flame which burns at the mass graves of al of the unknown revolutionary solders buried in Washington Sq ....it's really sad, and sadness is what I feel every time I see these reminders of our history and founding...our empire is crumbling and most of the people on the street don't even know what the word "empire" means and how it applies to America today and are more interested in some Hip Hop MTV retard beating his girlfriend or what happened on TV last night. We don't need to be an empire, empires always end one way.
After Obama won (and out of him and McCain) I figured he would be better choice out of the two because at least he was saying he wanted to limit executive power and was all about openness, etc, etc ad infinitum - I knew the guy was a politician, but given the passion with which he seemed infused with he seemed to have some integrity....I guess we'll see how much he really does....
Right now think the best thing people can do is support the states rights movement - 20 states are taking action to formally remind the federal government of the limits of their power under the 10th Amendment, 20 states are re-asserting sovereignty under the 10th amendment - There is some great stuff going on in New Hampshire also - it seems they really do want to 'live free or die' there...; PA rep Sam Rohrer is heavily active in promoting these resolutions , and it's very important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbrXnYJOo [youtube.com]
If you are concerned about what the federal government is doing - make sure to support the resolutions, in the state, in the house and senate by contacting your reps.
Re:It's government corruption (Score:1, Insightful)
The screw will turn, my friend, and your party won't always be in power.
That's the point: deterrent. If crimes were committed by the Bush administration then they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to send a strong message to the next Republican administration that the law must be obeyed.
Then we'll see how much you like all the investigations.
Bring it on. While I strongly believe that Obama is far better than the Republican alternative, I have no love for Obama either. If Obama breaks the law, punish him to the full extent.
Have you ever had a job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone appointed/hired by Obama's administration.
If you were hired in the civilian sector and one of the things you sold yourself on to your new boss was your belief in email recovery, wouldn't you expect to be asked to do just that?
Get a job in IT. That's what I have to go through ALL THE TIME.
What decisions were made.
Why were those specific decisions made.
How were they implemented.
Why were they implemented in that specific way.
And yes, a LOT of it DOES involve going through my predecessor's email and notes.
If I am hired to recover the email, I work on recovering the email. Even if I have to recommend bringing in a recovery specialist. There are 300 million people in the USofA. It shouldn't be that difficult to find a few people to handle this. Instead, he's arguing against even TRYING.
Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (Score:3, Insightful)
he now claims he wants to reduce the deficit by 2/3 by increasing the tax on the employers. (Who do you think the "rich" are anyway???)
Why shouldn't the rich pay more taxes than the poor?
Haven't you ever heard of Robin Hood? You do realize he was one of the good guys, right?
With Bush, we reduced taxes on the rich. Did their money trickle down? Not so much. Instead, they used it to inflate a huge stock market bubble. Now, everyday Americans see their retirement savings cut in half.
Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.
(The same mistake was made before the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, though other mistakes were made too.)
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not ignore the many non-partisan people who object to any wrong-doing on any party's part. Excusing every wrong by pointing out that someone else did the same wrong, does not lead to a situation with less wrong-doing, but rather more.
Re:It's government corruption (Score:1, Insightful)
Believe everything in a book? No. But, how about the newspapers? In the days immediately after the World Trade Center collapsed - how many planes were in the skies, departing America? And, who was aboard that plane? The Bush and Saud families are indeed much to cozy, and questions beg to be asked.
I'll bet Elvis was on there, too. And Jim Morrison.
My vote is for a Republic, and Harding (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals regard Warren G Harding as the worst President ever. He was the epitome of smoke filled room deals .. getting the Presidential nomination in one, and his own Presidency was just mired in scandal, from womanizing, conflicts of interests, and bribes. Were he around today, he'd be impeached a week after swearing the oath. But....
During his administration, he cut taxes, deregulated, and also cut spending to match, and the economy boomed. Unemployment fell to a record 1.9%, a record which STILL stands.
Time to end this thread. (Score:2, Insightful)
2000 years from now we'll probably still be talking about Nazi Germany. So your "obviously" is 100% wrong.
Simply being a subject of discussion does NOT mean anything beyond being a subject of discussion.
Once again, you are wrong.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
You should try actually reading the Constitution. The President does not have all the powers you imagine he has, and, in fact, today's presidency is far beyond what it should be.
The ONLY exclusive power the President has is to grant pardons and reprieves. All other powers are subject to approval by Congress. Even the, much flaunted, Commander-in-Chief power: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" (emphasis mine).
Congress calls the military into service -
"The Congress shall have the Power... To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
If that is not enough for you, read further down (powers of Congress):
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So, you see, Congress has the power to make laws concerning all the power given to the entirety of the Federal government, President included. It really is supposed to be the supreme branch, not co-equal. Too bad today's Congress has no spine and no intelligence.
Re:Here in Mexico... (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple truth is that the US is at least as corrupt as Mexico
Wait a second. Do you seriously believe that? Can you so easily dismiss the corruption that permeates the Mexican society (yes, not only the political institutions)? It's a corruption so pervasive, people take it for granted and live by it.
The USA certainly has the faults you listed, I won't deny any of those, but to say that it's more corrupted than Mexico?
Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your well-formatted, statistically dense post conveniently glossed over the fact that income taxes are not reflective of the entire tax burden.
Care to have another go at it?
Re:CHANGE (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
In other words, voting for change doesn't mean you get it. The one common aspect to most forms of intoxication is that eventually you have to come down from the high. Obama rapture is no exception.
Verdict Rendered in Record Time (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month.
He has barely been in a month. And inside that month, I've heard more final-sounding verdicts on his presidency than in any new president's time in the last 16 years of following politics. He's just another politician. He doesn't care about privacy. Or the constitution. Or transparency. His talk of bipartisanship is empty. He doesn't understand economics. He's vindicated Bush by having any measure of continuity. He's responsible for the next terrorist attack. All in four weeks.
I think in another 2-4 years, it'll be time to come to conclusions about these things. Not that there's anything wrong with asking questions now, but anybody who's somehow arrived at a *conclusion* about Obama's presidency this early in the game is jumping to them, not thinking them through.
I also think it's worth pointing out that some of the things he's promised have tension between each other -- for example, bipartisanship and transparency regarding the previous administration (that might in fact be part of what's going on here, since the transparency policies regarding Obama's own administration seem promising so far). An unsubtle view would be that this tension between two principles always implies that a politician who has stated commitment to both is simply dissembling, but when you get down to the business of leadership, just like engineering, you're often (if not usually) working with tradeoffs between values that may each have their worthy points. Maybe I'm different from a lot of other voters, but I picked Obama precisely because I thought he seemed like he had the kind of mind that could navigate things this way, not because I thought he was a pure avatar of an ideology.
So far, the only thing I'm solidly unhappy with is his FISA reversal (and that was a senate decision) and decision to federally fund international clinics that would use abortion as a family planning method. Everything else looks like he's considering tradeoffs.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job.
He or she was elected by the people and as such the people should know what the president does. Hiding documents show government is not to be trusted.
These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President
Trust? Neither the USA's Founding Fathers nor I trust government. And wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Trust, but Verify [wikipedia.org]"?
Falcon
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Passing that 800B "stimulus" bill is more than enough reason to be outraged. Especially given the conditions under which it was pass: Less than 24 hours for the whole of the House to share and review (reportedly) only five copies of a partially handwritten bill that was over 1,000 pages long.
Nobody read it. And, like Bush before him, Obama used FUD to push it through.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
This greed and revenge continued, with a unsupported war that is little other than a means to funnel government funds to the people who already have enough money. This wouldn't be so bad, but it has necessitated the killing of countless women and children.
Now the democrats have said enough is enough. Pelosi all but said everyone who is objective knows Bush and Cheney are criminals, and those who don't will never be convinced. So why waste tax payer money and other limited resources dredging up the past. The children that bush and cheney killed [washingtonpost.com] in their greed will not be returned, so lets move on.
This email thing is the same. Bush criminal activity, shown best to lying to the country about the WMD in the state of union address, is well documented. The fact that he would hide emails is obvious, just like clinton hid documents. It is over. Bush got away with it. We need to move on and fix the problems caused by his greed and megalomania, and fell sorry for those that worship him and cannot accept the fact that he is a criminal. This is the way of the cult.
So, Obama needs to fix problems, not waste time hashing over old problems for no other reason than to satisfy the needs of the cult. That is what republicans do. Obama needs to get of Iraq and solve the problem in Afganistan, just like should have done on September 12, 2001. He needs to solve the problems in Saudi Arabia, which is where so much of the money for September 11 came from. He needs to refocus the country on community and spiritual happiness, and away from using material goods to hide a otherwise miserable soul. We need to accept that there are always greedy people or all kinds, from the layabout who will abuse social security for a few hundred dollars month to the executive who will rob our treasury of 10 million dollars. These people will have to answer in the end, but we should not damage ourselves by letting ourselves becoming as bad as they are.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, congress rolled over (all along, even now) and would have declared whatever Bush told them was needed. The specifics of who signed (or didn't) which piece of paper seem unimportant.
As for your earlier point about tracking every presidential actions, it's an issue of trust. If we had a system where we could trust our president, even a little, to mean and do what he says we'd might be willing to look away for a moment.
Your example of the Barbary pirates is a good one. We do authorize the president to deal with these things assuming that he's acting in our names or will stop if he realizes he made a mistake. Even in areas where this means things that would otherwise be crimes if he didn't have the shield of working in our names like killing pirates, tapping phones, etc.
Bush lied though. Repeatedly. Directly, and indirectly by paying people to lie to him. He knowingly and in so many words manufactured a case for war where there wasn't one. If we had the info, the people would all be jointly liable for the errors. But by lying to us Bush took away our oversight ability. Essentially starting an unjustified war and (to use the word the rest of the world would, murdering) hundreds of thousands.
So I'm seeing more of a reason to keep close tabs on the president than not. In fact, if you want to have any claim to the USA being an ethical nation I think you'd acknowledge that we all have a responsibility to ensure that corruption is investigated and harshly punished.
That trust I mentioned though. I know of one way to have a bit of it. If there was a law (not a one-time decree aimed at parting rivals) that would get Bush tried for his crimes then it would also apply to Obama if he did the same.
Bush taught us to watch closely or there'd be another torture camp deporting our and allied citizens for torture. If the only way we can avoid the worst depravity is constant vigil than constant vigil it must be.
obama can do one of two things (Score:2, Insightful)
1. govern
2. engage in partisan vindictiveness
the job of the presidency, believe it or not, is to govern the people. committed partisans meanwhile, from the right and the left, see nothing in the presidency except the ultimate bully pulpit in which to engage in partisan warfare
so obama is choosing the high road, he is letting past indiscretions slide, and he is focusing on uniting the american people rather than engaging in the same tired disgusting internecine warfare, plenty of which you see in other comments in this thread, both those aimed at republicans, and those aimed at obama
basically, fuck you you fucking partisans, from the right, and the left. please choke on your own bile. its all we see coming from your mouths anyway. nothing positive. nothing aimed at inclusiveness and uniting. just words aimed at dividing along tired typical stereotypical ideological divides
i'm glad obama is choosing not to sink to your pathetic blind level, and focus on actually governing the people, which is what he has to do, rather than feed into your pathetic drama queen soap operas
there is an aspect of american political life which is so blind, so braindead, so kneejerk "defend everything from the right, attack everything from the left", or visa versa, that there is nothing you add at ALL of any value, to any discussion. just please, shut the fuck up, blind partisans of the left, blind partisans of the right. and that includes large does of the comments in this thread: SHUT THE FUCK UP. you don't help, and you are extremely tired and tedious to all who hear your typical braindead words. say something positive and inclusive with those on the other side of the aisle, OR SAY NOTHING AT ALL