White House Must Answer For Missing Emails

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

[milsoRgen]

But I thought the white house was simply recycling their data storage media by overwriting it with more current data. Poor W. he can't win for nothing...

Expected answer

[Protonk]

"They are missing, and we can't retrive them. We forget what was on them. Oops."

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

[GodfatherofSoul]

If they lost them, which they couldn't have (and after Senator Leahy called them out on this [npr.org] they somewhat admitted that they were lost not destroyed), then they've broken the Presidential Records Act [wikipedia.org]. Actually, we probably have evidence of this already since White House staffers like Karl Rove have been circumventing official record keeping by using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business [house.gov]. Amazing how a little oversight uncovers so much dirt...

Re:Expected answer

[Protonk]

and what's the end result of that? Is karl rove in jail for violating presidential records acts? Are those emails in the hands of prosecutors? Is there a prosecutor assigned? Are we likely to have an honest answer as to what happened before 2009? No. Rove et al used RNC email addresses to avoid archiving requirements as they engineered US elections by steering justice dept actions. That much is patently clear. When it looked like this was going to backfire, those emails got deleted and the participants either 'forgot' their content or refused to testify.

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:

[jd]

Rove, et al, have worked so desperately hard to create an illusion of guilt hiding in innocence that it is almost impossible for them to have been as guilty as they have made themselves look. It's a wonderful paradox. Like a small child who pretends it was the invisible man, the pretense magnifies any real guilt as well as an electron tunneling microscope and the pretense adds to that guilt. This is not political, in that most people do the same thing. It's just that humanity has had a few hundred thousand

Re:Expected answer

[fm6]

then they've broken the Presidential Records Act

So what? There are no criminal penalties involved. It would be worth noting if this violation could be noted for impeachment proceedings, but Congress isn't going to impeach W. Not unless he does something really evil, like having sex with an intern.

Re:Expected answer

[flyingsquid]

So what? There are no criminal penalties involved.

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:

[click2005]

If either Bush or Cheney were impeached, arrested and locked up I bet the other would pardon him right before he left office.

Re:

[Scudsucker]

They would have to because it would be little more then a political witch hunt.

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

[rbanffy]

"witch hunt."?!

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:

[Protonk]

Also, your comment about jury nullification probably sucked. I remember wanting to mod down ranting morons in that discussion. Slashdot commentators are actually MUCH, MUCH better than the average schlubs on say youtube, cnn, time, etc. Those people make me REALLY scared for the future, but we have problems with people wanting bizzare extrajudicial and extralegal solutions to non-issues. That topic suggesting that the jury nullify the verdict and ignore instruction is about as sensical as the foaming at

Re:

[bigstrat2003]

Not to drag this further off-topic, but if you'd read his comment, he was agreeing with your position, as stated in your post just now.

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

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It was messing a pretty blue dress and wasting a fine cigar.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't prosecute Clinton for the sex, they prosecuted him for lying under oath. The only time Bush ever lied under oath was when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution. But no one takes that one seriously anyway.

Re:

[sumdumass]

Ken Star was told what to investigate. In two occasions he asked for leave to investigate things uncovered but not directly related to his investigation. Clinton was impeached because he intentionally lied in a court of law when he was the chief law enforcement officer in the land, not because of some vast right wing conspiracy. He was since, punished by that court for those offenses, lost his law license and paid fines in one case and a settlement in another relating to it.

You can claim anything you want.

Re:Expected answer

[jamar0303]

"I'm sure there were extensive illegal surveillance of private US citizens... Wait, I'm thinking of RFK keeping tabs on MLK."
And what are the telcos being granted retroactive immunity for again?

Re:

[Kenrod]

Or lying under oath.

Re:

[h4rm0ny]

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:

[TubeSteak]

Alberto-i-do-not-recall-Gonzales
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

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I stored them there.... I swear it.... now they're gone!

Re:Expected answer

[Zollui]

There's a government mechanism for dealing with such matters which people here might find surprising.

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:

[Zollui]

The guys will be mostly interested in making sure that no blame accrues to them in the matter. So the only thought going through their heads is: 'how do I make this thing go away with as little trouble to myself as possible?'

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

Re:

[Kingrames]

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney worked for Nixon.
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

[Protonk]

That's because that wasn't part of an attempt to undermine our system of government. I don't care WHO you are, there hasn't been a president like gwb in office for at least 100 years. They have literally wrecked the place. I'm not talking about NCLB, Iraq, or whatever. That's all normal stuff. That's the kind of stuff that most of the presidents we remember would have done. Keenedy/Johnson got us into Vietnam. Roosevelt packed the supreme court. Hoover precipitated the great depressesion. Wilson effectily resegregated the federal government. Etc. That kind of stuff is easy to recover from.

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

[sheldon]

They have literally wrecked the place.

He didn't literally wreck the place. He simply carved his initials into all of the furniture.

Re:

[Protonk]

Oops. I committed my least favorite linguistic error. I used literally where I meant figuratively. I must hang my head in shame.

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:

[statemachine]

Eisenhower got the USA into Vietnam's civil war. Yes, Kennedy and Johnson kept it going (with Johnson ramping it way up), but it was Eisenhower who initially stuck 50,000 "advisers" where they shouldn't have been, as a favor to the French who ruled Vietnam as a colony (communism domino theory, my foot). And Eisenhower screwed that up too. Because if he was so kind-hearted, why did he wait to let the French get routed at Dien Bien Phu? A great general, yes. A good politician... not so much.

I wholeheartedly a

Re:

[Digitus1337]

I had the honor of meeting Senator Cleland just prior to the 2004 Presidential election while he was campaigning for John Kerry. It was in a small room (in which I happen to be taking a course now) at the University of Central Florida, and the crowd was tiny. I was able to talk with him (and former Ambassador Pete Peterson) briefly and to shake his hand. He spoke then about how screwed up we were thanks to GWB's first term, and warned about what the second would be like. It's been almost four years, loo

Re:Expected answer

[PixelScuba]

When the Clintons left office, their staff broke equipment before leaving and violated the rest. For example, they would leave pornographic images in the photocopier. Think of it as the previous management of SlashDot leaving Goatse as the new logo when they left. Of course, let's not forget about all the silverware and furniture that Hillary stole like it was cheap hotel towels.

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:

[ArcherB]

I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted...

I'm sorry, was Marc Rich NOT pardoned? Did Sandy Berger (Clinton's former chief of staff) not get charged for stealing documents concerning 9-11 during the 9-11 commission's investigation? It has nothing to do with time. These are facts that can not honestly be refuted.

Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin...

Not all of them. Bush didn't. He let the attorneys that worked for Clinton keep their jobs. Later, he realized that some of them were a mistake and let them go. Clinton didn't give Bush41's attorney's that chance. He fired them beca

Re:

[Protonk]

IT's cool. we won't convince you. Keep listening to rush and telling yourself that the only reason GWB isn't carved into mount rushmore is because of the 'liberal' media. Keep lying about clinton and trumping up the 'effect' of his presidency on the nations morals in order to avoid the fact that your party sacrificed this country for political loyalty. 100 years from now, we will look at these past 8 years as some of the worst in the country's history, and not because of 9/11.

Re:

[Protonk]

Thank you for assuming that only the absence of bias confirms the truth. none of those organizations have any reason to sugarcoat the clinton presidency. Media matters, commondreams (although you may have a point there) have all run articles highly critical of the clinton white house and several democratic members of congress. This may surpise you, but most of the highly critical blogger/liberal left doesn't like clinton. That is at least one reason why obama is so popular, he isn't a clinton.

I don't

Re:

[nebosuke]

Your parent is being buried because his statements are irrelevant to the argument of your GP regardless of whether or not they're true.

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, b

Re:

[sumdumass]

Well, actually, his post was relevant because it directly addressed the tone of his parent post.

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

Re:

[msuarezalvarez]

And that makes it OK in your mind?

Re:

[ArcherB]

Maybe they learned it from Clinton

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/ [cnn.com]

And that makes it OK in your mind?

No, but it proves that the Democrats are just on a partisan based witch-hunt. How can a Democrat sit there with a straight face and try to prosecute this President after they blindly supported the last president? This is nothing more that a grab for power and revenge. They are mad because they don't have all the power they want so they are trying to take down the guy with the power, the guy that plays for the "other team"... all at the expense of the country. This is just a bunch of cry-babies that cou

Re:Expected answer

[Protonk]

No, it doesn't. I've never seen anything so patently absurd in my whole life, and I've seen a lot of absurd things. To accuse the democratic congress of organizing a witch hunt is preposterous. Show me the witch hunt. Show me the weeks of dogged congressional action. Show me the impeachment proceedings. Show me the honest, hardworking americans forced into jail because of the partisan hackery of the democrats, I defy you.

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:

[ArcherB]

Try to stay on topic, please:

What Bush did:
Today (from TFA)

The White House has contended that the e-mail requested by the group has been lost.

What Clinton Did:
August 23, 2000 (from GP's link [cnn.com])

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Clinton administration official who oversees the troubled White House e-mail system testified Wednesday he never told President Clinton about the computer problem that prevented thousands of White House e-mails from being properly stored and archived.

Also, it was not about Clinton getting his bishop buffed in the Oval Office. It was about the Clinton's ordering the FBI to hand over the files of political enemies. From same article

The group is suing the White House in a related matter concerning a batch of errant FBI files found inside the Clinton White House.

So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to protect the country. The Clintons did what they did to blackmail political enemies using the FBI as their hired thugs.

Re:

[Foobar of Borg]

So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to enrich his family and his cronies while plundering as much money as possible from the treasury and grabbing as much power as possible.

There, fixed that for you. If you think Bush is doing all that he is doing to protect the country, you are truly a deluded moron.

Re:

[ArcherB]

So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to enrich his family and his cronies while plundering as much money as possible from the treasury and grabbing as much power as possible.

There, spun that for you. If you think Bush is doing all that he is doing to protect the country, you are truly a deluded moron.

Fixed that for you. You know, people only resort to personal attacks when they can't refute the facts. And as for your statement about plundering and power grabbing and all... if that were the case, they are doing a shitty job. Enron is gone. All of Bush's "cronies and family" are having to answer subpoena after subpoena after subpoena and still never found guilty of any real crimes. Take Scooter Libbey for example. He was charged with perjury for lying about a crime he didn't commit. The Republicans

Re:

[Protonk]

I am on topic. I appreciate your willingness to muckrake through old Clinton administration email coverups while steadfastly denying yourself the benefit of context in the discussion at hand. Why did the whitehouse tell the court the emails had been lost? why is the court looking for the emails in the first place? Why were they not on a .gov server? What were they about. The answers to those questions are right before you, and they will explain why the limited fuss about this is justified, frankly, wh

Re:

[ArcherB]

I am on topic. I appreciate your willingness to muckrake through old Clinton administration email coverups while steadfastly denying yourself the benefit of context in the discussion at hand. Why did the whitehouse tell the court the emails had been lost? why is the court looking for the emails in the first place? Why were they not on a .gov server? What were they about. The answers to those questions are right before you, and they will explain why the limited fuss about this is justified, frankly, why a much larger fuss would have been justified.

Uh, all that is in TFA. Why the emails?

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

Re:

[Protonk]

You are really well and truly sad.

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:

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

Just thought I'd jump into the flame war you seem to be having.

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.

Do you think America will be stronger if all leading Republicans are frog-marched?

Disclaimer: I am an Independent. That being said, any republican that went along with the ne

Re:

[Zeinfeld]

No, but it proves that the Democrats are just on a partisan based witch-hunt. How can a Democrat sit there with a straight face and try to prosecute this President after they blindly supported the last president?

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 mai

Re:

[Foobar of Borg]

This is just a bunch of cry-babies that could not gain power by winning elections, so they are trying to do it through the courts

Um, in case you weren't paying attention, Bush stole the 2000 election using the Supreme Court, who had not authority to rule on how a state chooses its electors.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Um, in case you weren't paying attention, Bush stole the 2000 election using the Supreme Court, who had not authority to rule on how a state chooses its electors.

Uh, no. Bush WON Florida because he got more votes. He used the Supreme Court to stop Al Gore from STEALING the election by constantly changing the rules and recounting until he found the magic combination that would declare him the winner.

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:

[msuarezalvarez]

You really, really, really think that Obama is the same as Bush?

Re:"I do not recall."

[ArcherB]

Or, as Reagan would have said, "I do not recall." I believe he said that over and over again when being questioned about his role in the Iran/Contra affair.

He had Alzheimer's you insensitive clod!

Why don't you make fun of Roosevelt for not jogging on the Whitehouse lawn?

How will they enforce it?

[jollyreaper]

White House to court: Make us.

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:

[Protonk]

The request was if the Atty. Gen. would enforce contempt citations against members of the exec branch who are said to be exercising executive privilege. Once given a direct and unambigious question, the atty. general (the new one, supposedly some great shakes compared to gonzo) said no.

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

Re:How will they enforce it?

[milsoRgen]

Technically the congress could order the sgt. at arms to haul the people in to testify

But which one to use?

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:

[Protonk]

me too. Mustaches scare the bejesus out of me.

Re:

[Zeinfeld]

But which one to use?

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 od

Re:

[freedom_india]

Its a House contempt proceeding so it would be Livingood's office.

No, its Not. The Sgt At Arms is responsible for the safety and security of congress critters, senators, visiting dignitaries. That's all.
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 a

Re:How will they enforce it?

[HidingMyName]

As mentioned in one of the other replies most likely Livingood, since he works for the House of Representatives, who voted on contempt today. If I understand, there are 2 forms of contempt of congress, typically congress uses a variant that goes through the executive branch for enforcement, but there is also a variant called inherent contempt [wikipedia.org] that is enforced directly by congress, via the sargeant at arms. However Gainer's web page [senate.gov] has an interesting quote (maybe a hint?).

The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.

Re:

[Foobar of Borg]

Perhaps drafting Mr. Chuck Norris would do the trick.

Unfortunately, Chuck Norris likes GWB. Maybe we could get Jean-Claude van Damme. Nah, he would just keep kicking way over their heads and doing splits. Steven Seagal? No, he only knows Aikido. He would have to wait for them to attack him before he could do anything. Jet Li? Too many dramatic poses.

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,

Re:How will they enforce it?

[jollyreaper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGpWtTJmfvY [youtube.com]

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?

[Harmonious Botch]

Why prosecute when a SCOTUS justice indicates that he would reverse on appeal?

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Tuesday defended the use of harsh physical interrogation techniques, saying in an interview with Law in Action on BBC Radio 4 that they may be justified to deter an immediate threat. Scalia argued that "so-called torture" may not necessarily be prohibited by the US constitution, as he said the Eighth Amendment bar against "cruel and unusual punishment" was only intended to apply to criminal punishments:

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the Eighth Amendment in a prison context. You can't go around smacking people about. Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It's not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

Just to mollify shoot-the-messenge moderators, I favor impeaching Scalia for this.

Re:

[Protonk]

While I know you agree with me, the rub is of course that such treatment is a violation of treaties the US has entered in to and laws passed by congress in order to comply with those treaties. I don't think too many people are suggesting that 8th ammd. protection applies here. That is one of the reasons while Gitmo was chosen over Charleston (the original detainee site).

And, IMO, the imminent threat theory is a terrible, terrible, terrible legal justification, what a shame that no one is in a position

Re:How will they appeal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What really bothers me about this constitution - torture debate is that it sidesteps the important issue.

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?

[Harmonious Botch]

What kind of government are you running down there anyway?

We made the mistake of letting people like you run it. Well, not exactly like you, but people who are like you in that they are absolutely sure that they know what is right and wrong.
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?'

Why are these guys still in power?

Because we still have, embedded in our political processes, some remnants of respect for the constitution. And because of Monica.

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:

[Foobar of Borg]

What kind of government are you running down there anyway? Why are these guys still in power?

CASSIUS: And why should Caesar be a tyrant then?
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:

[Dhalka226]

Just to mollify shoot-the-messenge moderators, I favor impeaching Scalia for this.

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?

[Harmonious Botch]

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.

It is not for his interpretation of the constitution, but for completely ignoring it.

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:

[10101001 10101001]

as he said the Eighth Amendment bar against "cruel and unusual punishment" was only intended to apply to criminal punishments:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..

If you're torturing someone for evidence in a trial....

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

... 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*

Re:How will they enforce it?

[sgt_doom]

My humble suggestion would be exactly what they FBI did in the aftermath of those attacks of 9/11/01. They sent the damaged disk drives recovered from the two fallen towers to the German data recovery firm, Convar (given the possible classified nature, why wouldn't they have used government labs at NIST, NSA, DIA (yes, they have 'em), etc., or at least the state-of-the-art data recovery companies in North America? Oh yeah....Kroll purchased Convar the same time said data recovery was occurring. Oh yeah....whatever did the FBI do with the data, which a Convar spokesperson said had been successfully recovered? Oh well.......and so it goes.....

Re:How will they enforce it?

[rpillala]

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:

[sumdumass]

That's basically what happened with Roosevelt and the new deal. A good portion of that he did was found unconstitutional and he was ordered to stop and Roosevelt said make me. That's when the court caved and expanded the interstate commerce clause to basically write an entirely new path of power for the government and perhaps the root of most of our problems today.

Emails?

[drewmoney]

Yeah, I think they'll find Osama before they find those missing emails.

So am I the only one holding my breath?

[Rooked_One]

oh wait... its the other way around right? Whatever they find, i'm sure pardons will be given all around to both sides of the isle when Mr. Bush leaves the white house.

Re:

[Bootle]

Oh no, now Bush is going after Ireland?

Wait a little longer and see...

[TiggertheMad]

Bush cannot pardon anyone who hasnt been charged or prosecuted with crimes. I'd like to think the the Democrats are playing this one smart, and wating for president fucktard to leave office before they begin their prosecution of administration officials in earnest. I am willing to be that none of the statue of limitations will run out before he leaves office. Once he's out, they can get some real justice as opposed to 'scooter libby justice'. Personally, I would like to see som legislation that double or t

Well...

[martinQblank]

Waterboarding shouldn't be out of the question to get the answers. Right?

Re:

[Kingrames]

If something like freedom and democracy was at stake, then yeah, we could theoretically subject the persons involved to more aggressive interrogation tactics.

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:

[TheGratefulNet]

Waterboarding shouldn't be out of the question to get the answers. Right?

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:

[sumdumass]

The sad part is that at the time, the percieved alternative was more attacks and possibly your life. And because of what they did when they thought your life was in danger, you mock them because you want to take a high horse.

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

Re:

[dbIII]

Experienced people in law enforcement everywhere know that torture is a tragic bit of incompetance that does nothing useful unless your aim is to inspire terror. The problem is inexperienced uncontrolled spooks and political appointees flailing about because they had to do something or the professionals would replace them.

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:

[sumdumass]

Yea, and we have seen the shows, the movies, and heard all the stories about when someone knows someone is going to be killed, they ruff them up to get the answer, Yes, they torture to get an answer.

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 themselve

Re:

[Omestes]

I wish they wouldn't have, even if we were attacked as a result (which is dubious). But then again I am one of those old fashioned folk who think that Thomas Paine was on the ball with his Rights of Man, and believe that your only as good as your actions. If we disregard human rights, even of those who are guilty, we probably deserve the same respect that we offer others, meaning none. This can be generally construed as a carde blanche in favor of torturing American's.

And AS the current, albeit declining

How do you lose email?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

I am curious whether email can even get lost accidentally in the first place. A handwritten letter, fine, but email gets written, saved, archived, sent to the server, copied, recopied, delivered, logged, saved, archived... Plus, even deleting doesn't get rid of the data completely until the disk is overwritten, scrambled, or dipped in lava.

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...

[jwietelmann]

If you believe Greg Palast, those emails aren't so lost after all. His claim [gregpalast.com] is that Rove and company messed up and accidentally sent a bunch of those emails to http://georgewbush.org/ [georgewbush.org] addresses instead of http://georgewbush.com/ [georgewbush.com]. If these emails are genuine, they detail, among other things, how Republican operatives used a practice called caging [wikipedia.org] to suppress probable opposition voters.

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:

[Protonk]

There is some credence to this, or at least some history. 2 examples come to mind:
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:

[KefabiMe]

If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire.

Don't get me wrong. Not that I don't agree with you...

Sp no evidence is evidence? Wha???

Re:

[Conception]

If you work for something/someone that has oversight over you, probably. We're not talking about Bush's private myth box w/ his 3TB pr0n raid here.

Re:

[JonathanR]

I would have though that when somebody fucks up like that (and discovers the cock-up) that they would report/document such an incident when it was discovered, particularly when archiving records is particularly important in some organisations.

It is highly suspicious, if not damning, that the loss comes to light only when those particular records are needed.

Sure

[/dev/trash]

Just like all the other times the White House has been told to play nice. The response is going to be something like:

"The terrorists hate our freedome."

theywontanyway

[slimjim8094]

See title. They'll do what they do every time the courts demand that they comply: nothing.

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

[LaskoVortex]

I don't get the rest of TFA [computerworld.com]. Its all about how you shouldn't loose emails. But the example they have chosen is good reason why you should loose emails.

They already gave an answer

[sheldon]

A dingo ate the emails.

Re:

[frank_adrian314159]

A dingo ate the emails.

Hey! This is America, mate!

It was a coyote!

Re:

[freedom_india]

A dingo ate the emails.

Which Dingo? There are two: John Howard and Peter Costello. Which one?
Please be specific.

Waterboarding anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know the staff there can be FORCED into REMEMBERING every single one of those lost emails, it is simply a matter of a weekend at Gitmo for the ENTIRE staff and that fantastic new waterboarding sport, as the Whitehouse as stated, they are gonna do it, legal or not...

There's a simple explanation for all of this.

[Revotron]

They use Windows Server.

Case closed.

they should have stayed on Lotus Notes

[dominux]

They downgraded from Notes to Outlook/Exchange at about that time. They did have a reliable and secure mail system so they had to get off that in a hurry and on to a system that provides plausible deniability just when you most need it.

Re:

[snl2587]

If the Attorney General gets to decide who to prosecute, they will not go after their own office.

Except that, due to oversight, it will not be left to the Attorney General.

Re:

[Protonk]

Meh, the independent council law has actually lapsed. IT's too bad bush isn't crazy enough to pull a Sat. night massacre. Of course, given our sonambulant legislature, he could do so and get away with it for years.

Re:

[Protonk]

Ding ding, ding. We have a winner. I love it how people make shit up and then obscure the source like I give a shit. OOOHHHHH, some random slashdot person has something on good authority. You'd have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to suspect anything OTHER than that the bush administration was up to no good. The fact that outside channels were used in order to skirt oversight should only highten that suspicion. No need to pretend like you're in on some cloak and dagger shit in or

Re:

[Protonk]

presuming you're the same rocket scientist that posted the suggestion that someone claiming to be privy to inside information was likely full of shit, then I really don't know why you are writing this.

Re:

[Protonk]

Ahhh. That makes MUCH more sense.