Trying To Find White House Missing E-mails 437
Gov IT writes "On Wednesday a federal court ordered all employees working in the Bush White House to surrender media that might contain e-mails sent or received during a two and a half year period in hope of locating missing messages before President-elect Barack Obama takes over next week."
Finding Stuff (Score:5, Funny)
They are unable to find Iraqi WMDs either - maybe the emails have also long since been destroyed.
Re:Finding Stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
In this corner, moonbats claiming that Trig isn't actually Palin's son.
And in this corner, wingnuts who claim Obama hasn't released his birth certificate despite the Hawaiian government having released it.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Re:Finding Stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet!, I've been waiting for UFC's answer to the Special Olympics!
Good Luck! (Score:5, Funny)
For security purposes, it is a little known fact that Dick Cheney was a major proponent in getting the entire Executive Branch to adopt RCF 2549 [wikipedia.org] methods of transport. Message deletion consisted of a little "hunting accident" on the family ranch.
What the hell is a federal court... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What the hell is a federal court... (Score:5, Funny)
That gives the phrase "judicial probe" a whole new meaning!
Re:What the hell is a federal court... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What the hell is a federal court... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, maybe there's something to this. Imagine a transportation system requiring only a vast amount of viagra and willing men.
People of the future may actually travel the universe by shimmying up someone's penis.
Why not, it works for the social ladder. Paris, get down from there!!!
Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no way in hell the emails disappeared without the act being intentional (and thus in violation of the law). George Bush needs to be held to account for this.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Important data is deleted by accident all the time. In other words, "real" IT people get it wrong all the time. You're expecting government IT people to get it right? Let's just say government employees aren't typically known for their competence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Bush and the gang, but either possibility (purposely deleted or accident) seems equally likely to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Dick Nixon showed the way (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way this will change is if someone is held to account for it.
Dick Nixon was held accountable and all successive Presidents have learned from that lesson.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Informative)
700 days' worth of email are missing. I think you'd have to work pretty hard to "accidentally lose" that. You might neglect a backup or two. To do it for two years ... well, Bush can just isue himself and his staff pardons to cover it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would he need to? There are no penalties over the deleted files. At best, they can lecture them and maybe get some sort of contempt of court punishment if a judge gets irate enough. However, I doubt they would even go that far because if there truly is no way to recover them, then those punished for no doing so in that manner will have some good grounds for a lawsuit.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Informative)
Why would he need to? There are no penalties over the deleted files.
From the Presidential Records Act [archives.gov]
John Dean had it right when he called it 'Worse than Watergate'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the laws mandating archival are relics themselves. For a local example, here in Maine they keep lists of campaign contributions made to various local politicians. But they are only required to hold two years of records, which is basically useless for determining any historical patterns of contributions.
The laws need to be updated to reflect changes in technology. With the price of storage these days, there's effectively no reasonable difference between archiving 2 years of data and archivi
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
700 days' worth of email are missing. I think you'd have to work pretty hard to "accidentally lose" that. You might neglect a backup or two. To do it for two years ... well, Bush can just isue himself and his staff pardons to cover it.
Indeed, you've hit upon the core point of the matter. This was either (a) an accident, or (b) a deliberate subversion of law in an attempt to avoid the public finding out what people in the executive branch (you know, our employees?) were doing. Both of these possibilities are extremely bad.
The latter possibility should have had people on both sides of the aisle calling for an independent investigation. But even if it were "merely" an accident, where was the high-level firing of IT personnel? In my company if two years' worth of e-mails were lost, a few IT people would be out the door in a heartbeat. Who got fired from the White House IT staff as a result of what most people would consider a serious calamity?
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
It is?
Maybe in your company it is, but believe it or not, there are places where that just isnt true!
For example, for me and my domain of users, an important file may be deleted by accident by someone. But that is why we have backups where the oldest file is no more than 12 hours old.
To try and claim that this much EMAIL went missing, when it is so trivial to accomplish that even a govt employee could do it with their eyes closed, is a bit too much slack to give.
"Real" IT people DONT get it wrong all the time. In fact "Real" IT people dont get it wrong at all.
I feel sorry for you if your environment has led you to believe that level of competence is normal. I wish you the best of luck in your quest to find a place to work at that shatters your surroundings of incompetence
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, Im sorry that you also are in an environment where you think this is normal.
Personal attacks aside, the point is that 700 days of email server records dont just vanish. If your job is to make backups and ensure data integrity, then that is your job. Period. Its quite easily doable, and there are options available other than 'tapes'. It all depends on your personal cost/benefit profile.
If you arent willing to do what it takes to ensure your data integrity, then it isnt very important data. It is not wise to apply your life experiences to the rest of the world. What you are describing sounds like some backwards office in a strip mall. Im just guessing here, but I would think the requirements for U.S government duties when it comes to backing up and insuring integrity of data are spelled out pretty clearly in a law somewhere. I wont quote Title/Section for you, as Im sure you can look it up yourself if you so desire.
I liked this line the best;
"A lot of times, this doesn't go back further then 6 months because it is expensive to keep large volumes of unneeded data sitting around"
Unneeded data? Your choice of words betrays your mindset, as it applies to your understanding of the subject at hand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In most real life situations, the data older then 6 months generally gets purged from the system... This generally mean Email goes
And herein lies the root of problem. Your level of experience is so incredibly lacking, that you think 6 months is a long time.
About a year ago, I was involved in some work regarding a contract arbitration case. Records were successfully pulled form 5 years before, that specifically related to this case, and a settlement was reached out of court.
But please, tell me again how
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me? If this is really what the IT industry is like, then I must be imagining all of the data retention laws that require my company to retain all electronic records for all of our registered traders (stock brokers and the like) for up to 7 years. Not just email, either. We also have to retain copies of all texts as well.
I must also be imagining the $12 million fine that we were slapped with 5 or 6 years ago when just one case of WORM media got accidentally destroyed by our external records storage vendor that unfortunately contained emails related to a civil suit that a former employee got us embroiled in. The Justice Department, the OCC, and the SEC have no sense of humor about this stuff. (Before you ask, yes, it was a real accident. Settling the suit itself cost us less than $1 million. You think we wanted to put ourselves in a position to risk that kind of fallout over such a small legal issue?)
BTW, you ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? Have you ever tried to tap dance your way out of an audit by claiming that you just "lost" some files that were more than a few months old?
I'll go further and assert that not even the most incompetent Federal organization is so bad that they accidentally lose that much email. This is about the most routine IT task imaginable. Solutions for automated, multi-level backups of email have been around for literally decades. There is simply no conceivable reason to assume that the Feds haven't implemented such solutions at every level and in every branch. The fact that you regard this as SOP simply highlights just how little you really know about what IT means in the context of large corporations and governments.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now tapes get mixed up and over written all the time, someone doesn't realize what's on them and thinks it's just something that can be rotated in or someone thinks the information is in another place and the tapes are redundant or something.
Yes, competence abound. In *real* IT, though, tapes, once written, are marked and sent to an offsite storage. They are never recalled from there for "rotation" - the only reason to request your old backup is because you want to restore it.
The problem comes from bac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In real IT, the people doing the backups know that Tapes degrade and can't just sit in Storage off site somewhere. After about 5 years or so unless your in extremely ideal conditions (read not), you will have break down of the binders holding the magnetic particles, yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) This information is out of date, so don't rely on it. It's only for checkpoint use.
2) We had data stored on 800 BPI odd parity tapes. After 20 years most of them were still readable. Most of them had not been looked at in the intervening time. The tapes *were* stored in an air conditioned room, so there wasn't lots of thermal cycling, but it temperature wasn't closely controlled. Variations of 10 to 20 degrees were common occurrences.
However, saying the tapes were readable doesn't imply that there w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really do not care if you are trying to find an excuse for your hero's behaviour. Surely you can find another that makes a little more sense.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Interesting)
I really don't care about your anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about the industry standards here and the practical limitations to any magnetic media.
The problem isn't that you found two bits of information that you could use, it is that archiving and storing the information isn't as easy as the parent pretends it is. There will be lost information and the potential for it is there. You cannot just say Guess what I dove my car on the wrong side of the road the other day, everyone should be able to do it when everyone knows that there can be problems with driving your car on the wrong side of the road.
I don't need to find an excuse for anyone. Funny though how you actually think this is about protecting the administration instead of the practice pitfalls of long term data storage. Can I assume that your entire comment was politically motivated and should be regarded with as little respect as that would deserve?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now tapes get mixed up and over written all the time, someone doesn't realize what's on them and thinks it's just something that can be rotated in or someone thinks the information is in another place and the tapes are redundant or something. Next thing you know, they are gone and no one know why.
No. Tapes go offsite to a secure facility once they have been used and are physically modified so that they cannot be overwritten. This is something even wet-behind-the-ears junior sysadmins understand. For re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your an idiot if you think this is anything new. It isn't. Clinton lost documents that was logged in record, he lost emails too. Before that Bush and Reagan had some of the same problem. Everything you said is still true with them and it fucking happened. But no, you want to look at your NAS that has been running for 10 years (year right) and assume that everything in your little rosy life is the way it is everywhere else. The problem is that the government doesn't hire the best or the brightest people. so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> George Bush needs to be held to account for this.
Yes, sure, but... What makes you think anyone in the Bush administration is going to be held any more accountable than Bernie Madoff, who is walking around when he should be in jail?
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, how the fuck does that Madoff thing work? Is he getting a pass because of the sheer enormity of what he did?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, sure, but... What makes you think anyone in the Bush administration is going to be held any more accountable than Bernie Madoff, who is walking around when he should be in jail?
In the short term, the worst that will happen to Madoff is he ends up in jail.
In the long term, he will go down in the history books as a swindler and a liar.
I've already seen the expression "he Madoff with our money" used in print.
That will be his legacy and for individuals like him, it is a far worse punishment.
To bring this back on topic, without an accurate historical record, right wing think tanks will do (have been doing) their best to whitewash Bush & Cheney's actions and there will be a huge hol
Re: (Score:2)
> ...will be his legacy and for individuals like him, it is a far worse punishment.
Madoff is a sociopath. His basic mental profile is what allowed him to do what he did - his comfort comes from within, not from labels society hangs around his neck.
> They've successfully run out the clock.
On certain types of refutation...perhaps.
Nixon had his Deepthroat - we can only trust that G.W.'s is just around the corner.
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
Madoff hasn't been found guilty yet. Why should a "presumed innocent" person be in jail, whether he is Madoff, or you, or me?
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, you convienently forget the emails that disappeared on the Clinton/Gore watch...
LK
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the fact that people seem to think that Bush is the dumbest guy there is yet able to circumvent whatever backup and security precautions are in place.
I never no which Bush people are talking about -the evil mastermind or the bumbling idiot.
Bush is gone soon. Quit bitching and move on like we have done for Clinton and Carter and the rest
Re:Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
At certain levels of decision-importance, it is no longer sufficient to use incompetence as an excuse to escape punishment.
If you allow people who are involved with such matters to use incompetence to escape punishment, then they can easily use the facade of incompetence to cover both honest mistakes and malicious activities, plus there is no incentive for them to try and improve their competence.
Once the decision-making power reaches a certain level of importance, then if you want your leadership to behave in a competent manner, then you MUST punish them for screwing up, regardless of whether they made a mistake or whether they were deliberately misbehaving.
And then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Prosecute an outgoing President?
I don't like Bush as a President at all. But the job of the President is to make tough decisions and along the way he will make lots of enemies. However, just because a person is my enemy, it does not mean that he made those difficult decisions with anything but his best intentions and the country's best interests at heart. So it would be petty and irresponsible for us "enemies" of the current President to pursue this type of vindictive hounding because 4 years from now those
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't you mean "respect the law"?
I have no idea if they could even remotely find evidence that President Bush was directly responsible for the intentional destruction of evidence, but I seriously doubt it. But the law trumps the office. That is one reason we have a PRESIDENT, not KING.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that Nixon was never impeached nor convicted of anything right?
How can you expect anything you say to be taken seriously when you don't even have basic history right? It isn't like Nixon was another no eventful minor era in the history of the united states. You should at least have a basic understanding of it if your going to open your mouth on it.
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase Dick Cheney [washingtonpost.com], if the president has the power to unilaterally launch a nuclear strike and wipe out the human race, he has the power to have water poured in someone's face.
FAIL. The Constitution explicitly names the President as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces (Article 2, section 2). As commander-in-chief, he can order the use of any weapon in the arsenal against any enemy that Congress has authorized him to attack. This is a legitimate, explicitly enumerated power granted to the president by the president.
The use of cruel and unusual punishment is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution. As it is an amendment, it supercedes anything in the main body of the Constitution that might be interpreted as giving the President this power.
Constitutional authority aside there is a simpler answer to this: we are the good guys. We don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the thing, over the decades, Congress has given the Executive branch so much power, either through legislation or the lack of actually standing up for themselves to assert their own authority that President of the United States is creeping on becoming a Caesar-like position. For example, signing statements shouldn't have been enshrined in precedence, and we had a president that decided to invalidate or water down any law or provision that he doesn't like but can't veto.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the people only complain when it is used against policies they don't like, and never when it is a policy they support.
You see, when the "left" does it, it has to be "okay" because it is in the best interest of their "people" but if the "right" does the exact same thing ... then it is PURE EVIL!!!!
Oh, and before the lefties go nuts, the RIGHT has the exact same problem. Both sides are hypocrites, and without priniciples; willing to set aside stated values when it serves their goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But the law trumps the office.
Do you mind if I ask what was your position when the previous President was on trial for Perjury, Subornation of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice?
LK
Re: (Score:3)
Criminals should answer for their crimes, even if they are the president.
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it would be petty and irresponsible for us "enemies" of the current President to pursue this type of vindictive hounding because 4 years from now those same tactics will be used against a President I support.
A) You seem to be lumping partisans who hate Bush alongside citizens who believe that public officials should follow the law.
B) If Obama pulls the same bullshit I sure as hell hope that he gets endlessly hounded for it.
Respect the office.
The office means jack shit if the President doesn't respect the law and the constitution.
Re:And then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who voted for Obama, I sure hope to hell if he does a tenth of the illegal crap Bush seems to have, he is vindictively hounded out of office a lot sooner than 4 years from now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prosecute an outgoing President?
If Bush didn't like the conditions of employment, he should not have taken the job. Same goes for Obama.
because 4 years from now those same tactics will be used against a President I support.
I supported Obama. If his administration fails archive communications as required by law, then I will support a lawsuit to try to correct the, um, oversight.
I suspect that the information is "lost." And that really sucks. Not from a standpoint of trying to prosecute anybody, but from the standpoint of developing and growing as a nation. The administration is suppose to support the archives, not hide
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NPR had a segment talking about the oath of office today.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
See that sentence? The President is not above the law since he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution trumps the President. The NPR segment even mentions how the words "my Judgment
Cut GW some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that really so bad?
It's not like he got a blowjob or anything!
Re: (Score:2)
How is killing something that isn't alive as bad as killing something that is alive?
Enemies of the Republican Party are not forms of life.
See, the trap here, is that, you have your definition of what is alive, and what is not, and in forming that, of merely asserting the right to form that opinion, then, everyone else has that right too. So you could have a cellular count as your definition, or birth, and other people could just as easily argue that its the adoption of christianity, fealty towards capitali
Re: (Score:2)
Bitches about killing in war as his party wants to dole out abortions to everyone.
How is killing something that isn't alive as bad as killing something that is alive?
First off, it's quite obvious that you can't kill something that's not alive. Second, if you're arguing that a fetus is not alive, you're ignoring science. Whether you believe it is sentient is a judgment call (I believe that since it has unique human DNA, it should not be killed), but it's obviously alive.
Back on topic: I think these e-mails should have never been missing in the first place. I mean, a competent IT person could set it up to archive e-mails as they come in, and copy them to a network serv
NO President should be subject to this scrutiny. (Score:2)
I think that this whole business of constantly suing the President by the Congress for all of the records of his or her deliberations is a load of shit. It was wrong when Republicans did it to Bill Clinton and it is wrong for Democrats to do it to Bush and will be wrong when Republicans do it again to Obama.
The President is an independent branch of government from the Congress and the only essential things he could really do that cause his removal would be to attempt to engage in a power that belongs prope
Re:Cut GW some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that since it has unique human DNA, it should not be killed
I find this moral stance quite odd - it would suggest that the deliberate destruction of the only surviving tissue sample of a deceased person should be treated as a murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring your self-contradictory use of the English language, your assertion that there's a stage between "sperm and egg" and "adult" where animals are non-living is absurd. Next time simply state "I don't believe that the killing of human fetuses is morally objectionable", and avoid using falsehoods to rationalize your moral stance.
Re:Cut GW some slack (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As for the WMDs, there were lies about yellow cake.
The yellow cake is a lie...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where's the 'delusional' mod when you need it?
How about this lie? : http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/16/Armey_Cheney_misled_me_on_Iraq/UPI-53871221586641/ [upi.com]
Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it's sailing away!
Really people this is over.
I'm a serious lefty. I hate war criminals because I am Jewish. I marched in Manhattan against the war in Iraq the February before it started. It happened. The crimes have been committed. We blindly followed zealots and morons into domestic and foreign policies that have ruined our nation morally and economically.
My question is, what new things do you expect to learn? Is there any reason to read these emails? We know what they did and who is responsible. Maybe we don't have every gory detail. I doubt we need them. We could already try the major players.
But what punishment would be appropriate? The point of investigating these actions would have been to stop them and we did not do enough, as the American Citizenry, to stop them. WE EVEN RE-ELECTED the criminals.
We won't hang the offenders as is appropriate (Nuremberg anyone?), we won't hand them over to the victim nations. We didn't stop the crimes and as members of a democracy that makes us complicit.
Imagine a parent who gives their kid a case of beer and the keys to the car. The kid gets drunk and drives the car through the neighbor's house. What would the neighbor think if all the parents did was ground the kid for a few weeks?
Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but showing dirty laundry NEVER stops the next guy from getting dirty. It didn't work after Nixon and we saw all sorts of his crap (Watergate and, more importantly the Pentagon Papers.)
This really seems like closing the barn door and yelling angrily at the horse as it runs away. Unless we are going to make a TRUE example out of the heads of state who betrayed us (and I definitely mean bloody, public executions...or handing them over to nations who deserve the put them on trial) this just becomes...his
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying that the truth won't necessarily prevent the past from repeating itself is a weak argument against fighting for the truth in the first place, in my opinion.
If nothing else, full disclosure of the activities of this administration would force the American public to see the truth of the past eight years, and would likely result in at least some high profile convictions of the outgoing administration.
Just because we can't see to it that they get as good as they gave, doesn't mean we should let them ride
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And I sure hope that someone, Noam Chomsky or someone else, will write a book that explains to the public what the two Bushes have done during all these years, as eloquently as in The Culture of Terrorism [amazon.com].
Now, if you are going to try Bush and company, then I'd say that almost every single American president of the 20th century must be dragged into court as well, except the newly elected Obama (but we'll see).
Disclosure: I was the survivor of a country that was devastated as a result of the terrorist foreig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unarguably? Then why are you arguing it is false when he asserts it isn't. That's an argument. And that makes your statement false. So why should we listen to anything else you say when you base the whole argument from lies? Have you seen any evidence that he was born anywhere else? Where is his birth certificate from the other place? Why do you think it false whe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate war criminals because I am Jewish
Oh, what the heck does that mean? I mean, come on dude. Just because you are a jew doesn't entitle you to some special prize.
My question is, what new things do you expect to learn? Is there any reason to read these emails? We know what they did and who is responsible. Maybe we don't have every gory detail. I doubt we need them. We could already try the major players.
The real problem is, that, even if the left wing unearthed every email that it could unearth, and tri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, it doesn't matter whether Bush oversold the war or not. In fact, he probably lied. All Presidents lie. You can't goad people honestly into war or tell the truth as to why you have them. War is as much an act of statecraft and politic on the national stage as any other and honesty in war making is arguably detrimental to national security.
The crime isn't that he lied. The crime was that he lied when he took the oath of office to uphold the constitution. I know a lot of people don't care about civil liberties and regard the constitution as just a piece of paper that sometimes gets in the way of their goals. I don't. Its sacred to me as much as anything could be; I know that is silly, but I don't care.
Also, he was a dumb ass that really hurt the US, but there is no specific law against that.
Re: (Score:2)
The crime isn't that he lied. The crime was that he lied when he took the oath of office to uphold the constitution. I know a lot of people don't care about civil liberties and regard the constitution as just a piece of paper that sometimes gets in the way of their goals. I don't. Its sacred to me as much as anything could be; I know that is silly, but I don't care.
I don't understand. Why is that silly?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an atheist. That makes it silly that I hold anything sacred.
And it is just a piece of paper with ideas that I know really *can't* be fully realized in my lifetime, ideas that I want to become true whether or not its likely, practical or even possible.
I won't let myself give up hope.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
:I'm an atheist
Atheism is impossible because the world is irrational. Therefor, you are doomed to invent something in your mind that acts a religion, even if you do not call that, and has a god at the head of it, or gods. In your case, your god is your depersonalized ideal of a constitution that is very personal and very polarizing. See, you can act like a religious nut without even having a conventional god.
Re: (Score:2)
The crime isn't that he lied. The crime was that he lied when he took the oath of office to uphold the constitution. I know a lot of people don't care about civil liberties and regard the constitution as just a piece of paper that sometimes gets in the way of their goals. I don't. Its sacred to me as much as anything could be; I know that is silly, but I don't care.
Compared to Woodrow Wilson, Bush is a piker when it comes to violating the constitution and getting involved in wars with unbelievably bad repercussions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution has a certain spirit that is violated by the intrusion of conversations, is violated by the banning of arms from citizens, violated by giving money to church organizations.
The constitution was written to be vague in details, but specific in meaning and in spirit. Bush's policy of making 'free speech zones' (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/) is enough to convince me he is no guardian of American ideals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not asking for a prize. Just explaining my perspective. I was raised to be seriously offended by war crimes and genocide.
As for political persecution look at the Clinton impeachment. You guys did it first.
You are also correct in that there will never be enough support for criminal proceedings against Bush, and even if there were there would never be enough support for an appropriate punishment.
Congress gave him approval, but based on false information that he provided. That's a crime right there.
As for "Yea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You final paragraph is weak rhetoric. Congress was given lies and failed to call Bush on it. but guess what? It was a Republican controlled Congress and Bush was head of the party, so again, the responsibility lies at his feet.
Uh, Democrats controlled the Senate at the time the war resolution was voted on. So, basically, what you are saying is that the Democratic Party abdicated its responsibility to assess the claim of war on its merits.
And, what lies, exactly, was the Congress given? Seriously, I would
One word: Justice (Score:2)
Because he is the president, it is all that much more important that a crime that he might have comitted be investigated and if needed, prosecuted. America was founded on the ideal that all men are equal, that there are no kings that are above the law, and the rules will be applied fairly.
One might
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, justice.
Good point.
To quote Aristotle "What is just?"
What punishment is appropriate for these crimes?
Imprisonment in a minimum security prison? Exile? Execution?
I simply cannot imagine a just punishment. I think a just punishment would be one that serves the purpose of acting as a deterrent to future leaders and a reminder to future citizens of what to watch for. The justice must come in the eye of history comparing this administration to those of Nixon, Hoover, and LBJ.
My point is that in the short ter
only the executive pardon ship is sailing (Score:2)
Really people this is over.
Not really. The only ship that is sailing is the executive pardon ship; there isn't a chance in hell Obama will pardon anyone from the Bush administration for the torture stuff, and when you're out of office, it makes it much harder for you to retaliate (or get anyone in the current administration to retaliate) for going after you criminally.
There was a long podcast on Fresh Air recently (I think this is the one [npr.org]) about how nobody in the Bush administration is traveling outsi
Re: (Score:2)
We blindly followed zealots and morons into domestic and foreign policies that have ruined our nation morally and economically.
For 8 years! Good job there ; )
Really, I lost a little respect for the USA when Bush was RE-elected, and I think a large part of the world did too...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hai Rummy.
Your people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your people? __Your people__?
My people are humans. Humans are fucked up. Of course my people are doing wrong.
In Dafur.
In Isreal.
In Palestine.
At Guantanimo.
In Abu Grahib.
In the wilds of Uganda.
In the jungles of South America.
In China.
In Russia.
In Burma.
In Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point.
It is easy to be a good person when you are in a situation where your core values are not in jeopardy.
However where you life, your family's life, your culture, your strong beliefs (or what ever you values that Most of the Most) are in threat, if you can still be a good person then you are an exceptional person. However for the most part in Most of North America, Most of Western Europe... (AKA the free world) we have so much that we can loose before we really get to the things that we really
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how does that relate to White House emails and the crimes of the Bush administration?
Alright, I'll address it anyhow.
1)Israel was being attacked by rouge elements of Hamas that the Palestinian government was unable or unwilling to control. How many Israeli citizens do you think should have died before they went in there and stopped the Palestinians from building and firing rockets?
2)I am Jewish by heritage and am acutely aware that some people would kill me for the shape of my nose and texture of my hai
Oh hey, but Obama should have his Blackberry (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Obama will be sure to properly archive all of his emails...and SMS messages...
Seperation of Powers & Impeachment (Score:2, Informative)
Lawsuit versus Impeachment (Score:2, Informative)
The people have the right to sue the executive branch. The venue for such suit is naturally the courts. In that case, it is indeed the prerogative of a judge to resolve the suit according to law.
Impeachment is a different beast entirely, which could result in actual punishment instead of just forcing them to hand over their documents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right... (Score:3, Interesting)
All I have to say is good luck with that...
Fight or Flight (Score:4, Informative)
Review IT architecture of (the late) Mike Connell for the GOP:
Read the links, Videos with Spoonamore, another GOP IT Guru.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F23%2F2128209 [slashdot.org]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJi7ViN35O8 [youtube.com]
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Foul_play_not_suspected_in_GOP_0113.html [rawstory.com]
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/ [velvetrevolution.us]
You telling me Systems people don't do backups?
Thought not.
Honest question (Score:2, Interesting)
Do they have to retain all spam messages too? If not, who determines what is spam and what isn't?
pfft... (Score:2)
What do you want....a body? He confessed - that's how this thing came to light...case closed.
Perfect Defense (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Another cliched punchline from the outgoing admin. Why am I too tired to laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point of this order is to try and recover emails from third party sources. Maybe someone to/from whom some of the emails were sent had their mail client set to cache IMAP messages, and then had a new hard drive installed, so the old drive still exists somewhere with the messages they were privvy to.