Slashdot Mirror

The courts are one of the three arms of government , you imbecile.

The first amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law . . ."

The courts are not Congress. Imbecile. ;)

Wow, you're so thick you can't even read your own links, can you? It's funny because of how it repeatedly harps on "the legal issues involved in conducting official government business using partisan email accounts," and how they had to make sure "no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered". But those words just keep bouncing of your thick skull.

I'm sure it's too much to ask, but you could try reading and understanding the Presidential Records Act which Bush was running afoul of. Free clue for the clueless: "Personal records" are distinct from "Presidential records" and not subject to the requirements of the law.

The law itself says: You're ignorant and wrong.

But go on, thinking every Presidential communication is considered a national security risk no matter to who or on what subject.

Because obviously any time the President makes a phone call to a friend or relative, even if they are in Africa, just to say hi, the spooks deliver a special encrypted phone to that person prior to the call. Oh wait, no they don't. That's your imagination.

Also, Obama still has his Blackberry, an actual Blackberry.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and are filling in the gaps with an overactive imagination.

until 1913?

Actually the US had an income tax before 1913. You must be thinking of the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which authorized an income tax. However there was an income tax that was used to pay for the Civil War. Between $600 and $10,000 the tax was 3%, above $10,000 it was 5%. In 1864 the income was lowered and tax raised, below $5,000 the tax was 5% and over $5000 it was 10%. This income tax was not repealed until 1872.

Falcon

Do you have a citation or link for these claims, or are you just making it up as you go along?

Yes, there are a number of executive orders that modern presidents sign on Day 1. It's both symbolic of the direction they want to go, and to get things moving in their direction.

"billions each for free abortions and voter fraud groups."

Executive orders are official documents of the United States, and are recorded. I realize that it's almost certainly out of date, but something similar to what is at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2009-obama.html might be useful. Which one of these gave billions for the subjects above?

The whitehouse.gov archive is hosted by the National Archives at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/

Erm, Slashdot ate my link. That'll learn me not to pay attention to the preview.

The National Archives has preserved the whole final state of the Bush White House site here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/

I prefer the more easily-remembered URL: http://miserable-failure.archive.gov/

The National Archives has versions up of all the Clinton White House pages. Here's one [nara.gov]. I'm sure they'll get around to doing the same for Bush eventually.

They're already ahead of you.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/

The National Archives has preserved the whole final state of the Bush White House site here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/

The US National Archives for Preservation and Archives Professionals page contains much information, including that which is specific to time capsules.

Northeast Document Conservation Center is another good resource with guidance pertaining to specific types of materials.

NIST's PDF guide Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs contains best-practices for optical media storage/handling.

The US National Archives for Preservation and Archives Professionals page contains much information, including that which is specific to time capsules.

Northeast Document Conservation Center is another good resource with guidance pertaining to specific types of materials.

NIST's PDF guide Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs contains best-practices for optical media storage/handling.

Bush's people were VERY busy making sure nothing that wasn't supposed to be there would be hanging around for the Obama people to come across.

I bet Cheney himself had a staff of twelve running shredders continuously for the last week...

But there's always something that gets missed. If even a quarter of the rumors and accusations that have flooded around over the last few years are true, I'm sure a few skeletons will be discovered in the darker closets of the white house in the next 4-10 months.

I find the very act of spending your last minutes anywhere trying to do a thorough job of "burying the evidence" etc to be a cowardly, shameless act. For the office of the presidency, it takes it to an all new low. I would personally like to see some new legislation put in place that would put some teeth into the Presidential Records Act that would make such "last minute cleanup" in the white house unarguably illegal.

The office of the President of the United States should be 100% transparent. That person is our representative to the world, and there is simply no excuse for this behavior.

The line in question is the "so help me god" at the end of the swearing in speech for new presidents, which is in the constitution.

No it's not. At least, not on my copy, or the copy in the national archives, or any copy I can recall seeing.

There is a reference to the Official motto of the U.S. ("In God we trust") in the (rarely used fourth verse of the) national anthem. But The Star-Spangled Banner was written (with that line included) in 1814. So, no, it was not added later. Not in the 1950s or any other time. This page has an image of Francis Scott Key's original manuscript of the poem which became the anthem. Incidentally, the motto was not made official until 1956, though it began appearing on US currency in the 1860s.

Why would he need to? There are no penalties over the deleted files.

From the Presidential Records Act

Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

John Dean had it right when he called it 'Worse than Watergate'.

As opposed to a "natural" legal right? All legal rights are "unnatural". We make them up to make our society a place worth living.

Perhaps you're not an American, US citizen, but if you are then you need to read Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". Notice where he writes "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are natural. However the Constitution of the USA grants congress to establish copyrights. Because government can grant them they are not rights, as government can grant or deny them they are privileges not rights.

Falcon

As opposed to a "natural" legal right? All legal rights are "unnatural". We make them up to make our society a place worth living.

Perhaps you're not an American, US citizen, but if you are then you need to read Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". Notice where he writes "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are natural. However the Constitution of the USA grants congress to establish copyrights. Because government can grant them they are not rights, as government can grant or deny them they are privileges not rights.

Falcon

Turns out there is 257 Electoral votes that technically, without breaking any laws; could go to anyone.... And given a good enough reason would. The remaining votes are tied to various degrees by legal requirements. see: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

Since you refer to "Freedom of Information Act" I'm assuming you're speaking in an American context.

We already do this. Look here:
United States Library of Congress
The National Archives

Perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but I haven't heard much about involvment by professional preservationists who know how to catalog and preserve the stuff, even in a digital context. I speak of the hardcore phd librarian and historian/librarian hybrid types who know how to do this stuff.

It's called the Presidential Records Act.

(Ah, but what's this? An Executive Order from President George W. Bush? I wonder what that's about...)

It's called the Presidential Records Act.

(Ah, but what's this? An Executive Order from President George W. Bush? I wonder what that's about...)

.
The sniper's weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle.

Range about 300 yards.

The most common weapon was the smooth bore musket and bayonet - next to worthless in civilian hands unless backed up by the mass fire of a full company of militia. You might on your own hit the broad side of a barn.

The French would supply 100,000 by war's end. Tactics and Weapons of the Revolutionary War, Musketfire

On February 2, 1907, field artillery was separated from the Artillery Corps. On that date, the War Department redesignated the "Chief of Artillery" to "Chief of Coast Artillery" (effective July 1, 1908). See section 177.2 here:

Chief of Artillery established as the ranking line officer of the Artillery Corps, consisting of both field and coast artillery, by General Order 9, War Department, February 6, 1901, pursuant to the Army Reorganization Act (31 Stat. 748), February 2, 1901. Redesignated Chief of Coast Artillery, effective July 1, 1908, by General Order 24, War Department, February 2, 1907, pursuant to an act of January 25, 1907 (34 Stat. 861), providing for the separation of the field artillery from the Artillery Corps. Abolished, with functions transferred to Commanding General, Army Ground Forces, effective March 9, 1942, by Circular 59, War Department, March 2, 1942, implementing the reorganization of the army mandated by EO 9082, February 28, 1942.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I applaud your trust, however sadly believe that your attitude is naive. Allow me to explain...its sad because you are doing nothing wrong, you are actually showing a level of trust we all should have in reality. Wouldn't it be nice if you could honestly trust everyone, a person and their word...as it should be. However others do not have our best interest at heart.

We see this with certain entities, governments, churches, societies and corporate cultures come to mind. Remember that only those obsessed with controlling others would use that argument to diminish your freedoms and take away your inalienable rights.

Here is a rational thought..., if they deserved the trust you are placing in them, they would by definition trust you just as much, thus there would NEVER be a reason to take anything away from you. No matter how well meaning or how well their intentions may seem to be. They have their own agenda and for your family's sake don't trust them. Actions do speak LOUDER then words.

Just in making the attempt to deprive you of anything, their actions betray their words!

I prefer innocent until proven guilty. Yes I know good luck with that!

As soon as my kids were old enough to use the internet I told them to be careful what they posted online and consider how it might reflect on them. I showed them an article where an individual had been denied employment due to a picture she posted online while in college. The college aged girl was under the legal drinking age in that state, was holding a plastic cup and the HR person on the show stated that she was not hired as the employer assumed it was an alcoholic beverage. That the underage drinking showed poor judgment on her part. That poor judgment was a risk that the company was unwilling to assume. I don't have the article in front of me at the moment and can not remember if it was just an article or an article and a show. I remember the HR representative stating that 100% of large businesses use networking and community sites to do background searches on applicants. I shared this information with my kids in the hopes they would avoid similar mistakes. And remember there is guilt by association as well.

As for my kids, I simply told them not to post anything online that might embarrass them if their grandmother saw it. Sure it illicit ed a chuckle, more importantly it got the point across.

(They also have heard the story about how their grandma washed my mouth out with soap when I was their age for saying one curse word that she overheard, soap does not taste good.)

I personally believe as did the signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Tough for those that do not believe that their is a creator...that is way off topic!

Too many people give away their freedoms, their rights, their life for nothing. In an ideal society we would have nothing to fear. Being good, fair minded, caring about others, taking personal responsibility, taking care of my family and plain hard work would, should be enough! We really should not have anything to fear but fear itself.

However anything that might make a negative impression on anyone else and impact me financially, preventing me from providing for my family is very much worth hiding. Even if you and I would agree that the information is not objectionable at all.

Let's face it, there is always someone out there that will jump to some unreasonable conclusion about something you and I know is n

It's not just Bush - they all use EOs for good & bad purposes... http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

What are the laws on government email retention?

The Federal government follows standards set by the National Archives and Records Administration. Regulations governing email preservation in particular may be found here.

What are the laws on government email retention?

The Federal government follows standards set by the National Archives and Records Administration. Regulations governing email preservation in particular may be found here.

That's funny, every government employee I know (around 10) regularly sends personal mail from their work accounts

The Federal government certainly allows use of government email accounts for personal matters, as long as certain limits are adhered to. It's the converse which is a problem. Any official communication by Federal management is a public record, and preservation of these records must follow the standards set by the National Archives and Records Administration. Even instant messages are subject to these requirements if they are used for official purposes.

Presumably the state of Alaska has similar requirements.

Did the whole business of Rove &c using non-.gov email for official business last year pass you by?

That's funny, every government employee I know (around 10) regularly sends personal mail from their work accounts

The Federal government certainly allows use of government email accounts for personal matters, as long as certain limits are adhered to. It's the converse which is a problem. Any official communication by Federal management is a public record, and preservation of these records must follow the standards set by the National Archives and Records Administration. Even instant messages are subject to these requirements if they are used for official purposes.

Presumably the state of Alaska has similar requirements.

Did the whole business of Rove &c using non-.gov email for official business last year pass you by?

Out of the total 58,193 dead (American forces), 17,672 were conscripted ( see http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#service )

Since only a few hundred soldiers died before 1963-4, I assume LBJ must have sent a long more conscripts than either Kennedy or Nixon. I can't find the yearly starts for the conscripts though.

Forget Wikipedia, ask the people who spend their lives trying to figure this out.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/digitalmemories.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/technical/guidelines.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/family-archives/digitizing-photos.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/storage/

Forget Wikipedia, ask the people who spend their lives trying to figure this out.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/digitalmemories.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/technical/guidelines.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/family-archives/digitizing-photos.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/storage/

Forget Wikipedia, ask the people who spend their lives trying to figure this out.

http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/digitalmemories.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/technical/guidelines.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/family-archives/digitizing-photos.html

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/storage/

Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution--article III, section 3.

This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."

Didn't follow your own link, did you? File Not Found. Very sloppy of you. It's actually here, by the way. And Executive Order #10289, to which 11110 is simply an amendment, is here

In any case, the existence of 11110 doesn't doesn't prove anything about who killed JFK. At most, it suggests one possible motive.

So again, proof or you're lying.

Executive Order 11110. Have you heard of it?
United States Treasury Notes backed by Silver?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1963-kennedy.html/

According to Section V of the Constitution, The Constitution is the highest law of the land, followed by federal then state laws. So I doubt any impeachment charges could be brought for violating UN policies, unless the U.S. specifiably signed a treaty saying that it would follow that guideline. Though the UN is free to sanction the US.

Yeah

The NSA themselves:

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm

Point to an executive order:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.12

The NSA is a tool for use by the Secretary of Defense:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.12

About half of the people that work for the NSA are military.

I was interested, so I did a quick search...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Trading_Enemy_excerpts.html
http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/bibliographies/trade-with-third-reich.html
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/waryearsp5.html

Looks like I have some reading to do....

Sounds like bullshit to me. See Contacting the Presidential Libraries. It lists the addresses of all the presidential libraries. eg:

• Herbert Hoover http://hoover.archives.gov/
• Franklin D. Roosevelt http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/
• Harry S. Truman http://www.trumanlibrary.org/
• Dwight D. Eisenhower http://eisenhower.archives.gov/
• George H Bush http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/

Most are .edu or .gov, which squatters can't use at all. I guess it's because everyone thinks the have to have a .com. Thus all the presidential candidates have an entirely inappropriate .com site instead of .org for their campaign, for instance. So they can't get "GWBushLibrary.com". Too fucking bad. Get GWBush.archives.gov or a subdomain of whatever institution manages it (probably a .edu).

Sounds like bullshit to me. See Contacting the Presidential Libraries. It lists the addresses of all the presidential libraries. eg:

• Herbert Hoover http://hoover.archives.gov/
• Franklin D. Roosevelt http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/
• Harry S. Truman http://www.trumanlibrary.org/
• Dwight D. Eisenhower http://eisenhower.archives.gov/
• George H Bush http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/

Most are .edu or .gov, which squatters can't use at all. I guess it's because everyone thinks the have to have a .com. Thus all the presidential candidates have an entirely inappropriate .com site instead of .org for their campaign, for instance. So they can't get "GWBushLibrary.com". Too fucking bad. Get GWBush.archives.gov or a subdomain of whatever institution manages it (probably a .edu).

Sounds like bullshit to me. See Contacting the Presidential Libraries. It lists the addresses of all the presidential libraries. eg:

• Herbert Hoover http://hoover.archives.gov/
• Franklin D. Roosevelt http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/
• Harry S. Truman http://www.trumanlibrary.org/
• Dwight D. Eisenhower http://eisenhower.archives.gov/
• George H Bush http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/

Most are .edu or .gov, which squatters can't use at all. I guess it's because everyone thinks the have to have a .com. Thus all the presidential candidates have an entirely inappropriate .com site instead of .org for their campaign, for instance. So they can't get "GWBushLibrary.com". Too fucking bad. Get GWBush.archives.gov or a subdomain of whatever institution manages it (probably a .edu).

We read with interest your postings on this topic. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has posted background information regarding our web harvest decision at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/nwm13-2008-brief.html. This background document includes links to our guidance products related to web records and the decisionmaking process we went through to arrive at our decision. Paul M. Wester, Jr. Director, Modern Records Programs National Archives and Records Administration

I thought the whole constitution had no application to the whole government?

After all, isn't it just a scrap of paper?

No, actually Bush was wrong about that, too. The US Constitution was written on parchment, not paper.

The Bush crowd just can't get anything right. ;-)

(To further confuse matters, replicas of the Constitution are commonly printed on "parchment paper", which is a kind of paper treated to superficially resemble parchment. But the original was on true parchment, made from stretched animal skin. A quick google search didn't turn up info on what sort of animal it was made from, though presumably that's known.)