White House Ordered to Preserve All Email

Verunks writes "A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether e-mails have been destroyed in violation of federal law. The issue surfaced in the leak probe of administration officials who disclosed Valerie Plame's CIA identity. ' The Federal Records Act details strict standards prohibiting the destruction of government documents including electronic messages, unless first approved by the archivist of the United States. Justice Department lawyers had urged the courts to accept a proposed White House declaration promising to preserve all backup tapes. The judge's order "should stop any future destruction of e-mails, but the White House stopped archiving its e-mail in 2003 and we don't know if some backup tapes for those e-mails were already taped over before we went to court. It's a mystery," said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for the National Security Archive.'"

Comments

Check with AT&T?

[Lost Penguin]

Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

Re:Check with AT&T?

[pla]

Since AT&T has been spying on everyone since spring of 2000, why not ask them for copies of Whitehouse and NRC.com emails?

Whoever modded this "funny" clearly doesn't "get" it.

+5 "insightful (and scary as hell)", not "funny".

Re:Check with AT&T?

[pla]

Especially since if they started in spring 2000, it was under Clinton's authority.

Defensive much?

I don't give a damn about whether Bush or Clinton or Mahatma frickin' Gandhi started the domestic wiretapping program. I just care that it exists, an affront to everything America stands (or rather, "stood") for. Like torture, any debate over the "legality" of it misses the point completely.

As for your curious defense of TweedleDum(R) over TweedleDee(D), I also don't care that Bush calls himself a Republican. Clinton? Scum of the Earth, and I wouldn't let him within 50 yards of a female relative; through Janet Reno, he singlehandedly destroyed the last shred of respect people had for the DOJ.

But Bush??? Personally, I would consider him the single worst, and the least Republican, president in US history - And I include FDR, "The Great Socialist" in that comparison. Republicans (claim to) believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and minding their own business to the point of isolationism; Bush has racked up a debt that dwarfs his predecessors; made the government bigger and more intrusive than ever; and followed a foreign policy of busybody-ism resulting in massively decreased security for not just us but the whole world.

And you want to view it as a game of left-vs-right? We may as well argue about who has the nicer cufflinks.

Our government, regardless of meaningless party affiliations, has declared war against its own citizens. If you think it cares which letter, D or R, appears on your driver's license - Well, enjoy your false sense of security while it lasts.



As an aside, the letter that appears on my driver's license might surprise you. So do me the credit of having a better argument than whining that "Clinton did it first", hoping that I'll have no comeback to that, as though it excuses anything.

White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

She said she has seen some news reports that some court has ordered the White House to preserve all emails, mails and such records. But she has checked her emails just a minute ago and there is no such order there.

Re:White House spokeswoman clarifies.

[dpilot]

The mistake is in the words "your mail." It's not Bush's or Cheney's email, it belongs the the USA, and it needs to be kept in accordance with US records retention policies.

When you're at work, you keep or delete email based on your employer's records retention policies, not your own whims.

When you're at home, go ahead and do as you like.

Unfortunately...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Unfortunately, the court order was sent via email, and was filtered along with all judicial and legislative correspondence, directly to the Trash.

And so it continues...

Careful what freedoms we give away

[DuncanE]

Firstly I would like to state I'm not an American citizen (I'm Australian).

I have always felt that freedom is better served by people hiding their truths.

No one... not even democracy.. has the right to ask someone to hand over their private thoughts. Not even if they are in a written letter. Not even if they are in an electronic email. Not even if that person is a President of a country.

So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So while I understand if people what to read George W's email to the Vice-Pres, I have to point out the GW's email to his daughters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law and ... to the fullest extent of humanity. Easy peasy. Don't use official systems for personal business. The taxpayers are the owners of the government systems, so if the president doesn't like the rules for using our equipment, he can get another job.

Re:Careful what freedoms we give away

[slapout]

"Don't use official systems for personal business."

I think that probably covers everyone on Slashdot.

Already the case?

[necro81]

I suppose there is nothing wrong with the White House being directed to preserve emails, given their past history. However, one would think that the Presidential Records Act would already force them to preserve any email that might have evidentiary value (see the third bullet down on the link).

On the other hand, a Bush Executive Order in late 2001 seems to allow almost anything from the President's or VP's office to be made off limits:

...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers...

Hopefully, this loophole can be closed and tighter retention policies put in place, not just for this case, but for all Presidential Papers. To put the Administration's opacity in perspective, Bush's executive order on this subject superceded one put in place by Reagan, and seeks to undermine a law put in place in response to Nixon.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[innerweb]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Once more, the oft quoted post is more tragic than humorous. I doubt the individuals controlling the White House will actually listen to a Judge any more than they pay attention to the constitution. This will probably spur them into a deletion frenzy. They will probably simply find another way to communicate that has less of a trail.

It is kind of like making it illegal to own guns or use encryption. The criminals never listen anyway.

InnerWeb

Two accounts

[Etrias]

Remember folks, there are two accounts that we should consider here. As there is an executive order to preserve all "official" communication, the White House emails are likely not that hard to get as they would be breaking federal law if they deleted those emails.

However, the likelihood of what they are looking for are actually in the RNC emails, those are the ones that should be under federal order not to be destroyed. The current administration (under the direction of Karl Rove) was directed to have most of their communication about political strategy (under which the whole Plame event would have qualified) to be routed through RNC accounts.

Bush, of course, does not use email. As loath as I am to say so, if he wanted to be secret, not using email is a pretty good way to achieve the lack of culpability for any political shenanigans.

Two words, Executive Privilege

[plopez]

Whenever there is misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, corruption or sheer incompetence you can almost guarantee that a President will hide behind "Executive Privilege". Which I challenge you to find anywhere in the US Constitution, it in fact does not exist. They will use "Executive Privilege" to ignore the courts and grab more power for the Presidency. It is for reasons such as this that I have come to believe that the Constitution must be amended and the office of the Presidency abolished. It is simply too much power in the hands of one person, with the temptation to seize even more power.

However I see the chances of this happening as slim to know, as many people not only desire a President but actually a King or Emperor. In their world view, they need to see somebody "in charge", even if that person is a travesty.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[purpledinoz]

What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.

Re:I'm afraid they're too late

[Chris Burke]

What's the point of this lawsuit anyway. If there's a conviction, then there'll be a pardon shortly after. No one's going to get punished, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.

Getting the facts out into the open. Yes it would be nice if lawbreakers were punished for breaking the law but as we've seen sometimes that's practically impossible. In lieu of that, we can look for a conviction in the court of public opinion, a decision no pardon can reverse -- see Nixon. Or Scooter Libby for that matter. Scooter's conviction was damaging to the administration and the Republican party. If we can score even more solid dirt on someone as high or higher up than Scooter was, that would be even more damaging.

That's a reason for them to stop breaking the law -- getting people to believe that these are lawbreakers and can't be trusted in office. Irreparable damage to political careers may not be as satisfying as jail time, but it is something. The fear of losing elections should help keep the rest of them in line. For a while anyway. I know how this goes. But if you don't do anything, just throw up your hands and say there's no point, then you've done worse than a token gesture of dissatisfaction, you've given tacit permission.

Re:Way too late

[jackpot777]

Meh! The Clinton administration did plenty of shredding too. Not to mention how he let OBL go when he could have nabbed him.

Googled August 20, 1998

Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," Clinton pounded the bejesus out of al Qaeda locations. Note: Iraq was not on the list. Note: Taliban released a report confirming that OBL wasn't killed, despite our efforts.

So what was the response to this attempt to nab him?

Glad you asked.

But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."

Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."

And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."

Not some bystanders. Not some pundits. Senators. Saying that maybe OBL was "diversionary motivation". Saying that trying to nab him put "a cloud" over the presidency. Brushing it off as "this issue." You might have noticed which side of the political divide they're all on.

You know: you can listen to as much spin and lies and distortion as you like, but it's not going to alter the past no matter how much you repeat it. You don't redefine the history that's already written, and viewable with just the easiest of Google searches, by repeating a lie. You can watch all the dramatic made-for-TV pieces you like that try to rewrite history to your liking ...but it's nowt next to the established timeline. To fact. To how things really happened, and were reported as such AT THE TIME.

Either live in reality, or keep your delusions to yourself.

Cheers.

Re:Way too late

[jackpot777]

Just wanted to point out something. Disclaimer: I have voted for Tony Blair, and have never voted Conservative Party.

The parent of my answer started in this thread with dismissiveness. I've seen it used before by many others as a tactic to downplay the gravity of a situation they don't wish people to openly discuss, especially when it comes to politics (and in this case, American politics). It gets marked as funny, fair enough. But +3? Really?

The post I specifically answered mentioned one historically inaccurate sleight concerning Slick Willy Clinton in that he didn't go after OBL. This post, a few minutes ago, was at +3. I showed, with no error, he did. I countered with two links. Both from the same week in 1998. One showing Clinton going after OBL, the second one showing the lack of support the American C-in-C received from 'across the aisle', as they'd say in Washington.

This was marked down one point before being marked +1 for informative.

Disagreeing with me politically? Makes the world go around. But seriously: if you think that fellow geeks, or history, or myself, will think the facts are anything other than the facts because I get marked down by a few people with a conservative American political agenda on Slashdot? Good luck with that. How's that working for you in Iraq and possibly Iran?

Hell, I'd accept a Flamebait for this clarification as justification of just how much many Americans (and some are in this forum) will dismiss cited facts because of the cognitive dissonance it sets up in their minds, if it strokes their poor delicate and shattered egos. It's not as though that mental process is particularly complex.