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."

Comments

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...

Re:Recycling

[Sandbags]

Wait, so what you're saying is that according to research that magnetic data tapes, like those used in our servers, have a mean bit failure rate of just 90 days? I thought these things lasted 50 years! What do you mean that's been common knowledge in the IT industry for more than 10 years? It appears we have been misled by our intelligence networ... oops, can't admit that... If I did it would mean we're guilty of going to war illegally, which is the whole reason we're hiding those tapes! erm, I mean... Oh crap.

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 they somewhat admitted that they were lost not destroyed), then they've broken the Presidential Records Act. 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. Amazing how a little oversight uncovers so much dirt...

Re:Expected answer

[TubeSteak]

Alberto-i-do-not-recall-Gonzales
http://www.google.com/search?q="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.

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:Expected answer

[erick99]

As cynical as that sounds - it's exactly what I would do. Technology has made it very easy to get tagged for just about anything.

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

[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:Expected answer

[Cr0vv]

How could anyone disagree with your comment? Still, so much evil has been taking place, 'they' will be under much pressure within to come up with some reason and possibly trip over this one. They are Dirty, Dirty; and may not be able to form a united front around this issue; Much rot & infection will come oozing if somebody pokes deep enough. Crow.

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:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

And how about Clinton? I don't remember this left-wing echo chamber being up in arms about this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they learned it from Clinton

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

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.

Re:Expected answer

[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 the mount anti-libertarian nonsense that shows up whenever a scapling thread exists.

Re:Expected answer

[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

[msuarezalvarez]

And that makes it OK in your mind?

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Same bullshit, different administration. The left tries to act like this is a new phenomenon, when it's just business as usual in Washington. Nothing will change when Jorack Rodham McClintbama is elected in November.

Re:Expected answer

[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.

Re:Expected answer

[Protonk]

Fair enough.

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:Expected answer

[msuarezalvarez]

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

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

Maybe they learned it from Clinton

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/ 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 could not gain power by winning elections, so they are trying to do it through the courts because their lust for power is greater than their respect for the will of the people.

Oh, and the Republicans were not much better in the '90's, but at least they didn't follow through with it. Otherwise, NY would have a different Senator and Bill would be in a blue collar prison somewhere provided that he wasn't pardoned, of course.

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:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless he does something really evil, like having sex with an intern and then lie under oath about it.

There ... fixed that for you.

Re:Expected answer

[RetroRichie]

Dick Cheney doesn't care about the Presidential Records Act. That's the least of our problems. He doesn't care about any of his legal responsibilities, or even the constitution. He will chalk all of this illegal behavior up to "his interpretation of the rules," and he has consolidated so much power in the executive brand nobody can touch him (and of course, Mr. Bush). These documents will be destroyed years before the Democratic congress can repair the damage that has been done by this administration, but hopefully lessons were learned and this will never happen again.

This is what happens when there's a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Congress lets him run free and completely ignores their oversight responsibilities, acting like lords and barons in a monarchy, knowing they'll get kick-backs from the king. Don't believe me? Guess how many times in six years the Republican-controlled Congress subpoenaed the Bush administration for potential executive abuses? Yeah, zero. In contrast, Clinton's administration was subpoenaed over 1000 times.

Our government is completely broken... worrying about emails with a blow-by-blow description about how the system of checks and balances in this country got destroyed is a waste of time; We need to look at these last eight years on a macro level and make sure through legislation that this disaster never happens again.

Re:Expected answer

[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 mail server gated to the Internet through another system. They had a system in place that was intended to archive all the emails but failed in a way that corrupted the data. They then spent 18 months recovering the data. No evidence of wrongdoing was uncovered as a result.

The question at issue in that instance was the question of whether the vice president was soliciting funds in a federal building if he was to make a fundraising phone call from the Vice President's official residence.

One question at issue here is whether the Attorney General, the President and his staff conspired to pervert the course of justice. Amongst other means by corruptly soliciting unsupported prosecutions of political opponents and by corruptly suppressing prosecutions of political allies by terminating the employment of the prosectors working on their cases. In every case the prosecutors who were fired had either brought a prosecution against a major Republican party figure (Cunningham, Ney), were about to bring a prosecution against a major Republican figure (Jerry Lewis) or had refused to bring trumped up prosecutions of Democrats on ballot rigging charges. All the GOP cases brought against Democrats on those particular charges were since dismissed. There is one outstanding case where a Democrat was convicted in a case where the judge appears to have been corrupt as well.

Another question at issue is how the country was got into a war that has cost $2 trillion, 4,000 US servicemen's lives on claims that have since been found to be utterly untrue.

It is not just the emails that have disappeared. The executive branch has invented a new doctrine whereby it is no longer accountable to Congress.

There are no criminal sanctions for breaking the Presidential Records Act but there are political sanctions and there are criminal sanctions for lying to Congress or refusing to testify to Congress. Today two members of the administration were held in contempt by Congress. If as it threatens to do, the Administration refuses to prosecute we might well see the first use of inherent contempt in living memory. Under the Constitution the House can order the Sargeant at Arms to arrest the contemnors and bring them to the House to testify.

Looks like that is a little more serious than anything that was ever claimed, let alone proven during the Clinton years.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time Bush ever lied under oath was when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution.

Yeah ... remember how he rounded up and imprisoned thousands of American citizens? No wait, that was FDR.
Well how about when he appointed his brother US Attorney General? Damn, that was JFK.
I'm sure there were extensive illegal surveillance of private US citizens... Wait, I'm thinking of RFK keeping tabs on MLK.
Then there was the blaming of everything on Israel... oops, that was Jimmy Carter.
We can't forget about Carnivore and Eschelon. What's that? Those were Clinton projects?

I'm confused. What was your point about Bush and upholding the Constitution?

Re:Expected answer

[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 agree with everything else you've said.

Re:Expected answer

[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. But if he didn't take the actions he did, he wouldn't have ever been impeached for lieing to a court (note having sex). And given the situation we are in today with bush, I wish lieing to a court was looked at more seriously. But that's the legacy of Clinton for you.

Re:Expected answer

[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)

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:Expected answer

[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 years to develop better methods of dealing with things.

Re:Expected answer

[RetroRichie]

(I am particularly upset about the ridiculousness of the Republican walkout today. You're lucky I didn't pull a Howard Dean. Should have just gone to bed.)

Re:Expected answer

[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, looks like he was right.

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

It is interesting that your post has been moderated overrated this early. I mean it seems to have been less then 15 minutes from when you made it (assuming I'm in the same times zone as what is represented by the time stamp on the post).

You made a lot of claims that are so true including the comment about hyper-partisanship so I am basically replying to stop your post from being buried under everything and going unnoticed. The overrated mod is generally used for that reason. I think this has something to do with meta-moderation where it isn't offered as soon or at all and won't be undone or corrected by the meta-modders

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Bush is a rich, white male who takes care of all his buddies. While I am not getting any favors from him, I know that by working hard, I can make a pretty good living for myself and my family.

Obama, on the other hand, will make sure that the likes of me will end up owing everything to the government so that the nanny state can provide welfare to a bunch of worthless jitbags who sit on their asses screaming "GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE", spitting out kids from different estranged fathers, and not doing any work because it is "beneath them".

Our society has only flourished up until recently because it was composed mainly of "givers" as opposed to "takers". Those that "took" did so as a last resort and felt the stigma of doing so. Now we have generations of "takers" who feel no shame and consider it proper to be nothing but leeches ... gaming the system to get as much as they can without giving and ounce back; even going so far to believe that they deserve the handouts. Obama's vision steals from the givers and rewards the takers simply because they are lazy slobs who "deserve more".

You are right. Obama is not the same as Bush.

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. 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. 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:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[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, why a much larger fuss would have been justified.

Re:Expected answer

[errxn]

What, real information, you mean like the sort of reliable, unbiased journalism we can expect from sites like commondreams.org and thinkprogress.org?

Umm...yeah, I think I'll pass, thanks.

Re:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[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 Democrats. Instead, it seems that it is the other way around.
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction and lead up to the Iraq war. I have two words for this. Slam Dunk. The war happened. We are winning. Get over it already!
3) Leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press. I thought this was over. It was Armitage, not Libbey who leaked the name. Why are we all over this again.

Besides, Bush is out of office in less than a year. For the love of the country, stop beating this dead horse. You people hate Bush more than you love America. We got it. You've made your point clear. Seriously. Do you think America will be stronger if all leading Republicans are frog-marched? Or will it help these people on their little march to power and let them have the satisfaction of knowing that they took down the mighty Bush at the cost of the country.

It's over already. Hell, it's been over for over seven years. Be good loser, shake the other teams hands and say, "good game". Now go hang your Cuban-Che flags and campaign for Obama.

Re:Expected answer

[errxn]

Thank you for so completely missing the point. Those sources aren't CNN or ABC or the New York Times, et al. They are ADMITTEDLY liberal media sources. Too bad that you were too busy deciding that I'm a Rush listener and breaking out Protonk's Big Box of Ad Hominem Attacks to actually read what I was saying.

Re:Expected answer

[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 are in worse shape than they were in 2000. It seems that the Clintons are the ones making all the money.... Tell me how I'm the deluded one again?

Re:Expected answer

[Kenrod]

Or lying under oath.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Right or wrong, it was the voters who did that. In a democracy, the people sometimes do something that you'll disagree with. Suck it up.

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:Expected answer

[Tablizer]

but Congress isn't going to impeach W.

Impeachment proceedings take so long that it would not be worth it. They wouldn't likely finish by the end of W's term, and consume a lot of resources and attention in the process that may be better spent on other topics. While I'd like to see W get what he deserves, I must admit it is about revenge and anger instead of practicalities. (Although, one could argue it should be done anyhow has an object lesson to future prez's.)

Re:Expected answer

[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 because they worked for an R and he had his own cronies to move in. Not that I'm saying that's wrong. A Prez should have whatever attorneys he wants in there. But don't try to make up some bullshit about how Bush is an asshole because he didn't fire his attorney's quickly enough.

Re:Expected answer

[origin2k]

It would be poetic justice if the warrantless wire taps by AT&T and others preserved the very data that is suppose to be lost.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

I don't think overrated makes it to metamoderation. I metamoderate at least six times a week, and I've never seen it. I think that is why it is used. It is the moderator's way of saying, "WoW! That is an excellent point and a well formed argument. It is so good that, even though it goes against my biased viewpoints, I can not refute it. All I can do is mod it down. I have to use the overrated downmod because if I use anything else, a metamoderator will surely meta-mod it "unfair""

Re:Expected answer

[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 really care if you are a rush listener or not. I also don't care if you have looked up Ad hominem enough on wikipedia to feel comfortable using it in conversation. When people say things like "liberal media" as a means to discount factual information, I have learned that they are usually operating from a standpoint of ignorance.

I know what the clinton whitehouse did. I know what the clintons did before getting to DC. I don't feel that those 8 years were good ones for politics. I feel that a number (though not most) of their policy decisions were bad and I feel that they continued down the same line of expansionist imperial executive thinking that continued into the bush administration. I feel that the clinton's shared mendacity cost this nation many things, not least among them the political capital to impeach bush in his second term.

None of this somehow equates the two email scandals or the scandals of the two presidencies. I really don't care WHO you are, as long as you aren't willfully ignorant, you can't help but see the bush administration as demonstrably worse on all accounts. WE may actually never know how bad they were, as republican loyalties run deep and there arne't likely to be substantive tell all stories. Regardless, this email fiasco is a small subset of the wreckage of our democracy wraught by the gang in charge--the real mess isn't likely to be sorted out with a change in the guard.

Re:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[10101001 10101001]

Try to stay on topic, please:

That seems fair enough.

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)

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.

I see, so it sounds like Clinton and Bush did more or less precisely the same thing (although the former is too vague to be exactly sure).

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

Wow, you know, you've just went amazingly off-topic. Why, gosh, it's a good thing you didn't just ask someone else to stay on-topic. Otherwise, you'd look like a hypocrite.

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.

Right, so when Bush loses emails, it's to protect the country. When Clinton loses emails, it's part of a blackmailing politicial enemy scheme. Or, wait, is that part of your off-topic analysis? Because if you really want to go off-topic, then you'd better go back to refute the original points made about what Bush has done to draw a comparison. Otherwise, you sound like as much of a hack as the person you're critiquing.

Re:Expected answer

[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, but, when your post is a deliberate troll or even an unintentional red herring (they are often indistinguishable), some harsh treatment by mods shouldn't be any kind of surprise.

Re:Expected answer

[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 new party platform - that was written by the Bush administration when it first came into power - with out a fuss, when it obviously was 180 degrees away from the platform they ran on in 1996, yes. That would be a breach of trust between that official and every single one of his constituents. Not that there seems to be much complaint from the sheeple of our country, who think "Republican" or "Democrat" is a set of ideals, not a constantly changing hive mind.

Oh, and "Taking down Bush" would go a long way towards bringing our country back to glory. NO ONE is above the law, even if there are separate laws for certain groups. I won't be truly happy until a few of our top brass and government officials are charged no only for their disregard for US law, but with War Crimes for the way we've handled enemy soldiers and civilians, and how we have broken international treaties.

...and Fuck posting this AC, if I have to I'll proudly take a Karma hit for my ideas/ideals.

Re:Expected answer

[permaculture]

It's a shame posts can only be modded up to +5.

Re:Expected answer

[Seiruu]

Like the Clintons didn't fire anyone? They fired all the lawyers as soon as they took office, 100% of them. Interesting how you mention that he fired them at the beginning of his term (as customary) while you conveniently forgot to mention that on the topic of how bush did it way in his presidency a couple posts up. I would say it is normal for presidents to choose whom they feel comfortable working with. And if you don't think the lawyers have such things as RECORDS for which they can be checked whether they qualify for that or not, then /. may not be the place for you to hang out.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150001

"But while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, observed, "It is customary for a President to replace U.S. attorneys at the beginning of a term." Gerson added that "Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General." -------------

They didn't even give them a chance to prove their worth or even review their qualifications. Interesting, but when democrats try to find out why they got fired way in his presidency, you called it a "witch hunt". Hypocrite much?

It's funny when people don't see their own hyperpartisanship You are right, that IS kind of funny :)

Re:Expected answer

[SgtChaireBourne]

... When you mess with the Presidential Records Act, you're messing with the entire National Archives system. ...

Except that the Bush administration replaced the head of NARA with a more obedient, political appointee. Presumably that is to ensure that key records find ways not to be around when requested.

Sure, we have all the tapes. Yep, stored exactly as specified, retensioned, the whole nine yards. Yep, 68 degrees, 38% humidity. Oh? No, you mean 68 degrees Fahrenheit? Oops, sorry about that.

That's just with the physical medium. Giving records the wrong or mispelled descriptor (aka tag or keyword) will hide them in a database or catalog nicely. Or it will prevent them from being earmarked for longer storage, etc.

Re:Expected answer

[KDR_11k]

Ah, the good old "it doesn't count because someone else did it too" argument.

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

Impeachment proceedings take so long that it would not be worth it.

Not at all. They could have him impeached and removed from office in a matter of minutes, for we had more than enough evidence to remove him from office three years ago. And that's just from the stuff they've proudly admitted to, and say they will keep doing if necessary: torture and warrantless wiretapping.

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

Or lying under oath.

Too bad Clinton didn't lie then. Besides, nothing has proved Republicans to be full of shit about "lying under oath" than Scooter Libby. Some of the same Republicans (like Fred Thompson) that voted to impeach Clinton also called for a pardon for Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson). Some even called passionately for the "rule of law" in the same speech that they also passionately called for a pardon of Scooter Libby (like Fred Thompson).

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

They didn't prosecute Clinton for the sex, they prosecuted him for lying under oath.

No, they prosecuted him because they wanted to prosecute him, because he didn't lie.

Re:Expected answer

[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 my sole point.

BTW, modding something overrated to bury it's presentation without the chance of metamods correcting it is the chicken shit way of modding. If it really was a troll, it should have been marked that way. There has been sort of a conspiracy to do nothing but hide decent to the populist opinion or the opinion being pushed as the populist opinion. They do that with using over/under rating because of the lack of oversight.

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

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.

That's the right wing story alright. But as is usually the case, the right wing's story and reality have little in common. Short story: unless you could read Clinton's mind, there's no way you could know if he lied. And even if he did lie through his teeth about Monica, it wasn't perjury since it would have to be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge ruled that whatever happened between Clinton and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case.

And nothing proves the right wing to be full of shit on the subject of perjury than Scooter Libby. Its the same as how terrible avoiding the draft was and how important military service was when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, compared to when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore and Kerry. But then, if they weren't massive hypocrites, they wouldn't be Republicans now would they?

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

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

Easy. First impeach Cheney (you can't pardon someone who's been impeached) and then impeach Bush before confirming a replacement VP.

Then Pelosi takes office as President, and to prove that it wasn't a partisan power grab she appoints an independent big on accountability to be Vice President, then resigns herself and gets back in the House in a special election.

Re:Expected answer

[Scudsucker]

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

Huh, and I was just talking about wingnut hypocrisy, too. You talk about how Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he didn't do) 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. You need to be taken out back and pistol whipped for being intolerably full of shit. Repeatedly.

Re:Expected answer

[kellyb9]

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. Amazing So? I use my gmail account all the time at work.

Re:Expected answer

[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:Expected answer

[gravis777]

If they lost them, which they couldn't have (and after Senator Leahy called them out on this they somewhat admitted that they were lost not destroyed), then they've broken the Presidential Records Act. Looks like you did not read all of the Wikipedia article you posted. On November 1, 2001, President Bush signed an ammendment to the Presidential Records Act, known as Executive Order 13233.

Executive Order 13233 limits access to the records of former U.S. Presidents: ...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, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases... Also

Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (United States) (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents. So in case i am reading this wrong, under the PRA that you are refering to 1) information is not released until 5 years after Bush would retire from office (January of 2014?), he can post specific restrictions for up to 12 years (2021), and if it has to with the military (hmmm, would think that the Iraq war would have anything to do with the military, diplomatic or national security secrets), then is not required to be released under the PRA.

While there has been moves in both the house and the senate to revoke executive order 13233, it is still law. The bill has threatened to be vetoed by Bush, which they could override with a with a majority veto-override vote. However this takes time. As such, the White House, in refrence to e-mails regarding the Iraqi war, currently does not have release anything pertaining to the war to the public. You could probably go one step futher and say that it is, in effect, okay for the White House to delete such records, as they are never required to release them. Even if the act gets revoked, you cannot go back and restore what has already been destroied.

Re:Expected answer

[The Spoonman]

Without that card, you can still get in to see the Constitution

On behalf of Gee, Dubya, let me ask the question: "What the hell is the Consitution and why would I care about it?"

Re:Expected answer

[GodfatherofSoul]

Executive orders are not law and have ZERO bearing on law. This is one of the BS legacies of the Bush administration; he thinks he has the right to decide what and how to enforce our laws. This in itself is impeachable to me, but unfortunately there's too high a percentage of Conservatives who still think he's a great guy for impeachment to remove him from office.

Re:Expected answer

[Captain Splendid]

Where's my -1 "I'm a complete moron with nothing to say so I'll make a completely useless comment about how I use my personal email at work too, so it must be OK if the president and his friends do it" moderation option?

I really don't understand you parsing idiots. You contribute nothing but chaff and think you're so clever and centrist. Die slowly.

Re:Expected answer

[Captain Splendid]

So, are you saying it doesn't matter whether they have the email or not because of the unsophistication of the request mechanism, or are you saying, doesn't matter if they they don't have them, they probably do, we just have to look harder?

Re:Expected answer

[Captain Splendid]

No, but it proves that the Democrats are just on a partisan based witch-hunt.

PROOF! Awesome!

Dipshit.

blindly supported the last president

You're right, I never heard one Dem criticism of Clinton EVAR.

Wait a minute, maybe you're not stupid, maybe you're just lazy?

Oh, and the Republicans were not much better in the '90's, but at least they didn't follow through with it.

BWAHAHAHAHA. Oh, I get it. You're fucking insane!

Re:Expected answer

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

This is not so terrible a fate. Just ask Sandy Berger.

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:Expected answer

[kellyb9]

wow - you really dont understand sarcasm... welcome to slashdot!

Re:Expected answer

[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 depends on what would happen if someone found the email. I don't think anyone involved will not be under the impression that merely finding it would imply a sort of guilt by association. For example, suppose someone did find the email. Questions will follow, e.g. 'where did you find it?', 'how did you find it?', and then move on to 'why didn't you find it earlier?'. What would then happen is a search on the employee's record for any suggestion of a history of impropriety, with a view to establishing whether it's possible to scapegoat that employee when it's time to go public by saying 'X was untrustworthy - it was his fault - officials are investigating the authenticity of the alleged email in the light of the way it was discovered and the official responsible, etc.'

In summary, if nobody has any personal advantage in finding the email, then the mechanism for 'searching' for it will first involve making it generally understood that this is an 'important' email and its content may have implications for senior people (to make individuals anxious about the limelight falling on them in a negative way), and then a lax method of searching for the email will be deployed (i.e. literally asking people to do a quick 5-minute check and then give an assurance that they don't have it). This way, managers are covered. Everyone will understand that if the email is found, the press office and policy unit will have sole responsibility for producing a cover story, and heads will have to roll. And when on board a ship, some levels are more expendable than others - ultimately the bridge and the captain have to be protected at all costs.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

I think you missed my point. Do I think it's OK for Presidents to fire attorneys when they take office. Yes. Is it fair? No. Is it OK for a President to fire his attorneys in the middle of the term? Just as before and for the same reasons, Yes. Is it fair? Depends on the reasons for the firings. The thing is, legally, what's the difference?

Fact is that the only difference between Bush firing his attorneys and Clinton (or Bush41 or Reagan or whoever) is WHEN they were fired. Bush bucked the trend and offered some of Clinton's attorneys a job. Many took that job. Bush ignored the D or R behind their names and gave them a chance. Lets face it, Clinton had a top notch legal team. Bush recognized that. He considered their qualifications to be more important than their party affiliation. That is something that no president in recent times has done, Democrat or Republican. So what happens to a president that judges men NOT by their party affiliation, but by the content of their character? He gets subpoenaed.

You can try to spin it any way you like. You can call it non-traditional, unheard of, unprecedented or whatever. Fact is that the presidents before Bush fired their attorneys for no other reason that politics and partisan bigotry. Just as they are allowed to fire their attorneys for whatever reason they like, fair or not, the current president has the same right to do so. Applying different rules to the current president than any president in the past for no other reason than his party affiliation is what I mean by "hyperpartisanship".

Re:Expected answer

[SuiteSisterMary]

If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'enforcing the rules as written,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'puting hundreds of Black voters *back onto* the voting roles after they were purged for sharing a last name with a convicted felon,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'not counting mail-in ballots that don't meet the requirements to be mail-in ballots,' then yeah.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I've notice a trend recently that when people get caught saying something stupid, they call it sarcasm. You comment wasn't sarcastic. It was a joke. A lame joke that wasn't even slightly funny, since the only joke was that you pretended to be really stupid and what's funny about that?

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that you are listing a ton of *different* president's scandals to compare what this *single* president has done. It takes about a dozen other president's "lists" to cover the one list we have accumulated for this current monkey we call our president. Given the way this administration operates, I'm sure we're privy to only a small percentage of the true corruption and abuse of power.

Stop trying to deflect the truth with your childish tit for tat. If Republicans cared half as much about our country as they pretend to in front of a camera, they'd be just as upset at Bush's violations of our law as they would about every other president, political affiliation be damned.

As you can very plainly see all over these forums (or any forum discussing politics) and your posts in particular, Republicans in general are more concerned with this fucking retarded "us vs. them" battle then with any sort of justice or patriotism. You care just enough to make sure your own look good no matter the cost to our country.

As the saying goes, you reap what you sow, unfortunately, you ignorant fucks are taking us all down with you.

Re:Expected answer

[fm6]

Right, because the current Prez is such a paragon of honesty.

Re:Expected answer

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Oh stop your whining. There have been no white women kidnapped or reported missing this week. Our administration has indeed made all of us safer.

Re:Expected answer

[Vertigo Acid]

The reason over and underrated don't get metamoderated is because you would have to store the current score at the time the moderation occurred, which the system apparently does not.

Re:Expected answer

[UdoKeir]

Here.

No evidence whatsoever of vandalism. Bush was lying (again).

Re:Expected answer

[jtn]

Facts require citations. You have consistently provided NO citations on any of your "facts" anywhere in this discussion. Who are you that we should take your statements at face value without some kind of evidence of their factuality?

Re:Expected answer

[clem]

Posts like this make me glad the writers' strike is over.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'enforcing the rules as written,' then yeah. No, I mean changing the rules to things like, "If it's got a dimple near Gore, it's a vote for Gore". "If it's a vote for Nader and Gore, it's a vote for Gore". "If it has a "hanging chad" near Gore, it's a vote for Gore", "if it's an overvote, it's a vote for Gore" "if it's an undervote, it's a vote for Gore" ... and so on.

If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'puting hundreds of Black voters *back onto* the voting roles after they were purged for sharing a last name with a convicted felon,' then yeah. These people were allowed to vote. They were given a special ballot which was set aside to be counted later after things were worked out. As for them being put on the roles because they were black, how do you know what color someone is based on their name? This was all thoroughly investigated, along with reports of roads being blocked near polling places and crap like that. No wrongdoing was found.

Besides, Democrats didn't seem too interested in counting Florida's votes this primary season. Sure, Florida was allowed to vote, but those votes won't count. Same goes for Michigan.

Re:Expected answer

[Poppa]

Point out one lie, just one, that Bush made. This means you have evidence he deliberately told a falsehood. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't count.

Repeating lies over and over in order to further your political power does not make them true. Repeating bad information from a trusted source does not make you a liar.

I know that we are used to the Clinton's lying all the time (as Hillary has shown, she even got caught lying in order to pander to both sides during a debate). But Bush has always been up front with his views and never tried to bullshit his audience in order to pander to them. Which really pisses off Democrats that are used to wishy-washy lying politicians.

But it's ok, people can hate Bush because he isn't a Democrat. Democrats are more interested in feeling good than facts.

Mark my words, history will show Bush to even be a better President than Jimmy Carter. (Although, maybe that isn't saying much.)

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, Bush is out of office in less than a year.

Irrelevant. Would you pardon a child molester because he was quitting his job at the day care next year? No. Justice must be served, he must be made an example of.

For the love of the country, stop beating this dead horse.

For the love of the country, wake the fuck up and fight for your rights. Beat the dead horse. Beat him bloody until every motherfucker in this country knows what's up. Stop being a weak sheeple.

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

Yes. Much. After them we can do the same to the Demobitches. They should all hang.

Or will it help these people on their little march to power and let them have the satisfaction of knowing that they took down the mighty Bush at the cost of the country.

The cost of the country? You seriously are deluded. Bush, and his cronies, are the ones who will cost *US* **OUR COUNTRY**. They already have cost our country untold billions. They've cost our country the respect and admiration we used to have in the world. Most importantly, they've cost us our civil liberties, and our constitutional rights.

It's over already. Hell, it's been over for over seven years. Be good loser, shake the other teams hands and say, "good game". Now go hang your Cuban-Che flags and campaign for Obama.

"Be a good loser" ? We're all losers here. The only winners are those people at the top. If the opposing team threw away the rules and cheated like it was going out of style to win, would you still be a good loser or would you raise hell? "Be a good loser" sounds like some defeatist democrat shit. Fuck you.

We're taking back our country, with your help or without.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

Facts require citations. You have consistently provided NO citations on any of your "facts" anywhere in this discussion. Who are you that we should take your statements at face value without some kind of evidence of their factuality? Here

Of course, the link is not official. The "official" tally had Bush winning... which is why he's President.

Also, Here, Here, Here, and Here (registration required)

Did you ask everyone else for their sources as well?

Re:Expected answer

[Foobar of Borg]

I know I'm not going to convince a hopelessly deluded person like you (really, why does *anyone* support Bush anymore). But, this since this is a public forum...

According to different analyses of a possible recount (which was stopped by the Supreme Court) [see here], Gore would have won in a statewide recount. Unfortunately, he was only asking for a limited recount, in which he would have lost.

But, you are missing the point entirely. I am not discussing who may or may not have legitimately won based on a marginal difference in votes. I am talking about how Bush wound up as President.

1. In an election in which the difference is such a small percentage, a recount is perfectly legitimate thing to ask for. If Bush had simply asked for a recount, I would not have faulted him.
2. Instead, Bush had Rove and a bunch of other thugs going down to voting offices and attempt to physically intimidate the vote counters while chanting "Stop the Count! Stop the Count!" Only despotic thugs try to prevent a proper vote count.
3. The Supreme Court voted along partisan lines to stop the recount in Florida and give Bush the Presidency. It had no business getting involved in a state's electoral process.
4. You also have public people (such as Pat Robertson) threatening real violence and the violent overthrow of the government if Bush (who was chosen by Gawd, of course) were not installed as President.
5. If Al Gore did or had his underlings do (2)-(4), you're damn straight I would despise Gore. I would say that he is a vile person, a dictator, and a direct threat to freedom and democracy. As it is, Gore did none of this. He simply asked for a recount, which he had every right to do.

Finally, don't assume I am some kind of partisan. Just because people act that way in your sick little world, don't assume the rest of us are like that. I actually voted for Gore, not because I thought he would make a great president, but simply because I didn't think he would be a bad one and I was sure (and the last seven years have proven me and many others right) that Bush would be a horrible President. If your choices are a mediocrity like Gore and someone like Bush who will actively go out of his way to destroy America and loot the treasury, who do you vote for?

Re:Expected answer

[Seiruu]

I think you missed my point. If that is what you call your witch hunt rant, then I doubt it.

The thing is, legally, what's the difference? Well, if we must be picky, what about the fact that the appointed candidates by Clinton all had to get the Senate's full approval before they landed the job? And guess who did not need the senate's approval for replacements at the time of firing those attorneys thanks to what we know as the patriot act? Speaking of which
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/us.attorneys.firings/index.html

The Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to pass a bill that cancels a provision of the Patriot Act that allowed federal prosecutors to be appointed and serve without confirmation by the Senate.

So what happens to a president that judges men NOT by their party affiliation, but by the content of their character [americanrhetoric.com]? He gets subpoenaed. That IS the point of your so called "witch hunt": WHY were they fired? You are simply assuming it was not based on their party affiliation, but their "character" (huh?). Truth is, nobody even has the guts to take responsibility for that, so how can you possibly argue their well reasoned decisions for the firings when we have yet to find someone mature enough to come out and admit they did it? And FYI, having mr gonzalez go "I don't recall" +70 times is not a well motivated argument for firing them based on "character".

---------------

So you stop spinning, and start providing facts for your claims that bush has fired/not fired them based on their "character" rather than politics.

Re:Expected answer

[Foobar of Borg]

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.

Halliburton (where Cheney was CEO and where he is getting assload of "deferred compensation" [why else do you think he's not running for President?]) is still alive, well and making tons of money. The Bush family's bestest buds, the Saudi "Royal" family (not really a royal family, but put in place as one by Western powers) are making tons of money. Hell, the whole Bush family doesn't have to worry about jack squat, and neither does Cheney. Even those like Gonzales who had to fall on his rubber sword are still making a killing (and would be pardoned anyway if they were convicted of anything). Even that nutter John Bolton still has plenty of lecture engagements.

And Scooter Libby was guilty and convicted, but then pardoned by the Bush. Also, since from your other statements you clearly hate the Clintons so much, why was Clinton's perjury so horrible, but Libby's perjury okay?

And, to the democrats on the site, do you really think Bush et al. are going to have to answer for anything? I predict that they will be convicted sometime after Henry Kissenger is convicted of crimes against humanity.

Re:Expected answer

[Kelbear]

Exactly!

Easy!

Re:Expected answer

[18_Rabbit]

This is one of the times when I wish I had more Karma to give. I don't know which is worse, the American public's complete uninterest in the sabotaging of our machinery of government, or the complicity of the Democrats in going along with it all.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

But Bush has always been up front with his views and never tried to bullshit his audience in order to pander to them. Any room under that rock you're living under?

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

-SIGH-

So you stop spinning, and start providing facts for your claims that bush has fired/not fired them based on their "character" rather than politics. I never said they were not fired because of their politics. I said they were not fired because of their party affiliation, or more to the point, the party they worked for yesterday. Bush gave them a chance and, unfortunately, it didn't work out for some of them, but at least he gave them a chance. Noting pisses me off more when I am not considered for a job because of my last job. For example, at my last place of employment, I was not considered for an IT or sales engineer position because I worked in technical support. Never mind that I had a degree in IT, I wasn't considered because tech support people don't make good IT or sales engineers. They ended up hiring a guy who sold appliances at Fry's. Needless to say, I quit shortly after that. Still, back to the point, as far as I am concerned, an employer can fire an employee for anything at any time, provided it's not for something along the lines of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or whatever. This goes doubly so for attorneys. People have the right to legal counsel, even the President, and if that counsel does not meet the needs of the client, they should be replaced, period.

Re:Expected answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry folks, but political operators learned from nixon. Don't keep evidence of malfeasance."

And as a last resort, send a stooge to the National Archives to steal them.

Re:Expected answer

[Seiruu]

You're being particularly dramatic considering most, if not all, of them got their jobs because of their party affiliations in the first place. It comes with the job, they all knew this was the risk they faced when presidents/parties change.

Noting pisses me off more when I am not considered for a job because of my last job. You prefer being fired for no stated reason after being hired? Who cares if some of them weren't expectedly fired based on their party affiliations but now unexpectedly fired for what seems to be doing their jobs? While attempting to circumvent the senate's approval? Your reply conveniently missed that part.

I find your attempt to downsize the seriousness of this act a bit disgusting.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

I find your attempt to downsize the seriousness of this act a bit disgusting. And I find your attempt to make a big deal out of nothing equally disgusting. I guess we'll agree to disagree. This would be a boring place if we all agreed.

Re:Expected answer

[Seiruu]

And I find your attempt to make a big deal out of nothing equally disgusting. I guess we'll agree to disagree. This would be a boring place if we all agreed. Err, to be consistent with that sob story of yours, don't you think you should at least pretend to care more about US attorneys being fired for reasons they refuse to share or even be responsible for but still have them replaced without the Senate's approval? Ah well, you dropped your "What about clinton" act rather fast, so we are indeed done here.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

Err, to be consistent with that sob story of yours, don't you think you should at least pretend to care more about US attorneys being fired for reasons they refuse to share or even be responsible for but still have them replaced without the Senate's approval? Ah well, you dropped your "What about clinton" act rather fast, so we are indeed done here. You're right. I don't give a rat's ass about the attorneys that were fired. They'll do just fine with "Counsel to the President of the United States" on their resume.

What I do care about is blind partisanship and what it does to the country. Clinton's hands were tied when he was under impeachment. Some say that he could have killed Bin Laden if he wasn't so distracted trying to save his own ass. Was the country in danger because Clinton lied under oath about getting hummer? No. But it sure was harmed when Bin Laden was allowed to keep breathing. Assuming that Clinton would have been available to order the strike on Bin Laden back then had he not been busy with impeachment, that puts a huge amount of responsibility on Republicans concerning 9-11.

Now that the tables are turned and there is an R in the Whitehouse and D's in Congress, the D's are doing the exact same thing they were bitching about the R's doing back in the '90's. Is the country harmed because Bush let some attorney's go? No. Just as the country wasn't harmed when all the other presidents let attorneys go. The problem is that partisans smell blood in the water and want do as much harm to the other side as possible, no matter what damage it does to the country. It seems to me that Bush reached across the aisle when he left those attorneys on, and he drew back a bloody nub.

Bush was elected twice. Let him do is fucking job for the next 9 months and let him retire in peace. The R's were wrong in their witch hunts over Clinton and the D's are wrong now. Why is it I'm the only one to say that both are wrong and BOTH should knock it off? Why am I the only one to say that was OK for Clinton to fire his attorneys, just as it's OK for Bush to do the same?

Politically, I'm fairly conservative, but I'm an American first. When Obama is elected, I will support him in any way I can because he will be the President of the United States, not President of the Democratic Party. I may disagree with his policies, but I know that it will do much more damage to the country to have him frog-marched off to jail than he could possibly do finishing out his term(s).

Re:Expected answer

[PixelScuba]

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 because they worked for an R and he had his own cronies to move in. Not that I'm saying that's wrong. A Prez should have whatever attorneys he wants in there. But don't try to make up some bullshit about how Bush is an asshole because he didn't fire his attorney's quickly enough.

Also not true. From the article...

"Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."

George W. Bush kept ONE more appointment than Clinton did. Looks to me like ALL presidents replace the US attorneys at the start of their administration... but again, no administrations, aside from the current president, remove attorneys halfway through their term in office for "no reason".

Re:Expected answer

[PixelScuba]

You did bother to look at my link and notice that the common dreams article is a repost of a May 18, 2001 'Kansas City Star' article?

Doesn't matter I suppose. As other posters have pointed out, you've already made up your mind and declared anything contrary to your opinion, "Liberal Media".

Re:Expected answer

[Seiruu]

What I do care about is blind partisanship and what it does to the country. And there most likely is, but on this particular topic, you're a bit off.

Assuming that Clinton would have been available to order the strike on Bin Laden back then had he not been busy with impeachment, that puts a huge amount of responsibility on Republicans concerning 9-11. Well, I wouldn't go THAT far. It did strike me as funny how they accused Clinton of shifting the attention away from the impeachment thing by launching a strike on Iraq as retaliation for breaking the CF's, though.

It seems to me that Bush reached across the aisle when he left those attorneys on, and he drew back a bloody nub. It could be a political game for all you know. Throughout his speeches, he made it clear that there are 2 sides (like when he said the republicans will keep the house and senate blablabla), and he belonged on the republican side.

Bush was elected twice. Let him do is fucking job for the next 9 months and let him retire in peace. Being criticized is part of the job. And if you ask me it's one of the handy things that keep stuff sharp and in line. Such as the senate vote that "corrected" that particular "loophole" in the Patriot Act. The democratic party lacks the backbone to impeach him or cheney or anything of the sort, anyway. So as I said, you're being over dramatic. Yet, it's also true that they remain human, whichever party they find themselves in, and humans can be very ugly for very selfish reasons. Thus, your longing for a big happy family is impossible with the 2 party system you currently have. I can't imagine this being very different on any politic playground in any other part of the world, though.

On a side note: did you know you have someone following you around modding +1 whenever and wherever you post? That is almost freaky.

Re:Expected answer

[ArcherB]

On a side note: did you know you have someone following you around modding +1 whenever and wherever you post? That is almost freaky. It may just be my Kama Bonus or Subscriber Bonus. I can check boxes to turn them off (I did for this post), but that's two more clicks than I'd normally have to do.

Re:Expected answer

[meringuoid]

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.

What a wonderful sleight of hand. Almost without anyone noticing, you go from Clinton to The Clintons, singular to plural, this at the time when the other Clinton is looking to become President. Such magnificent subtlety to be found in modern propaganda.

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

That's the right wing story alright. But as is usually the case, the right wing's story and reality have little in common. Short story: unless you could read Clinton's mind, there's no way you could know if he lied. And even if he did lie through his teeth about Monica, it wasn't perjury since it would have to be relevant to the case at hand, and the judge ruled that whatever happened between Clinton and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case.

Wow, Do you actually believe that? It is amazing how much of a BS wall can be built when the will to believe out ways facts of reality. First, Star knew that Clinton lied after the fact when Linda Tripp came forward with information about the blue dress. Monica was asked and confirmed it, provided the dress and it showed that he did in fact lie. This was only relevant to Star because Star was already investigating Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and Webster Hubble about allegations of offering lucrative jobs and other deals to Hillary's Rose Lawfirm clients and partners in exchange for their silence (they were bribing people not to rate them out, a class act from some innocent people). Anyways, Vernon E. Jordan Jr. admitted to offering Linda Tripp an over paid position in order to urged her silence after Monica told Bill that she had been talking to her about it.

Next, the Judge, Susan Webber Wright, has never said it was irrelevant and therefore not a violation of law. She in fact cited Clinton for perjury in contempt of court. And Clinton almost 100 grand in fines. I can find a bunch of partisan sites to back that up in more detail but CNN is hardly a partisan conservative site so you can't claim invalidation on it. But Something she did do was wait until after the impeachment trial was over before punishing Clinton for some reason. Also, Clinton settled on appeal when Paula's lawyers appeal the decision. Clinton lost his law license to practice in front of the supreme court and in the state of Arkansas partly because of this. He was fined by the state bar too.

Oh, and yes, I Judge Wright's contempt charge, she put to rest the legal hair splitting and not technical definition excuses when she claimed that Clinton repeatedly failed to follow her instructions by truthfully answering the question ask of him in her court.

And nothing proves the right wing to be full of shit on the subject of perjury than Scooter Libby. Its the same as how terrible avoiding the draft was and how important military service was when Clinton was running against Herbert Walker Bush, compared to when George W. Bush was running against McCain, Gore and Kerry. But then, if they weren't massive hypocrites, they wouldn't be Republicans now would they?

You do realize that Scooter Libbey had nothing to do with Clinton's lieing right? And the meat of the charges against Libby is that he got the order of who he talked to first out of what as well as reported to have talked to a reporter who claims he didn't.And a couple of interesting things here is that the investigators already knew who did the leak and that it didn't break any law before interviewing Libby and they knew enough to know if Libby's rendition was factual or not before he testified and still, the only prosecution to come was his for not claiming something didn't happen, but claiming the order of events where different and that he actually talked to someone who he didn't which would have made him appear more guilty.

But bringing up this part about military service is just silly. If the issue was settled when Clinton ran and won office, then why should it matter again? You see, there is no hypocrisy there at all. If X is determined to have a value of false after it was stated to be true, then why the hell does it matter if those same people start correctly claiming X is false? Do you actually think if you believe enough that real world events don't matter?

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

Wow. Your really something.

I suggest you give the "clinton is teh god" link a rest and read those links I presented to you in the other post. Also, this has been settled for so long, I am actually surprised that it still get brought up. The judge in the paula jones case put to rest the claims of legal definitions and all in her contempt of court citation claiming Clinton wasn't truthful in his answer.

And no, I am not blowing off an impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I suspect your idea of the necessity of one is rooted in the other delusions you carry which would make it a political witch hunt.

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

Your first two points are the same, the third doesn't mean anything and doesn't come close to an impeachable offense. The next four so called offenses aren't impeachable offenses and aren't actually in violation of anything and proves the idea of it being a witch hunt. You mention something like 7 things you think justify an impeachment, 5 aren't even high crimes or misdemeanors, and 2 are the same thing repeated differently which there seems to be somewhat of a defense for.

Witch hunt indeed.

The current office is a disgrace for the US. I used to have more faith in your democracy.

Maybe you would be less important if you didn't insist we were a democracy and are actually a republic. I don't know, for starters, you would understand why the government doesn't do what you want it to specifically.

There will be a lot of rebuilding to do after they are gone.

This may be true, but it isn't an impeachable offense.

I stand by my words. Witch hunt. Your post proves it.

Re:Expected answer

[rbanffy]

"if you didn't insist we were a democracy and are actually a republic"

You elect your representatives in a competitive election. That pretty much defines a democracy. The fact it is also a republic is largely irrelevant as they are not necessarily excluding (the UK is considered a democracy despite the monarchy). Brazil is, for instance, a democracy _and_ a republic.

Impeachable offenses are a vastly diverse bunch and the criteria depend on what country you are talking about. I am not familiar to the minutiae of American law, but pretty much #1 (lying to the people and violating the PRA to cover it), #2 (lying to legislative - wasn't that under oath?), #4 (plain corruption and failure of oversight) and #7 (misuse of national security provisions in order to prevent the investigation of crimes _against_ national security - namely the compromise of an undercover operative) should be impeachable offenses (#4 was used to impeach a president here). #1, #2 (both for profit, which also implies corruption) and #7 (plain and simple) border on treason. Compromising the operative is, AFAIK, treason. I am not implying the POTUS did all this by himself (he seems unable to conspire at any level of sophistication) but such misdeeds were committed by someone who must be named after an adequate investigation, for the own good of your (learn it) democracy.

BTW, the misuse of presidential pardons to "stop the bucket" should also be an impeachable offense.

#3, #4, #5 and #6 are so blatantly stupid actions that, if not impeachable by current law, should be considered strong reasons to revise such laws by the next legislature.

Let's Godwin this thread once and for all. Had Hitler been subjected to proper checks and balances, he would never be able to become the problem he became. While GWB is generally considered stupid, someone evil _and_ smart could be very disruptive unless more effective limitations to presidential power are enacted.

If you fail to understand that, please, don't vote.

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

You elect your representatives in a competitive election. That pretty much defines a democracy. The fact it is also a republic is largely irrelevant as they are not necessarily excluding (the UK is considered a democracy despite the monarchy). Brazil is, for instance, a democracy _and_ a republic.

Well it is a republic that works with democracy and the significant point of that which a lot of liberals (american or not) seem to miss is that our elected representatives by design are supposed to be able to go against the will of the people. Just because they are elected to the office doesn't mean they are supposed to do what the electorate wants. Their first duty is to the position they serves which include the electorate among other things.

Impeachable offenses are a vastly diverse bunch and the criteria depend on what country you are talking about. I am not familiar to the minutiae of American law, but pretty much #1 (lying to the people and violating the PRA to cover it), #2 (lying to legislative - wasn't that under oath?),

Well, in America, it is directly laid out in the constitution which mean high crimes and misdemeanors. High crimes and misdemeanors is pretty well laid out in english law which means an offense that you could be placed in prison over. That takes any violation of the presidential records act out of the picture. Second, the so called lies were actually somewhat of the understanding of the situation at the time they were made. The reports of the so called "lies" being not true were speculative at the time and the information presented as supposedly the known state of affairs. Now, you may argue that he put too much emphasis on certain aspects or failed to disclose inteligence that went counter to those positions or whatever, but they were historically thought to be "true" up to this time. Congress, in both houses has an inteligence commity that they take reports from independently of the President. These comities which are present in both houses, would have had the same information the president had and are staffed by both democrats and republicans. Neither of them objected to the information being presented which shows what we thought we knew at the time. If it was wrong, the entire government got it wrong.

Secondly, #2, was not under oath, and politicians, especially congress enjoy immunity for anything they say on the floor of th senate.

#4 (plain corruption and failure of oversight) and #7 (misuse of national security provisions in order to prevent the investigation of crimes _against_ national security - namely the compromise of an undercover operative) should be impeachable offenses (#4 was used to impeach a president here). #1, #2 (both for profit, which also implies corruption) and #7 (plain and simple) border on treason. Compromising the operative is, AFAIK, treason.

Corruption and lack of oversight isn't a high crime or misdemeanor on the level that has been accused. Neither is anything else mentioned. And most, if not all of that is little more the ideological interpretations more then actual offenses. Should be and are is two distinctly different things.

I am not implying the POTUS did all this by himself (he seems unable to conspire at any level of sophistication) but such misdeeds were committed by someone who must be named after an adequate investigation, for the own good of your (learn it) democracy.

Well, it is obvious that you are on a "witch hunt" with this. You are reading your opinion in as fact which is the first sign of biased interpretation. I'm not sure why you are so interested in American Affairs but it doesn't matter because you are making the mistake of personalizing it and then respouting opinion as fact. This is something that isn't really good no matter what the topic is. I suggest you take a serious look at this and attempt to see how it jades your views and opinions. It definat

Re:Expected answer

[rbanffy]

"BTW, why are you so interested in impeaching Bush or making it easy to get rid of the American president when you don't agree with him or actions and circumstances ariving with his tenure in office? I mean your not even an American and have already showed more balls on this subject the the democrats in office, what binds your interests?"

I would say "Because the US has an overdeveloped military that has a tendency to act in foreign countries", but that would be an easy jab. I worry for the health of your democracy because it has long been held as the portrait of a country done right. I don't like when perfectly good countries go bad. Didn't like the post-Gorbachev Russia either.

"Nothing Bush has done would equate to what Hilter has done"

That "nothing" largely depends on which side of the bullets you are. Luckily I am on the side, where they don't fly. You are right in some aspects - Guantanamo is not a concentration camp nor an industrial installation for killing people. The war of aggression against Iraq (using flawed intelligence many experts pointed out as that, including the UN envoys, to further the interests of economic groups) is not, seemingly, the same as what Hitler waged in Europe.

But they are no shining beacon of civility either.

"everything he has done has been done in the past"

Not with this kind of consequences.

And, by the way, I don't need to justify my opinions. As you well point out, I am observing all this from the outside. You may take my opinion or disregard it. I don't really care. You are only one person who is reading this exchange.

But, yet again, for the good of your own country (and possibly mine), either don't vote or vote against whoever pledges to continue GWB's work.

It will do a lot to make a better world.

Re:Expected answer

[sumdumass]

I would say "Because the US has an overdeveloped military that has a tendency to act in foreign countries", but that would be an easy jab. I worry for the health of your democracy because it has long been held as the portrait of a country done right. I don't like when perfectly good countries go bad. Didn't like the post-Gorbachev Russia either.

We already noticed your conception of America was wrong, I'm willing to be your looking at the wrong picture for the portrait.

That "nothing" largely depends on which side of the bullets you are. Luckily I am on the side, where they don't fly. You are right in some aspects - Guantanamo is not a concentration camp nor an industrial installation for killing people. The war of aggression against Iraq (using flawed intelligence many experts pointed out as that, including the UN envoys, to further the interests of economic groups) is not, seemingly, the same as what Hitler waged in Europe.

Well, actually, I thought we were discussing what bush has done in power and to get power not the actual actions. If we are going to go outside that administrative scope, then nothing needs to be changed to very little. War with Iraq was done soundly too, I mean Saddam himself admitted to claiming he had a WMD program because he though other countries would invade Iraq. Very little of the inteligence and actions for going to war was flawed though, Maybe the ones used but as pointed out on several occasions as well as a vote by the UN, Iraq wasn't in compliance with the Cease fire agreement which basically says the first Gulf war was on again. Lets, remember, the reason for showing an interest in Iraq in the first place was because of it's invasion into Kuwait over what was admitted by Saddam himself over the Kuwaiti official calling Iraqi women 10 dollar whores. And no, the war wasn't to further the interest of economic groups. There is more of that opinion being stated as fact again. You really have to watch out for that.

Besides, the so called UN envoys didn't make such statements officially. UNSCUM's reports said it was inconclusive, there were missing stuff, stuff they were finding that had supposedly already been destroyed, and after the invasion, the reports from the inspectors identified 2 buildings damaged from the bombing that had chemical agents that were supposed to have been destroyed already. But don't take my word for it, read the UNMOVIC's documents directly. It hardly paints the picture of nothing to see here, move along now. Pay close attention to the november 2002 through 2004 quarterly reports in particular. The are the report right before and right after we went in. But by all means, read them all and you will see that they don't paint a nothing to worry about picture as it is presented by the Anti War crowd.

But they are no shining beacon of civility either.

They aren't as much of a black mark as it is being presented either. Half if not most of what is being said is nothing more then speculation and opinion. Very little in the way of facts.

Not with this kind of consequences.

What exactly are these kind of consequences? If your going to say the worlds opinion, I would counter with that it appears they are getting their opinions from the Basher's who aren't presenting things factually and are injecting opinion as fact into the presentation. If your really thinking of the worlds opinion, I would say the bashing has done more to damage it then Bush himself.

And, by the way, I don't need to justify my opinions. As you well point out, I am observing all this from the outside. You may take my opinion or disregard it. I don't really care. You are only one person who is reading this exchange.

Well, I would say that you do need to justify them. I mean you didn't keep them to

Re:Expected answer

[errxn]

So why not just use the original article? Think about the contrary...if someone were to start referencing some conservative websites to bolster an argument, would you not immediately call the credibility of those sources into question? Sure you would. That's all I'm saying.

Also, I find it amazing that you've been able to psychically figure out what my opinion is on this issue.

Re:Expected answer

[errxn]

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)

That is my only point.

I also don't care if you have looked up Ad hominem enough on wikipedia to feel comfortable using it in conversation.

Insult my intelligence all you like. It does nothing to serve, and only really diminishes, your argument.

As far as the rest of your post, look, I think it's a waste of time to start playing some silly cat-and-mouse game about who did what and when, and I don't care enough to go down that road. Both presidents were/are obviously corrupt, and those in the future probably will be as well. It's really just come to be expected these days.

My only point is that if you are going to cite sources to bolster an argument, it's probably a good idea to use the most credible sources available. Take the converse for a second-if I were to argue against stem cell research (which, incidentally, I wouldn't,) would it be a good idea for me to start referencing "facts" from [religious conservative website that I'm not going to bother googling for] as "evidence" for my argument? I think not, and if I were to, don't try to pretend that you wouldn't be inclined to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the source. I call someone out for doing just this kind of thing, and somehow it makes me a Limbaugh-parroting hatemonger? Just a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

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:How will they enforce it?

[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 was like 1860 something.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[jollyreaper]

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

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 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 or Terrance W. Gainer

I say send in Gainer to 'em soften up before Livingood can come in and finish the job.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[Protonk]

me too. Mustaches scare the bejesus out of me.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you misunderestimaticate, I mean, heh heh heh (smirk) misconstrunderstand the White House. Back then, torture, I mean, simulated drowning wasn't torture, and so was legal. You know, like getting hit with a squirt gun heh heh heh (smirk). Now, it might be illegal, unless the decider deciderizes that we need it to cau-er-pervent terrerrr, in which case it'll be legal. Unless it isn't, or is like made a bid deal of by blame-amerikuh firsters, in which case we'll accidentally (heh heh heh) lose the emails in the tubes of the internets, and the attorney lapdog won't remember just like the good patriot and future medal of freedom medal winner that he is. After all, if you can't torture, I mean, simulate drowning, er, threaten to not buy evwebody in the whole big wide wowld ponies, then you can't be a terrist, er, root out terrists. Heh heh heh (smirk).

Re:How will they enforce it?

[Warll]

Somehow I doubt those guys would be able to do much. Perhaps drafting Mr. Chuck Norris would do the trick.

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:How will they enforce it?

[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 odious Mr Bush they hate while Mr McCain is trying to distance himself as far as possible from Mr 30%.

If there is a trial in the House the Democrats would be well advised to start the fall session early for it. Start the first day after Labor day.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[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 at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[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.

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 that is enforced directly by congress, via the sargeant at arms. However Gainer's web page 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:How will they enforce it?

[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, we could send in David Hasselhoff. Not only could he hog-tie them with a rubber band and a piece of chewing gum, but after singing to them in German, I'm sure they will be begging to testify!

Re:How will they enforce it?

[freedom_india]

Please stop comparing Roosevelt and Bush. Please avoid using them even in same sentence.
Its not even like comparing Gold bars with Iron ore.
Its like comparing Gold Bars with compressed Cow Dung cakes that is used to produce methane.

Roosevelt took steps to bring the country out of depression: The highways, Hoover Dam, support for interstate commerce, etc. He increased employment.
Bush took steps to reduce employment by 11% during his tenure. He reduced real income for workers by 4%, and to do this, suspended habeus corpus.

Hell is too nice for him.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[Zeinfeld]

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.

That is not the case. For the past century or so the Congress has not needed to use its inherent powers because the executive has performed these actions.

I bet it would be one helluva gunfight to watch DC cops battle it out with Secret Service.

Why would the Secret Service be providing protection to Miers and Bolten?

If the administraton attempted to block the arrests it would lead to impeachment proceedings during the election. Last thing that McCain wants is to have people reminded that he is a member of the Bush-Cheney party.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[Scudsucker]

Unless they see a threat to lives of congress critters, they won't do a job of arresting anybody.

Actually he can, under inherent contempt. What's sad is that committee chairmen like Conyers had to be told about it by bloggers. What's more sad is that they still haven't used it.

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 at 11." Cheney goes into the bunker and issues a statement that DC cops are Iran's handymen and that we must bomb Iran now if we are to live.

I wouldn't bet too much on the DC cops, unless they have some RV's a la Die Hard. And even then there are a number of gun placements on the Capitol and the White House.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[Scudsucker]

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.

Nah, I'll take Todd from Soldier. When asked about what he'd do with the heavily armed guards protecting the fascists, he'd say "I'll kill them all".

Re:How will they enforce it?

[sumdumass]

This isn't a comparison of Roosevelt to Bush. It is a statement about the vehicle Roosevelt created that allowed Bush to take us on the ride he has. Your hero Roosevelt has empowered Bush beyond anything imaginable before Roosevelt. The entire erosion of oversight by the three branched started with Roosevelt.

The so called support for interstate commerce is what gave Bush the influence he has in order for all the negetive you mention to happen. It is a direct result of Roosevelt telling the judicial branch- "Make Me". Like it or not, Roosevelt is responsible for the ability of bush to do what you see as negetive.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[tjarrett]

According to a resolution just passed by the House, the House Judiciary Committee is now empowered to sue the White House to get Mukasey to enforce the contempt citations. Which means the prospect of a trial with testimony under oath on the subject.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[freedom_india]

Roosevelt is responsible for the ability of bush to do what you see as negetive. Excussee me!!!

Its like calling a butterfly responsible for katrina because it flapped its wings over amazon!

Roosevelt could have assumed dictatorial powers during WW2, and also after the japanese attack.

However he expected and waited till the congress declared war on Japan.
He in fact refused to include Reich Germany in the war declaration clause since germany had not attacked or declared war against US at that time.

Once war was declared he took the role of C-in-C seriously, but did NOT abrogate or usurp all powers for himself. The congress still debated heatedly, and he did not rat out the sole congresswoman who voted against the war. He still submitted budgets to the congress for approval, fought with them and did NOT ban the movie Mr.Smith Goes to Washington.

Imagine if Bush had been in WW2 times. Am sure i need not elaborate the outcome as he would have easily shamed Hitler in assuming powers.

Re:How will they enforce it?

[jollyreaper]

According to a resolution just passed by the House, the House Judiciary Committee is now empowered to sue the White House [talkingpointsmemo.com] to get Mukasey to enforce the contempt citations. Which means the prospect of a trial with testimony under oath on the subject. So how does Bush thwart this?

Re:How will they enforce it?

[sumdumass]

Its like calling a butterfly responsible for katrina because it flapped its wings over amazon!

Roosevelt could have assumed dictatorial powers during WW2, and also after the japanese attack.

I think you have no clue about this at all. I'm not saying anything about him getting into war. I'm talking about the expansion of government powers giving this administration control of stuff the feds shouldn't have and the way Roosevelt did it forcing the supreme court to back him to stave of a constitutional crisis.

However he expected and waited till the congress declared war on Japan.
He in fact refused to include Reich Germany in the war declaration clause since germany had not attacked or declared war against US at that time.

Yea, and besides the fact that Bush hasn't assumed dictorial powers either, this has nothing to do with the new deal programs, their unconstitutionality, the court showdown, Roosevelt telling the courts to "make me" be in compliance with their ruling and the supreme court's cave in over the interstate commerce clause that essentially gave the government expanded and over reaching powers.

Once war was declared he took the role of C-in-C seriously, but did NOT abrogate or usurp all powers for himself. The congress still debated heatedly, and he did not rat out the sole congresswoman who voted against the war. He still submitted budgets to the congress for approval, fought with them and did NOT ban the movie Mr.Smith Goes to Washington.

This isn't any different then moder day events. I have heard of no bans on literature or movies or anything or even talks of it that didn't originate in congress.

Imagine if Bush had been in WW2 times. Am sure i need not elaborate the outcome as he would have easily shamed Hitler in assuming powers.

Well, seeing how you brought it up, the president in WW2 times has a lot more power then in today's times. Congress wasn't attempting to limit his ability to collect inteligence, Roosevelt interned any Japanese looking person that wasn't serving on the front lines. There were No WIRETAP laws. We did try, convict, and execute spies under military tribunals with no lip from the other side. I mean, seriously, what was different during ww2 ?

Re:How will they enforce it?

[freedom_india]

We did try, convict, and execute spies under military tribunals with no lip from the other side. I mean, seriously, what was different during ww2 ? Well, for one thing; we did not spy on our own citizens.
Secondly, we did not allow corporates war profiteering and in fact made sure the money went into War Bonds, etc.
Thirdly, No-Bid contracts were not allowed.
Fourthly, There was no guantanamo, even for japanese descent. The court trials (open or closed) gave even spies the same rights as citizens.
Fiftly, the president still answered to the congress and did not try to supersede it or treat it like the enemy.
Sixthly, Once the war was over (Truman) the president ended the C-in-C powers and surrendered it back to the Peole.
Seventhly, We did not go to war on false pretenses or ulterior motives.
Eighthly, whistleblowers of corruption were not "dropped" or "ratted out" or silenced.

Need more?

Re:How will they enforce it?

[sumdumass]

How naive.

Well, for one thing; we did not spy on our own citizens. We spyed on the enemy and a US citizen if they were communication with them. And yes, it is the same thing.

Secondly, we did not allow corporates war profiteering and in fact made sure the money went into War Bonds, etc.

What? WTH are you talking about? War bonds was a vehicle to pay for the war, not to divest profits from fighting it. And what ever this profiteering is supposed to mean, most companies that produced goods and services for the US government, the military, and it's allies, did so at a profit. Of course we didn't privatize a bunch of stuff back then. But browning Made several guns, Ford made everything from airplanes to tanks to jeeps and then some. Good year tire and rubber, Firestone all made profits during the war. Even IBM who provided calculator tables.

Thirdly, No-Bid contracts were not allowed.

They most certainly were. And to do one better, forced contracts were awarded where companies like Ford motor company ended up producing AMC jeeps because AMC wasn't big enough to meet demand. Ford also got a no bid contract for pumping out B17 abd B29 bombers. Goodyear, firestone, and a few other companies played roles like this. They didn't fight WW2 by seeing how cheap they could win.

Fourthly, There was no guantanamo, even for japanese descent. The court trials (open or closed) gave even spies the same rights as citizens.

OMG, are you serious? First, what was the Japanese internment camps? Do you even know what they were? They rounded up anyone who appeared Japanese and relocated them, without telling their friends, other family, without any way of contacting the outside world besides bribing a guard, and placed them in holding facilities for the duration of the war so they couldn't be dangerous. And yes, some reports where that some were tortured. That is why the US government paid reparations to the families of them.

As far as open trials, I guess you never heard of the military tribunals of Gimpel and Colepaugh in 1945. Spy's and saboteurs who were caught in the US. Hell, Even George Washington court marshaled Maj. John Andre and hung him during the revolutionary war. That same was done to Benedict Arnold and this happen by our founding fathers. Roosevelt himself ordered military tribunals against offenders in Operation Pastorius and even defended that position against challenges in the Supreme court that back his decision. Roosevelt even went around congress to do so with an executive order too.

Fiftly, the president still answered to the congress and did not try to supersede it or treat it like the enemy.

Um.. No. First see above. Second, go read a damn history book about Roosevelt and his time in office. He is famous for going around congress. He has the second largest number of executive orders to Bush. He initially authorized the arrest and internment of the Japanese and german and italian americans before congress did. He spent money congress never allocated, and got into fierce arguments with congress when they wouldn't implement his plans. The interstate commerce expansion was because Roosevelt made an executive order claiming it to be illegal for a business to employ a person longer then 8 hours a day and 5 days a week. Typically, the work day was daylight to dark which was anywhere between an 80 hour day to 14 or more hours depending on the location and season. This sparked on the the famous supreme court showdowns where he was told it was unconstitutional and he so so what, make me stop. Congress then passed a reformed law limiting it's spirit and providing over time to force businesses to not work employees longer then 8 hours a day and the courts said the interstate commerce clause would allow it so Roosevelt finally backed down,

And

Emails?

[drewmoney]

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

Re:Emails?

[milsoRgen]

Osama? Hell I know where Osama's at... Somewhere in this, general area.

Re:Emails?

[Anonymous Coward]

not if he is part of the Q Continuum.

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:So am I the only one holding my breath?

[Bootle]

Oh no, now Bush is going after Ireland?

Q#1: What's the story with missing email?

[layer3switch]

A#1: (no answer) Writer's Strike

Well...

[martinQblank]

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

Re:Well...

[Protonk]

There is some credence to this, or at least some history. 2 examples come to mind:
Larry Craig's accidental disclosure

FBI accidentally gives suspect evidence that they are illegaly wiretapping him, then asks for it back

Re:Well...

[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:Well...

[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:Well...

[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 am glad that they gave you the opportunity to ridicule them.

Re:Well...

[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:Well...

[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, superpower, we set an example for the rest of the world. We lead by actions. If our actions are wrong we invite others to follow. On this note, we lose the right to judge. How can we claim torture to be wrong when we do it? Is it okay for an Iraqi insurgent to torture and American to find out when OUR next attack is? How, if we condone torture?

High-Falutin' ethics out of the way, two points towards the practicality of torture: the first veers on philosophy still, by definition we do not know guilt of foreknowledge of a crime BEFORE torture, if we did we probably wouldn't need to. By this reasoning we are harming innocents on the mere CHANCE that they can be instrumental to our needs. This is ethically dubious. Second torture is well known to be the least efficient form of information gathering, we only need a sight towards history for proof of this. Unless New England and most of Europe was REALLY full of witches and baby eating Jewish communities, then I guess torture has been proven as historically accurate. People under sever duress say things to remove themselves out of that situation. These things are less likely to be true, than what the interrogator wants to here.

That said, we SHOULD heavily interrogate extremely PROBABLE suspects, with a VERY careful eye towards ethics and our value system. Every person we question is an international statement, as well as a human individual much like us, our families, and the rest of humanity. We should procure suspects by some other means that our "turn in your neighbor" bounty programs, which fill Guantanamo with people of dubious intelligence value. We should allow due process to ALL, since the system can be wrong, and we have the duty to protect ALL innocents from harm and prosecution.

Re:Well...

[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 themselves to this as well as the calls for them to be placed in prison when they thought they are going to save your life.

Re:Well...

[dbIII]

That is true even if you have me confused with the different poster above - I also believe police corruption should be punished (and not just forgiven because they are policemen) as should those who throw difficult political opponents of the government out of helicopters or shoot journalists that are in the wrong place even though they think they are doing the best to keep the peace in their country and even though in both cases it did actually prevent riots. There really are a lot of situations where people can argue that evil was done to try to get a good outcome but we have strictly defined boundaries to say that there are things that the representatives of our states should not do.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

would have been effected

"affected".

And as to your cowardly attitude, Ben Franklin's quote about trading essential liberties for temporary security comes to mind.

Re:Well...

[TheGratefulNet]

I also believe police corruption should be punished (and not just forgiven because they are policemen)

I'll go one better; they are an enemy of the people and should have HARSHER penalties than regular citizens.

how much damage can a citizen who has no police force, 'license to shoot and kill', behind him?

now, how much damage can a corrupt cop or gov official do?

see my point? those that can TRULY harm our freedom should be held MORE accountable since, if you can't trust your 'protectors' you are in a huge world of hurt, freedom-wise.

a loud and clear message should be sent to GOV OFFICIALS (including LEO's) that if they violate the law, it comes back to hurt them, personally, tenfold.

the US seems to 'like' zero tolerance. I say - good! - let the ones in power suffer a zero tolerance policy, too. maybe it will make them think twice before going the way of corruption.

Re:Well...

[maxume]

Why so much confidence in their perceptions? In legal cases, the standard isn't whether a person believed they acted correctly, it is whether they had good reason to act the way they did.

Frankly, I would rather be dead than know that I am alive because I live in a society that actively engages in torture. Freedom and ethics aren't things I want tested on averages, they are things I want tested at the bottom. My freedom extends only as far as freedom extends to others, and the ethics of my government should be judged based on its worst actions, not its common ones.

Re:Well...

[meringuoid]

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 am glad that they gave you the opportunity to ridicule them.

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?

Re:Well...

[sumdumass]

Why so much confidence in their perceptions? In legal cases, the standard isn't whether a person believed they acted correctly, it is whether they had good reason to act the way they did.

Because the questions of what next was on everyone's minds at the time. And I wasn't speaking to the specific legalities of their actions. I'm speaking to the notion of biting the hand that feeds you metaphorically speaking.

You see, it is perfectly ok to ridicule them for acting in the way they did, but people seem to want to ignore why they did so. And that is sort of an injustice to the honor of these men if you ask me. It is like saying that a woman who was stabbed and murdered by her husband died of natural causes because you naturally die from excessive blood loss.

Frankly, I would rather be dead than know that I am alive because I live in a society that actively engages in torture. Freedom and ethics aren't things I want tested on averages, they are things I want tested at the bottom. My freedom extends only as far as freedom extends to others, and the ethics of my government should be judged based on its worst actions, not its common ones.

Well, we don't have a government that actively engages in torture. There were a few acts of actual torture in the beginning because they though another attack on a civilian population was coming. If that is too much for you, I suggest you kill yourself soon rather then suffer the thought of having your life saved by one of these tactics.

Your assertion of freedom and ethics is honorable. I believe much the same way except I am able to separate the freedoms that were violated of the 3000 some innocent people who had their life taken by the acts of some people with the fear of something happening similar in the near future. Now I separated actual torture from claims because some of these claims seem to mirror a collage kids lifestyle but is considered torture. Exposure to loud music, going from extreme temperatures to another, irregular sleeping patterns and so on all mirror going to an from night clubs to night clubs on a hot summer night or even a cold winter evening. But this is considered by some to be cruel and inhumane torture. Hell, even the claims of flushing the Koran down the shitter mirrors patterns of self proclaimed Atheists here on slashdot injecting every single chance they can about religions being fairy tales and anyone who believes in them are stupid and less of a person and how science is the one true system to believe in. I wouldn't consider that torture at all.

Re:Well...

[sumdumass]

Yea, I did. I said do whatever you can, whatever it takes to stop another attack or anything else like this from happening again.

Guess, what, They listened. And they did what they did to stop you and I from getting killed when there was a reason to suspect more was coming so they can listen to people ridiculing them for their actions. I guess the most interesting question is would they be willing or capable of stopping something like this from happening again? I mean, the next time the situation presents itself, would they be willing to do whatever it takes to stop multiple attacks or would they think twice and let them happen and possibly killing you in the process.

Now, I'm not saying it will happen, I'm not saying they couldn't stop something from happening by other means either. I'm saying they did what they thought they had to do when the threat was very real in our minds. I don't think we would have the same type of men with the determination to keep us safe if they are ever needed again. Instead, they would likely think about how it would effect themselves even if that mean you or I getting killed in an attack that they had a chance, even if in theory along, to have prevented. Even though they did despicable acts, they are still heros.

Re:Well...

[maxume]

We have a government that is publicly walking a line that is much finer than I am comfortable with. I do not find water-boarding remotely justifiable. I see the high ground as a weapon, and things like water-boarding give up that ground in spades.

The way I see it, if you want to make an ethical claim that torture is not justifiable, then you can't torture, ever. I wonder how much damage just the allegations of the United States torturing people have done, the stories of Gitmo and the stories of torture by proxy have done. Avoiding even the smell of such activities may well have done more to protect innocent civilians than any and all torture that was done in their name.

If you are going to attempt to use torture 'to gain information otherwise unavailable', which is hopefully the only reason anyone would use to justify it(torture for retribution is purely evil), I hope you would agree that you have to judge your actions based on your mistakes(or at least include the mistakes in your judgment), and that those mistakes are nearly unforgivable. And there is my problem -- there have been mistakes.

To claim that the torture of an innocent man was done in the pursuit of justice is nothing less than insanity.

But at the end of the day....

[v(*_*)vvvv]

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

Re:But at the end of the day....

[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:But at the end of the day....

[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.

/dev/null

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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

Re:/dev/null

[TheRaven64]

I hope you stored them via write and not mmap if you expect sending them to /dev/null to destroy them...

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.

Re:How do you lose email?

[Pinckney]

If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire. But where does that leave those of us who encrypt our files and wipe our old drives? Is that evidence of an intent to conspire? </devils advocate>

Re:How do you lose email?

[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:How do you lose email?

[smurgy]

Clear difference. You are a private, and therefore unaccountable, citizen. The Executive Branch is a publicly funded, and therefore publically accountable, organisation.
 
Particularly given the power it wields... setting up a system to avoid that accountability is de facto setting up to subvert democracy. Your example doesn't apply here, unless you are the presiding body of the government of a country.

Re:How do you lose email?

[corbettw]

What happens when someone mixes up the archive tapes with regular backup tapes in a two a week reuse plan? That archive gets destroyed and years worth of documents are gone.

What happens when the archive server has a hardware failure and no one notices until it's too late? Or, similar vein, what happens when the people responsible for copying all incoming emails to the archive forget to turn off the MTA on the main mail server cluster while repairing the archive server, so those copies never get made in the first place?

What happens when the solution you're using to copy the emails as they come in has a database crash that's subtle enough to mangle the emails, but not enough to crash the MTA? So now all those copies go into an unreadable database, and no one notices until it's time to do an annual audit of the system.

These aren't just realistic scenarios, these are scenarios I myself have witnessed in corporate America. So while I don't know what happened the White House emails, I can state that accidents do happen.

Re:How do you lose email?

[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.

Re:How do you lose email?

[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:How do you lose email?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

They are the government. They are not allowed privacy when it comes to public matters, and this is also a reason for the Freedom of Information Act.

On the other hand, we are allowed privacy (well, lets just pretend), so we can encrypt whatever we want (even if it is to hide stuff from the government).

Still, even if you encrypt your data and torch your old drives, with email everyone who corresponded with you has a remote copy of your message. And then there are all those logs...

And where are all the spies when we need them? Too bad the KGB isn't around to come forward with "lost" emails.

Re:How do you lose email?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

No evidence is evidence that they did something, because there would have been evidence otherwise. The government is suppose to be accountable, so knowing that, if the government created a system that removes evidence, then such a system is evidence in itself of their intent to betray their premises. etc.etc.etc.

A simple example would be if Condoleezza Rice had a copy of SureDelete on her desk, she probably wanted to delete files.

Re:How do you lose email?

[corbettw]

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. You're assuming those two events (the discovery of the problem, and the request for emails) are completely separate, which in fact the latter usually leads to the former. Unless you take pains to audit your own archiving, which doesn't happen nearly often enough, you simply have no way of knowing there's a problem until it's too late.

The White House

[EEPROMS]

cant use emails, they haven't even evolved from using paper and charcoal yet.

[DUCKS]

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.

mondo can of worms.

[Cr0vv]

Finally, The White House Cronies may possibly be found out! I have it on good authority that many unbelievable very bad things have been happening there, and if this goes the way I hope it does, there will be a massive wake up call. Crow.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[Anonymous Coward]

"i have it on good authority" = I'm making shit up.

Bad things or not, you know nothing more than anyone else.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[Cr0vv]

:^) we'll see about that!

Re:mondo can of worms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the Whitehouse staff are not people (which is possible, i guess) then someone knows what is going on there.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[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 order for us to be impressed with you.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding ding, ding.

This is the sound of sarcasm bouncing off your thick skull.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[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:mondo can of worms.

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't. I wrote the making shit up post.

Your post is exactly right.

Re:mondo can of worms.

[Protonk]

Ahhh. That makes MUCH more sense.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[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 to lecture this guy on it. :(

SLASHDOT MUST ANSWER FOR MISSING POSTS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're censoring anything under a two, those fucking tyrants!

Bring back the page-lengthening and page-widening posts!!!

how cute

[Anonymous Coward]

parakeet on a penis

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?

Seriously!

[ortzinator]

White House Must Answer For Missing Emails

Yeah! I logged in and they were all gone! Heads will roll!

Well...

[jwietelmann]

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

"I do not recall."

[Scrith]

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.

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?

I don't get it

[LaskoVortex]

I don't get the rest of TFA. 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:They already gave an answer

[frank_adrian314159]

A dingo ate the emails.

Hey! This is America, mate!

It was a coyote!

Re:They already gave an answer

[freedom_india]

A dingo ate the emails. Which Dingo? There are two: John Howard and Peter Costello. Which one?
Please be specific.

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:This is not at all true

[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

Re:This is not at all true

[pisto_grih]

GBW woz ere heh, heh

It wasn't the sex

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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

Eh, ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the White House has a bit more to answer for than just missing emails...

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...

Distric court Judge...

[Rod Beauvex]

Wonder how long it is before the right starts screaming about activist judges.

Re:Distric court Judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they ever stopped?

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?

[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.

There's a simple explanation for all of this.

[Revotron]

They use Windows Server.

Case closed.

Re:There's a simple explanation for all of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I remember those days where MS Win 2003 SVR W/ Exch 2003SP2 would, jump out the damned box, hack the fireproof safe and begin destroying the perm backup tapes.

WHOA .. Back the boat up for just a moment ...

[bintech]

"Osterman said the White House's legal problems over its inability to recover e-mail from its own servers and backup systems may jolt end users into realizing the legal consequences of subpar retention policies."

What consequences ? Oh .. the slap on the wrist and don't do that again thing... yah .. that always happens in the private sector .. uh huh.

"This should wake people up to what could happen if you don't save e-mail appropriately."

Let's be more specific shall we? This will wake people up as to what could happen if you worked for the U.S. Government. Please, call me pessimistic, but time and time again we see this type of thing happen but the end result will be s*it rolling down hill till it gets low enough on the radar where probably some Jr. I.T. Admin who was just recently assigned the responsibility of "squaring away the email archiving problem" getting the shaft and then it being announced publicly that the problem has been corrected. *&^@#$% .... sigh

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.

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 tipples criminal penalties for crimes comitted while in federal office. These people are in a position of power, and it is to server the people of the united states, and not themselves or further some idiotic agenda.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[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: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:first fart!

[Anonymous Coward]

you got modded down without saying the magic word "NIGGER". im jealous.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[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* (ie, deprive them of life) or detain the person (ie, dperive them of liberty). Or, simple put, torture is prohibited by the 5th Amendment.

I always love it how those who wish to do narrow the rights of others so gravity towards focusing on a narrow interpretation of one Amendment or clause, completely disregarding how another smacks in the face of their analysis.

*Note: This isn't mean to say that you could legalize torture, just that this clause alone doesn't stipulate the absolute illegality of torutre.

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.

Not 3 people

[bussdriver]

The White House admitted to THREE water boardings; which means that probably a few hundred occurred. Lies and silly word games are the norm. They are STILL playing games with what is torture!

They are purposely diminishing the issue buy making it sound like much ado about nothing; trying to make the opposition appear as extremists (face it, the general population doesn't care if they mess up a few "bad" suspects.)

Same trick worked on prison torture, where it was just 1 prison of a few bad eggs stacking naked men. They even likened it to frat party behavior. The US media didn't show the tapes of the really bad stuff, didn't mention the other prisons, maybe only mentioned 1 time about child rape. All we saw was some lady pointing at blurry men. Almost no mention of women and children. No mention of contractor or expert involvement. Democracy Now had to fight just to cover the American Psychological Association's own public meetings over their objections to members contributing to torture.

Investigate all you want, it won't make much difference; it will NOT be televised unless its really horrible and even then it will be downplayed. Similar to how they treated Ron Paul or Dennis kuSpinach - but worse.

Are the democrats holding back on purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the Democrats know exactly what is going on but have been lame to do something because of:
(a) they have an understanding with the Republicans that next time their President fucks up, they get a "free ride" like Bush is now in return;
(b) I want to say this is them paying back a favour to the Republicans but I'm not sure over what it would be.

Perverting the course of justice

[Colin Smith]

Is one of the more serious crimes in the UK. Even a minor crime can turn into a long prison sentence if you disposed of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice

I assume there is something analogous in the US.

Intent? they don't even try to hide it

[bussdriver]

In 2006 with legal troubles and the Dems poised to get investigation powers Cheney's office hired a document shredding service:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601030_shredding_truck_was_heading_to_cheneys/

They don't even try to hide it; I'm sure they have a play-dumb response to this one too. As long as they seem nice or have charisma it just doesn't matter how stupid or evil politicians are; substance doesn't matter anymore.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

almost impeaching a guy for a blow job

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, you stupid cunt, not for getting a BJ in the oval office.
And he wasn't "almost" impeached; he was impeached.
He just wasn't convicted.
Learn the facts before pontificating bullshit, dickhead.

Everybody knew that we really shouldn't do it

No, many people knew that it really should have been done.
Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office for perjury, Whitewater, "suiciding" that guy who was banging his wife, and so forth.
Bush should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office for vote fraud, authorizing torture, crimes against humanity, etc., etc.

Bush's crimes were/are worse than Clinton's, but neither person is fit to be a garbageman, much less a President, and both should have been removed for their crimes.

No One is Accountable for Anything Anymore!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Well, so much for my Positive Karma...)

Start a war with inaccurate information, thousands of people die; no one is held accountable.
Out a CIA agent for political retribution; no one is held accountable.
Illegal wiretap; no one is held accountable.
Do an Olie North on your Email folders, no one is held accountable.
Everyone just believes that they can do just what they damn well please.

Bush's and his party are the worst threat the United States and its Constitution has ever faced.
We make jokes, but we forget that Bush is a few yards away from the button that sends thousands of nuclear warheads into the sky.

Impeach the Traitors!

Re:No One is Accountable for Anything Anymore!

[meringuoid]

Bush's and his party are the worst threat the United States and its Constitution has ever faced.

Didn't we invade you guys once, and sack Washington, and burn down the White House? I mean, yes, Bush bad and all, but come on. Give us some credit here.

Impeach!

[BrendaEM]

by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, @06:10AM (#22432514) (Well, so much for my Positive Karma...) Start a war with inaccurate information, thousands of people die; no one is held accountable. Out a CIA agent for political retribution; no one is held accountable. Illegal wiretap; no one is held accountable. Do an Olie North on your Email folders, no one is held accountable. Everyone just believes that they can do just what they damn well please. Bush's and his party are the worst threat the United States and its Constitution has ever faced. We make jokes, but we forget that Bush is a few yards away from the button that sends thousands of nuclear warheads into the sky. Impeach the Traitors!

nice try

[Scudsucker]

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath

No, he was impeached because the Republicans wanted to impeach him. By any means necessary. Whitewater didn't work. Vince Foster didn't work. So they settled on the excuse of a manufactured perjury charge:

During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones' lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow.

The Jones' lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition.

Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal.

Some have argued that Clinton's interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones' lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything - indeed, they were invited to by Clinton's lawyers - but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence.

The only way to prove that Clinton lied, much les

The way you enforce this

[Anonymous Coward]

is exactly the same way you enforced your decision to become a free country from the British.

You're armed.

You shoot the president from long range.

You make just the one shot.

You never shoot again.

If you missed or he survives and doesn't learn, someone else will take their gun, shoot the president....

Why the secrets ?

[amias]

I'm still having trouble thinking of a legitimate reason for a goverment to have secrets from its constiuents ,
if you can't do your job with out full public disclosure then you shouldn't be in office. The press would be
far less hysterical if it had more information and most importantly the public would be empowered to make
meaningful decisions about which politicians to support.

Nobody in government should be doing things that need to be kept secret from other countries because
we are all supposed to be working together these days. Or are the treaties just for show ?

If people want secrecy when they are in public office it should be allowed only if a referendum gives them
a mandate to do so for that specific situation.

I realise that this may seem naive to some people but anything else is just playing in to the hands of people
who should not be trusted with power.

FAIL!

[readgs]

White House FAIL! http://wwwfail.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2F

Re:How will they appeal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I think you got "shoot" and "impeach" mixed up in that sentence.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[KDR_11k]

I favour torturing Scalia.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[Anonymous Coward]

dipsh#t,
whether it is a blowjob or stealing documents from the National Archives, you still need to tell the truth when asked under oath.
Got that yet, dick?

conjecture

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

You don't suppose that an astute IT professional employed or contracted by the white house, when asked to wipe data from WH servers, would take an encrypted copy of such information and sit on it pending the potential fallout from such action? Naaahh. That's just crazy talk.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[SuiteSisterMary]

The whole idea of the constitution is to limit the government.

No. No, no, no, no. NO.

It's the exact opposite. The Constitution is a list of exactly what the government *is* allowed to do. The gov't starts with exactly ZERO power. Various abilities and powers are then granted to it. If it ain't on the list, it ain't in the gov't's power.

This is a HUGE difference than 'the gov't can do anything, EXCEPT what we list here.'

Think of a constitution as a firewall; a properly written one starts out 'deny all' then has very specific 'allow' statements.

Plame outed herself

[toddhisattva]

Everybody knows who outed Valerie Plame Wilson.

Valerie Plame Wilson outed Valerie Plame Wilson.

She cannot make a hugely public move, sending her husband to Niger, and then hide behind some imagined secret protection.

The Wilsons should be shot.

Impeached Politic

[fm6]

I'm not saying we should impeach W. I'm just pointing out a nasty inconsistency. Conservative presidents can break the law right and left, and be immune from impeachment. A liberal president gets frisky with an intern behind closed doors, is stupid enough to lie about, and wham there's an impeachment trial.

No Problem

[PPH]

The NSA has copies of the network traffic, courtesy of AT&T.

Re:How will they appeal it?

[Harmonious Botch]

Relax. Take a deep breath. Hold it. Let it out slowly.

You're preaching to the choir.

Government can be limited by enumerating what it is allowed to do, or what it is not allowed to do. To speak of limiting government does not necessarily imply either. Nobody mentioned how it should be done.

Think calm thoughts. You're among friends here. Nobody wants to hurt the constitution. Everything is going to be ok. Relax...

sacking lawyers

[ErkDemon]

I don't mind them firing attorneys, as long as they are honest about it. I don't even mind them firing attorneys hired to serve "at the President's pleasure" for purely political reasons, as long as they are honest about it and are prepared to take the flak from politicial commentators.

No, what I mind is them firing attorneys on purely political grounds, and then organising what basically appeared to be a criminal conspiracy to falsely discredit anything that those attorneys might subsequently say, by getting the Department of Justice to invent and spread lies about them and the reasons why they were sacked, putting out a press statement saying that the attorneys had been fired for gross misbehaviour and/or incompetence.

The government acted like a conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare ... the sacked attorneys heard themselves being publicly discredited by the DoJ's disinformation on the evening news.

...

The good news is that the President has publicly agreed that these actions were indefensible, and has given his personal pledge that all the White House's emails that might be considered relevant will be handed over of investigation. He's promised complete openness. Nothing will be hidden. An open book.
Of course, he famously doesn't use emails himself, because he says that the problem is that people can use them against you later, but his admin people would have left an email trail, that can be checked for evidence of criminal conspiracies involving the DoJ and the lawyers.

Except it seems that his team have been deliberately using party email addresses for their communications (rather than the proper White House systems), specifically to avoid leaving a trail that could be checked later by investigators. That's how they caught Ollie North and his guys, after all.
No problem, we can check the party activist server that the staff were using instead.
Oh, the party server admins have gone and deleted all the old emails? And they say that they can't get them back? What a pity. No, we won't impound the servers to check, we'll just take their word for it.

Still, we can check the White House emails that /do/ still exist, that went through the usual security systems, and use these to reassure ourselves that it doesn't seem as if there was any overt, systemic, wholesale illegality going on. That's something, at least. Nothing can go wrong there, it's White House data, and the President /promises/ that there will be no obstruction, and has instructed everyone concerned to comply fully with the investigation.
So lets ask for the emails ... what's that, Skippy? You're saying that the White House IT people seem to have been unlawfully and systematically reformatting backup data storage tapes with all that correspondence on? And nobody told them that this might be a BAD thing to do if you are in charge of data storage?

Hey, these things happen, it's only the White House, it's not like it's a high-powered office dealing with any sort of important or valuable information, where people would be expected to be given proper training. After all, it's not like any of this information might be valuable. I'm sure that nobody asked for this information to be illegally deleted, because that itself would be criminal destruction of government property. Data-crime.
It's easy enough to check, all we need to do is look up the memo requesting the recycling of tapes containing emails, and find who asked for this policy change and when.

What's that? Nobody knows who ordered the tapes to be wiped? Surely, we can just look up the email records, and ... oh, I see the problem. By ordering that tapes be continuously reused, the person giving the order ensured that their own orders ... were also erased. Hmm.

But the people who gave and received the order must remember, surely? Oh, they don't remember. Someo