Slashdot Mirror
White House Wins Ruling On E-mail Records
An anonymous reader writes "The White House Office of Administration is not required to turn over records about a trove of possibly missing e-mails, a federal judge ruled Monday. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the agency does not have 'substantial independent authority,' so it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."
Really, it would have been either party, and any person in office that would have fought this.
They are politicians, what do you expect?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Isn't Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly the same bonehead that overturned the Microsoft ruling?
And, can we expect this ruling to be appealed?
Best regards.
..Has this Administration NOT had 'Substantial Independent Authority'?? Haven't Bush & Co. been arguing that they have since the beginning?
Not that the White house has ever given a damn what any judge has said anyway. If any backups of those emails had been made, they would have disappeared long ago.
This administration sickens me when I think about it, so I'll stop.
Note that, unlike popular current trends, judges are not there to decide what the law _should_ be and rule on that but only to enforce the applicability of current laws to the specifics of the case at hand. Might think about that before you decry the ruling. Bottom line: if you don't like this, stop whining and playing the martyr and go vote for someone that will do what you want. Otherwise, see Catharsis(4)(a).
Time to get some mandatory email journaling voted in, folks.
Seriously, what if the roles were reversed? The Feds are looking for some HIPAA-related email, and you can't produce it. What would they say??
"You should have had a system in place that you could rely on..."
Goose, meet Gander.
My question is: if the WH Office of Admin doesn't have independent authority, then that implies that it is under some other organization's authority, right? If so, we should be able to send the FOIA request to that authority.
That is, if this isn't bullshit.
If voting could actually change anything, then it would be illegal. You think shuffling around Congress and the White House will change the entrenched corruption, pay-to-play atmosphere and pro-corporate agenda of the US government (or any government)?
Voting is little more than a democracy placebo. Every few years you are given a "choice" between corporate candidate A and corporate candidate B, both of whom support the exact same agenda--only phrased differently and with a few minor variations. Enter the compliant corporate media to highlight and magnify those differences and shut out any genuine challengers to the status quo.
Meanwhile, everyone is so busy arguing over which of the terrible candidates is less terrible, that the task of building a genuine progressive, grassroots movement for change (against the war, for worker's rights, health care, etc...) is indefinitely shelved. The only way to win progress is through struggle. As abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." So instead of actually struggling for change we're herded into the political system controlled by the same people who benefit from the status quo and resist our every demand for progress. All of our demands are dropped or watered down to suit the electoral needs of your chosen candidate--and after the election they are forgotten completely.
The major parties aren't worth wasting more than 1 minute or 1 dime on. The real task is to create a movement powerful enough to win our demands regardless of which corporate tool sits in the White House. As famous historian Howard Zinn put it, "the really critical thing isn't who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens."
Boo! Hiss! *cough cough BLOWJOB!!! cough cough*
Well, they (judges and justices, all-inclusive) are there to both interpret the law and to determine if the law is constitutional.
This is why people roll their eyes when wackjobs start harping about "activist judges". That's what judges are there for, to temper the will of the people (or their representatives), and the power of the executive branch, via applying the filter of the Constitution to their actions.
Slashdot Legal Lexicon:
Rulings you agree with:
Legally correct in every degree.
Common sense.
Right On
about Time
Rulings you don't agree with:
Fascists.
Bush brown nose.
Incompetent
On someone's payroll.
I can't wait for the howls when the 2nd Amendment ruling comes down.
It shouldn't be "White House Wins" -- it should be "Citizens Lose".
So, have I got this right? (IANAL):
The President's records fall under "Executive Privilege", and cannot be subpoenaed or FOIA'd. Rationale: the Pres needs to be able to make independent decisions without being second-guessed or legally harassed.
Federal agencies with authority independent from the President do not have this privilege, and must comply with FOIA. Rationale: the people should know what their government is up to.
Legal question: Is the White House's internal bureaucracy part of "the President" or is it an "independent agency" from the president? Judge's answer: it's part of the President, and therefore privileged.
Can't say I like what the White House is doing, but the judge's decision looks pretty clear-cut as I see it.
"Oh well, only a few months left.
But this sets a legal precedent that similar emails will NEVER be subject to the FOIA. The next president will not even have to think twice about it, or bother to hide or lose them. They just don't have to let us see them.
One more method of accountability has been lost. I don't see that as an "Oh Well," situation.
C.
"Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
Actually, I don't think there is that much pure Bashing happening around these parts. --I equate 'Bashing' with the desire punish by proxy for purely emotional reasons devoid of rationality or factual data. You can see evidence of this on those blog sites which are hopelessly obsessed and enraged far beyond any measure of reason by such things as, 'welfare moms milking the system'.
When discussing Bush, however, it's hard when pointing out basic reality to sound like one is doing anything BUT bashing. This is due to the reality being so very grim and the damning facts so plentiful. Welfare Moms and similar concerns generally don't have much impact on anything, whereas Bush policies have resulted in $120 per barrel oil, a crashed dollar, a quagmired immoral war, the hideously mis-managed Katrina disaster, to name just a few items. So the complaints may sound like 'Bush Bashing' but really, I would say that it is rational and necessary discussion, especially in the lead-up to the next election. Calling legitimate complaints about things which affect everybody in the country 'Bush Bashing' and condemning it as such smacks of Republican pouting and pissiness.
Sorry. I refuse to allow people make me feel guilty for having legitimate complaints. Abusive parents do the same thing to their kids.
-FL
No, she's a fascist. Fascists are people who support corporate rule of the people through force by a nationalistic government under a personality cult dictator (we call it a "Unitary Executive"). Since corporate rule, rather than by the people, cannot rely on the people's cooperation, it comes with all kinds of familiar coercion and propaganda. Scapegoating minorities, keeping them in concentration camps. Manufactured foreign threats trumped up into war. All for the profit and power of the ruling corporations.
Sound familiar? It's fascism.
Kollar-Kotelly has a record of ruling in favor of exactly that kind of fascism in the US, including this latest travesty. She's no small town planning board member. She's a big shot, with a trail of wreckage all over her resume.
Don't be afraid to call them fascists when they are fascists. There was nothing magic about the 1930s-40s fascists, or our ancestors who fought them under that name. Except that they were willing to do it, and they won. Except they took their eye off the ball in Spain with Franco, and his fascism lasted decades, setting back Spain by a century. We don't have that luxury.
She's a fascist, and she just set us back. Back to a fascist era, but this time we're the fascists. Though I'm not. I'm more like a terrorist - though Americans call my kind a "freedom fighter".
--
make install -not war
So let me get this straight... when a judge rules in a way you dislike... she's a fascist... despite the precedent her decision is based on... and yet when a week earlier the Supreme Court throws out a long standing precedent (see Johnson v. Eisentrager) to give accused terrorists more rights than Nazi's had... it's ok?
Riiight.
(Before invoking Goodwin please see Johnson v. Eisentrager to understand the validity of this comparison).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
> They are there to interpret the law, as written, and weigh the merits of the case at hand as to what precedents apply based on current facts.
The fun thing about the law... and all the caselaw that goes with it, is that there's so much of it.
You could argue it either way.
So underlying legal philosophies do come into play. That's why it matters who
gets apointed to the bench. They can push the law in one direction or another.
They may choose to only push inches at a time but they can still push.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Seriously, what if the roles were reversed? The Feds are looking for some HIPAA-related email, and you can't produce it. What would they say??
"You should have had a system in place that you could rely on..."
Well, sure. Because there are actually regulations in place that call for that. It's the law. In the case of people who have been hired by an executive administration to provide research, advice, and political guidance... they aren't subject to that same standard, for a reason. They're not an agency. We're not talking about official communication between, say, the C-in-C and the military people under his command, or between that office and the TSA, or the Dept Of The Interior, or the State Department related to issues overseas. That stuff is all archived, and subject to FOIA. And that's the whole point. You hire an executive to bring their own judgement and the thinking of the people he or she chooses to help in complex judgement calls to the issues in front of them. They then ACT on their judgement, and leave quite a FOIA-able paper trail behind them.
If every conversation that President Obama wants to have with his pastor of the week - in person or by e-mail - as he thinks through an upcoming condition-free meeting with Hugo Chavez is information that you get have by FOIA, then how likely is it that he's going to use such channels for frank communication while arriving at the opinions he was hired to act upon?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
BE DISHONEST! it pays. its the quickest way to succeed in the New America(tm).
please don't believe in 'good guys win, bad guys lose'. clearly, bad guys WIN BIG. they cover their tracks, they lie and cheat and steal and kill and start wars to further their personal needs.
we all take our examples from our highest leaders. if something is game for our leaders, it should be good enough for us, too.
so kids, don't bother being honest and ethical. it does not pay nearly as well as being dishonest.
I believe we should be as honest and ethical as our exemplary leaders. they set the tone and the pace for what our society is becoming. so take your cue, kids; its not worth it to be honest and decent. lie, cheat, steal and do whatever you want because ITS WHAT OUR LEADERS DO.
"do not as I say but as I do"
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Presidential communications are not subject to FOIA. If Congress wants the public to have access to those communications, they should pass a law requiring that.
Access to communications required by subpoena or Congress, however, should most certainly be required.
paintball
Long live King George II.
I await King George III so the people may repeat history. Again.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
oh, they will. sure will. yea yea. :)
If the actions of President Bush has taught us anything over the past 8 years, it's that voting most certainly is NOT pointless. Sure we voted for the wrong guy, but his administration's gross mismanagement of this country showed very clearly that the two parties are not by any means identical, and that your vote for a president can have a very real impact on the policies that are put into place.
At this point, I can only wish that we had an ineffective president who did not accomplish anything in the white house for the last 8 years. We would be a lot better off right now.
>The probably contain evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors
Then the Senate could execute discovery on them.
Why haven't you persuaded a majority of the Senate to do so?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>Much more to blame are environmentalists and other terrorists.
You misspelled "futures market traders", which, if you have a 401(k), you probably are yourself.
Neither supply, demand, nor the ratio of the two correlate to the price. Every other factor
can be derived from quite transparent market trading data.
So where did the environmentalists ("and other terrorists") come in? Did the hippies simply BUY all the oil?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Not if they're 'lost'.
In certain countries you might be.
The Soviets wanted to rub out the Jews just as much, if not more so, than the Germans. What credence has that theory?
Do yourself a favor, as an assumed geek here on /. - apply the scientific method. You've apparently hypothesized that the Germans did not rub out some number of Jews, right? Now, attempt to disprove your theory. Instead of filtering for writings, articles, essays etc. that support your beliefs, open the filter up for writings that support the outcome claimed by historians.
Do yourself a favor, and meet up with descendants of European Jews, and listen to their stories. Take this off of paper, off the Internet, and into the realm of the personal. There should still be enough elderly Jews around Europe and North America that this is possible for you to do, assuming you have access to either area. If you're lucky, you'll meet some that will, ahem, claim to have survived the camps.
And do both them and yourself a favor - hold your tongue. You're looking for evidence, remember? Spend a minute trying to convince *them* of your theory, and you'll get a lot of doors closed in your face.
Best of luck with that theory
He is correct. The Vice President's primary duty is to serve as President of the Senate.
Then why doesn't anyone call him on his bullshit when he tries to pull the "Executive Privilege" line?
He can't have it both ways.
Prove the causality of "Bush policies have resulted in $120 per barrel oil." Much more to blame are environmentalists and other terrorists. Your "basic reality" is an opinion.
I view it as a weakening of the US dollar, which results in higher prices. You can thank the weakening dollar on Bush's disasterous economic policy's.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is moral, when the alternative is Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein post-sanctions, a horrible reality that President George W. Bush prevented.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about WMD in the beginning. The administration spun it to be about bringing democracy and all that crap after it started becoming obvious that their claims of WMD were fabrications. Nice to see that you bought into the administration's propoganda completely.
Even the 9/11 Report points out the ever-increasing connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Citation needed.
And "quagmire" is also an opinionated characterization. The foreign enemy cannot dislodge us. We have a commanding presence in the Middle East.
I just saw a news report where the Taliban (remember them?) had just captured several villages in Afganistan. Thanks to Bush and his grossly incompetent administration, we're still having to deal with shit like that when we should have wiped out the Taliban years ago. Yeah, so long as we kep throwing money at it, we will have a "commanding presence" in the middle east, but we aren't making progress towards any goals, in the meantime we're flushing money and lives down the drain.
So again, your opinion is revealed as media-driven and free of thought.
Says someone who by all appearances gets all their information from the Fox News channel?
I'm sure your little fantasyland up your asshole has lots more opinions, but by any other name they still smell as shit.
Meanwhile, everything is still rosy over in 30-percenter land, huh?