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."
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.
This isn't about Bush bashing. This is wrong no matter what president is in office. The whole point of our constitutional government is so that government cannot make itself more important than the people it governs. In short, to prevent the mistake that England and other governments made which necessitated [bloody] revolution. We've got secret laws, secret courts, and now even more secrecy within the government that we do know about.
Could you explain this statement? You seem to be saying that we shouldn't be critical of one particular politician and/or party because another hypothetical politician and/or party would do the same thing, at least hypothetically. Doesn't this constitute a race to the bottom for ethical standards, and shouldn't we demand better than that?
That's entirely irrelevant. I don't really care what party it is, if the Democrats were in this situation they would be scrutinized just as much as the current administration is.
That they be held accountable for their actions?
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
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."
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.
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
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
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.