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."
Openness is overrated in democratic societies, anyhow. I'm sure they wouldn't be keeping this all a secret if it weren't in the best interests of the people.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go send my credit card numbers to these nice former Nigerian heads of state.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
IANAL, but I'm still surprised to hear that the FOIA only applies to government offices which have "substantial independent authority."
From everything I've heard, it applies to all government agencies. Does this mean if a government office can make itself appear harmless enough, it doesn't have to cooperate?
"Sorry, I'm only the FBI director's SECRETARY. I don't have substantial independent authority."
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 ----
This ruling brought to you by the same judge who overturned most of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision in United States v. Microsoft! Completely boneheaded as usual.
My blog
Is this another bone-headed IT mistake?
It must be Monday. I really suck at Mondays.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
I'm surprised that they even admitted there were missing e-mails!
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
1.) Conduct all illegal activities through email
2.) When I get sued, pay off court clerk to assign case to Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
3.) ???
4.) Profit!
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.
Excuse my ignorance -- does this mean they can file a FOIA request against some other aspect of the White House, then, who _does_ have substantial independent authority, and for whom the Office of Administration was acting?
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who just created this official, binding policy that the government is above the law, is a fascist judge. She might be familiar to Slashdotters as the judge who the incoming Bush "Justice" Department got to run the Microsoft monopoly verdict's appeal and toothless "remedy phase.
You might not know that Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the execution trial of Saddam Hussein that "the United States has no right to interfere with the judicial processes of another nation's courts", when such interference might mean Hussein might live to tell more of what he knows about US interference in Iraq, or rather its lengthy cooperation with his murderous regime.
And you might not realize that Kollar-Kotelly is the presiding judge of the Bush-packed FISA Court, that has rubberstamped Bush's regime's tens of thousands of "exceptional" wiretap requests that violate the 4th Amendment (which artificial loophole is the entire purpose of that court). Which is why today's Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to put telco amnesty for violating FISA under the FISA Court's jurisdiction, instead of a regular court that actually obeys the Constitution.
Kollar-Kotelly is the go-to judge for Unitary Executive fantasy privileges, whenever they can squeak some out. After all, she kicked off her legal career as a lawyer for Nixon's "Justice" Department.
Play ball!
--
make install -not war
In case you are missing the context here, the emails in question are interesting for a whole slew of reasons. The probably contain evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors (most likely by Cheney, but who knows) and pretty much have to contain evidence of perjury (with the morass of statements that have been made under oath, someone is surely lying, we just don't know who). And them there's the Hacth act violations, the Abrimoff issues, the election tampering, and on and on.
These are the missing 18 minutes gone gonzo,
--MarkusQ
Are you serious? No, you can't be, either that or you've missed the entire point of the supreme court. Judges are there specifically to decide how a law should be enforced or even if it should be enforced at all.
And so the information stays in a lockbox forever, information which should be public knowledge and which could incriminate the heads of the administration, which would then affect the judicial branch and make the legislative branch look really, really good.
A really good quote appeared in the footer of the page just now: "Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce"
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
if you can't get the transparency from your democratic government that you deserve, petition the chinese government to air their copies of our government's email
i'm sure they have a copy of the inboxes in question sitting around somewhere
thank god for shoddy us government computer security and snooping totalitarian regimes: securing the transparency in our democracy that we deserve!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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*
Yeah, in a perfect world, this is true. But in the real world, which judges sit where is such a hotly contested game precisely because personal bias and political allegiance does in fact make a significant difference and everybody with a brain knows it. --Even you, otherwise you wouldn't be recommending people vote for people who, "will do what you want".
In other words, either write in a manner which doesn't self-contradict while at the same time condemning thinking people as 'whiners', or please just stop typing, because right now you sound both evil and wrong.
-FL
No, I think you missed the point of his post. Judges aren't there to make law. 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 Supreme Court also is supposed to do this, its just that at that level they are almost exclusively supposed to put the law in the context of the Constitution. Then the thing is, if they are strict constructionist or not, as to what "side" they're likely to come down upon.
Thing is, When Washington was appointing judges, its not like they had to reach very hard to find out what the guys who wrote the Constitution meant -- they were alive and kicking and hanging out down the block. The system was created before political parties when it was just assumed that people would know what they were supposed to do.
Of course, things are different now. People who see themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans," "Liberals" or "Conservatives," instead of just as "Americans" are in the position to appoint judges who will agree with their specific neo-tribalist sensibilities, slants and biases.
However, I would venture to say that no matter what form of government was constituted, the end result would have been the same because the pattern is obvious since the time of Rome, if not before.
Oh well, only a few months left
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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".
Unfortunately, as with so many cases that appeal to the Supreme Court, a final judgement could take years by which time there will be a new President and the records (if any still exist) will be long gone.
Not with this White House.
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
mandatory email journaling voted in
They have, it's called the Presidential Records Act.
This ruling just says that the general public is not allowed to use the FOIA in order to find out whether the administration is complying with the law or not.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
> 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."
In somewhat vulgar terms, the above post perhaps represents some of my innermost, unexpressed feelings. I'm sorry, Troll.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The People have lost. Not enough people care about what happens as long as they have American Idol and Survivor, and credit cards.
Those who do care are less than 1 percent, and are also branded as nutjobs.
We have already lost, and can change nothing. Voting is a sham; the people we elect will do what they want anyways at the cost of screwing over the little people, and if we don't vote the way they like, they'll just mess with the votes of electronic voting.
And don't even think about an armed revolution; the army is much more powerful and much more well armed than 50% of the US combined and wouldn't bat an eye at "putting down" such a thing.
The reason we whine is because we're left with no other choices. It's the result of our loss.
Do not mod posts by this account up. "freenix" is one of twitter's army of eleven accounts, which he uses to manipulate the Slashdot moderation system.
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.
I'm outraged; googled the Judge and called her office in Washington DC.
Isn't this the SAME JUDGE that oversaw the breakup of Microsoft after Pennfield-Jackson screwed things up? She decided the current agreement with the Justice Department (which the Justice Department claims in unenforcible and now regrets doing) was good enough for a convicted monopolist.
Somehow we're supposed to trust this woman with proper interpretation of the law?
Hopefully this will get overturned on appeal...
The terrorists have won.
As any comedian will tell you, the letter K is a funny letter. The sound, itself somehow adds to the comedic value of any words in a joke. Since this judge has not one, but THREE K sounds in her name, I have no choice but to insist this is a joke. There's no other explanation.
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.
>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.
I knew from about the youngest age that the bottom line is "don't get caught". If I recall correctly, this is why sociologist think this is the main reason we invented "allmighty gods with after death judgement and punishment". So that the majority would follow the line, instead of having the majority of people misusing the societal resource as long as they don't get caught.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Are you telling me that after they read all my emails, that even congress can not get their emails?
tick tick tick
When you hear the ding, the revolution has started
tick tick tick
Andy Out!
Publicise this despicable action and watch bunning struggle to find a job mopping floors in his local elementary school.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
If you're just voting, you get to decide who gets to write the check. If you fight your ticket, or a bad law, you make the law that much more expensive to fight. If a full 1% of the people who get tickets actually fought them, tooth and nail, it's gonna get pretty damn expensive to enforce the law.
Now when you play with the executive branch, you get to see a lot more of what is going on. Congress passes a law and delegates authority to say, the Secretary of the Treasury. The secretary determines how to enforce the law and proposes a regulation. The regulation then is reviewed by *us*, and we send our comments in. The secretary must take our comments into consideration when promulgating a regulation.
Guess who sends in those comments and hangs out at the hearings for the regulations? Us? Nope. We're too busy working our tail off for that big house in PV. Corporations with their paid shills are there, giving testimony and making suggestions about how everyone would benefit if the regulation were written their way.
Unfortunately, the name of the game is to know the rules and use them. If they don't suit you, buy new rules.
Oh, and don't forget that if you don't know how an agency operates, you can get their organization and staffing manuals and their procedure manuals - if they are subject to FOIA.
What would our country be like with a large army of people making FOIA requests?
Every kid should know this stuff before they leave high school!!!
There. I'm done.
The executive... haha.. has.. hahaha.. no.. hahahahaha.. *tries to catch some breaths*.. independent authority?
.. uncontrollable.. laughter.
must.. try.. to.. breathe.. through
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Am I really a hate criminal for questioning whether there were death camps in WWII?
I prefer to categorise myself as a skeptic - I have seen no convincing evidence for gas chambers, and suspect that the whole thing was Soviet propaganda.
Am I now a hate criminal for not following the groupthink on this important point?
Think on, before you support this sort of legislation - you may yourself differ with the politically correct interpretation of the world some day, and find yourself guilty of thought crime.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
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
I couldn't decide if I wanted to mod or post. I ended up posting when I failed to find a -1 WTF or -1 HOLY SHIT. I thought about modding funny but thought most would misunderstand my intent.
Which law specifies penalties for a thought that you have? I have been out of touch a little the last couple months, out of the country, but am not aware of any laws banning a thought or idea. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but "I have seen no convincing evidence".
Where did the graves full of bodies come from. I suppose the photos of that could be from something else or faked. Does that mean anything that you don't see yourself is suspect?
What about the war in Iraq? Is that Fake? (I am there now,I assure you it is real)
Atomic bombs in WWII was that propaganda? I certainly didn't witness that one!
Kennedy's assasination, I never saw the body myself. I guess I have seen no "convincing evidence" that he is not in hiding exercising power from an undisclosed location.
I am all about being skeptical but where is the line? What is convincing evidence to you?
Nothing I heard convinced me that their parents were survivors of death camps - concentration camps, sure, but no first hand evidence of death camps ever came my way.
And as for opening up my filter - I read avidly, but skeptically. Point me to a source that confirms 6 million, or even 1 million deliberate murders, and I'll assess it on its merits. The problem is that the Holocaust is taught as truth, despite the lack of evidence.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Firstly, 'holocaust denial' is illegal in many countries - that, to me, is sufficient to suggest that this is a 'thought crime'.
Secondly, I would never deny the existence of the mass graves, but would dispute that they were filled with the bodies of the gassed. There is ample evidence to support the proposition that the ill-treatment of the prisoners combined with poor sanitation and malnutrition caused the vast majority of the deaths, and that the cruelty and inhuman behaviour of some of the guards account for the rest.
Yeah, there's a war in Iraq, and I'm very glad I'm not there, and sincerely hope you come home safely.
My 'no convincing evidence' does not mean 'I haven't seen it with my own eyes' - it means 'I don't support the conclusion that there were death camps just because lots of people died'.
Show me Nazi documentation that states that people were gassed, or accept that I will never believe in the 'holocaust'.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
The White House uses it's substantial independent authority to declare that it does not have enough substantial independent authority to be subject to FOIA?! Brilliant!
Others here have already addressed how you could possibly educate yourself on this issue, so I'll answer your questions more simply. You are not a hate criminal unless you were to say something like, "the death camps never happened AND I think we should take (these steps) to make them real because it's a good idea". It's advocacy of harm to an individual or group that constitutes criminal behavior, not saying that you hate any group for whatever reason.
Thought crime, BTW, is not disagreeing with the rulers, it's the idea that having an inclination towards or a perceived predilection for a criminal act is just as bad as the act itself and should be punished as such. Try reading 1984 when you do your Holocaust research. If you can understand either you may find that you're not a criminal for your beliefs; if you've been treated poorly when you express your beliefs surrounding the Holocaust... well, try not to mistake people thinking that you're stupid for people thinking that you're criminal.Provide me with proof that there were gas chambers, and I'll happily revise my position - the problem is that there is a general acceptance of the idea that there was a holocaust in the absence of any tangible evidence.
I don't wish that there were gas chambers, nor do I wish ill on any group of people, however they are defined - it is my fervent wish that there were no such camps and that the deaths of millions were through ignorance, starvation and disease rather than through evil.
Oh, and I read 1984 in 1974 :P
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Sorry, I made that oldest of mistakes and thought that you lived in a free country, not France. I'm American of the U.S.A ilk, so, if I don't specify otherwise, I'm talking about the laws and customs of the U.S.A. Here you can't be jailed for saying that you hate a group, or that you disbelieve anything (that's what the topic of the sub-thread was about, Hate Laws in the U.S.), but you can be jailed for actively encouraging people to harm groups or individuals based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. There is a world of difference between those two actions.
Try reading 1984 again (1974 is a lifetime ago, literally for me as I was born that year). Also, go ahead and visit Auschwitz. It's there, it's real, it's awful. Or Birkenau; visit either, they're there, really. I can't "provide" you with proof, however. If the information available from eye-witnesses and historians isn't enough for you, then you'll have to go see it yourself.
...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? He really should have considered that before running for President, for you see, holding the Highest Office in the Land is not at all with out cost.I'm all for privacy, I really am, but in this case the individual's need is greatly outweighed by the greater good.
Yes, there is. So what's your point? Millions of people died regardless. Most knowledgeable people agree that the death camps were – in a perverted sense – better than the concentration camps, because at least they provided a fairly quick death, whereas the concentration camps meant a slow death over several weeks.
I suggest you go to Krakow and take the Auschwitz tour. You might change your mind. Otherwise, you could start with the Wikipedia entry and continue from there. If you're really looking for evidence, that is.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
I am enraged.
I cannot stand to sit one more minute under this regime. Revolution, I say! Yes, it has come to this. We have been stripped willingly of our power to decide our future. And yes, I accept the possibility of being sent to a secret prison camp for what I think and what I say. It is treason for an administration that is all about loyalty. Keep silent, obey your master. Good dog, have a bone. Or some oil you may prefer.
That the current executive is immoral is common knowledge. But to see the legislative go down the drain enrages me. This was our last bastion of truth, of hope, of morality. And now, I see people debating the interpretation of laws written by others, the twisting of laws, instead of debating what is fundamentally moral and what the laws should be. Where is our power to vote on laws? How long before simple online referendums are implemented, with free public secure booths? Most americans may be of lesser intelligence than an average slashdotter, but they still have a right to govern themselves and vote on basic laws. Where is the outrage when the president is elected not by the people but by a select few high electors, who spit in the face of the public and their will? Are we but sheep, to be trampled, to be let where they will, and to talk between ourselves in hushed voices but in the end without actions significant?
How can we sit, basking in the glow of our LCDs, while they laugh at us and our complacence, and reap the benefits of raping both US citizens and the world? If we do not stop Bush (and his army of profiteers and loyals) by force before the end of his rule, what kind of example are we setting for posterity? There is precious little time left. What is to to stop the Bush monarchy to implement a controlled minion as next president, as Putin did with Medvedev?
How can politicians promise policies that differ completely once they are in office, as we stand by powerless? Where is accountability? We need to reclaim our power to decide our fate ourselves. This we will accomplish by voting directly on laws and destroying all these politicians, all these middlemen so cunning that they have us believing they are actually useful.
And what now?
To the streets, I say! Let their greedy heads fall, and let us reclaim our right to live free and govern ourselves, and no longer live in fear of our own government!
Aren't there more important and pressing issues to tend to and to complain about then the White Houses Ability to backup emails and other messages? I can name 4 things that seem more important then this.
1) Flooding in the Midwest
2) Gas Prices
3) Unemployment Rising due to Number 2.
4) Preparing for the upcoming Hurricane Season.
There are several more important issues that this Democratic Country needs to tend with then THis complete Bullshit.
Maybe I misunderstood your point and was off base. I take it from your reply that you believe that millions were gathered up and put in camps and killed, but your skeptical on the issue of actually using gas to do the killing or if they died from starvation/poor sanitation or other abuses at the hands of the guards. I can buy that as an argument, but even if it is true I really don't see the importance of that point. They still gathered up millions and killed them, we are just disputing the tools used to commit the genocide.
If camps where millions of people were brought to die, regardless of the means, are not death camps, what are? Is it only a death camp if gas is used?
Since you replied to the post about hate crime laws in the US I assumed you were talking about US laws. I can not comment about the laws of "many countries". I wasn't very specific but I still challenge you to point me to a US or state law that outlaws a thought, not speech meant to incite hate crimes or other violence just a thought or belief.
Nazi documentation is the only evidence you will accept?
Do You put more faith in the records of the government responsible for the killings than all of the other governments who were not?
That last line has me puzzled. "accept that I will never believe in the holocaust". I don't get it, if we found out tomorrow that all of the Jews were killed with plastic sporks it wouldn't change anything, the holocaust was the gathering up and killing of millions of Jews, not the tools used to do it with.
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?
I don't think there is a hate-crine law in the US that restricts freedom of speech - it would be against your Constitution.
The reason I would accept Nazi documentation is that the Nazis ran the camps, and if there was any deliberate intent to kill the inmates, that's where we'd find the proof - anything else is merely hearsay, and would not stand up in court (Nuremberg excepted, but that was victor's justice, so let it pass).
The point about the holocaust is that it is portrayed as a deliberate attempt to rid the German sphere of influence of Jews - the Nazis were anti-semitic, but unless there is evidence of a policy of murder, the concentration camps were forced labour, not death camps.
Nice to have a civilised conversation with someone on this matter, by the way - it's rare indeed to find someone (other than Nazi fans, who I hate) willing to debate this matter.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
You are, of course, free decide if the Holocaust is true but please base your decision on evidence.
When making your decision, please take into account the fact that evidence based on words or numbers may not be true due to the fact that nobody has ever seen these objects (only representations of them, at best). People talk about them but that doesn't mean they're real.
I'm all for privacy, I really am, but in this case the individual's need is greatly outweighed by the greater good
You're missing the point. The greater good is served by allowing elected executives to have some privacy as they deliberate over what will become very public policies and actions. Could you go four years while dealing with unimagineably stressful decision making on every conceivable sort of topic, and never once want to have a private conversation with a close friend while hashing things out? Really?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually, yes, I sure could, but only because I'm fairly open about my thoughts. I don't mind being observed, and I don't mind 'showing my method' because in a lot of ways that is more important than the decision I arrive at.
Now that likely doesn't expand to just anyone, but personally I do not find this all that unreasonable for the President.
But you're forgetting the need for people from other parties, idealogies, and even nations to be able to quietly chime in behind the scenes without rocking their own boats. Should Nancy Pelosi really be unable to have a frank, unrecorded, private bit of face time with her political opponent (but none the less, co-worker) in the executive branch? Should a newly elected president not be able to quietly discuss with his immediate predecessor the nature of earlier private conversations that C-in-C may have had with a foreign head of state? If Obama (for example) is elected, and three years later is in the mood to try for another term, should he be allowed to take off his "president" hat, and have private "candidate" conversations with people counseling him on political matters? Would you deny him the ability to use e-mail for that purpose? If so, why?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To answer your question, you're going to have to define 'private' for me. If you are referring to 'never recorded in any way' then my answer would be 'no, this should not happen.'
Why not?
Because how do you KNOW that what was being discussed should not be on the record? Sure, the people involved claim it was a deep religious debate, but what if it was in fact a discussion of how to out Valerie Plame without getting caught? The President is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a feature of the job. Just as I am not likewise entitled to email my wife about private matters without it being recorded on the way out.
Now if you mean 'recorded, but only released under court order', THEN we're on common ground.
We've seen this over and over again. So why is this any different?
The President is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a feature of the job
Sure he (or she) is. And if it turns out that the president's actions are contrary to law, then you've got good reason to do something about it, or at least simply not re-elect him on his next go around. The whole point of an election season is that it's a chance to decide who you trust to make decisions. In your scenario, where private consultation prior to public acts are impossible, then you're not hiring an executive, you're hiring someone who's good at chairing public meetings. What's the point of having someone who can execute their judgement if you don't trust their judgement? Part of their judgement involves picking the right people to talk to, on occasion, to gain some insight into something that's beyond your experience or foresight. And not all of those people are going to be in the mood to be under scrutiny of political operatives who are paid to take potshots at whoever's in office that year.
Would it be interesting to be privvy to all of Bill Clinton's private ruminations and communications following the attack on the USS Cole and our embassies in Africa? Sure. But regardless of how he came by his thinking, it's his actions (or lack of them) that really matter on the subject. The president is still a citizen. He's a civilian holding an important office, but he's still a citizen just like you and me. The person in that office is entitled to talk with his peers and acquaintences without making those people worry that every word they say (or type) will wind up out of context in some senate political theater.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Trust, but verify"
"Trust, but verify"
So, who does the verifying? Your political opponents, who want to see you defeated in an upcoming election? The editors of a hostile newspaper? Yeah, you'll get lots of thoughtful input from confidants, people with special knowledge on key topics, and quiet cooperation from your rivals what with all of that going on. No problem there.
Where do you draw the line? Should every one of Bill Clinton's convesations with friends while out on a sailboat off of Martha's Vineyard while on vacation be part of that public record? How do you plan on verifying that stuff?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is all trivial, and is well worth doing. We're in an age of instantaneous global communication, discussing the activities of one of the most powerful people in the world, and somehow the sky is still falling?
We can disagree, you know. There really isn't anything wrong with that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but claiming hardship in this case just isn't really relevant.
call me sentimental, but I don't like to think of a whole country going evil on the say-so of a few bastards.
You're sentimental.
Look up some footage of parades in Germany during that era. The symbolism and expressions of the crowd are unreal. You'd think that they were hauling the Pharaoh down the street and the citizens were worshiping his divinity.
It is truly frightening what entire populations are capable of doing - either actively or by looking the other way. This isn't a lesson on how evil the Germans were, but rather what all of us just might be capable of. Perhaps you can be forgiven for not wanting to believe that this is true...
Who's talking hardship? I'm talking about the person who is, indeed, one of the most powerful people in the world, having - as part of their job and as part of their role as a citizen of the United States - the ability, indeed the right, to talk privately. We don't get to see a print-out of what the Supreme Court justices say to each other over coffee or in an e-mail between them. We don't get to see what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi swap in an e-mail while deciding how that want to position themselves on some political subject. It's not a bit different.
To pretend that a president must surrender the same rights that he's been sworn in to protect is just silly.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Right can be, and frequently are, voluntarily surrendered. They still exist, but often times the constraints on one's duties prohibit those rights being exercised.
;)
Of course you know this, so nevermind.
I give up.
I should avoid feeding the troll.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
Just because you've read the constitution, doesn't mean you understand how US government actually works.
it is my fervent wish that there were no such camps and that the deaths of millions were through ignorance, starvation and disease rather than through evil.
You cannot assert that "no human being/society would ever do evil thing X." It may be unthinkable for you, and unimaginable for all but the most deranged of your fellow countrymen. But if you look throughout the world, and throughout history, you will find that every iron-clad boundary that you believe to exist has not only been crossed before, but been crossed many, many times.
It seems to me that the most convincing evidence you'll find that the Holocaust is real is the present-day horror taking place in Sudan. If you were to absorb the totality of that tragedy, the Third Reich would become less a difference of kind, and more of degree.
iSKUNK!
http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=219
Here is a rather cheap video that will satisfy your search for the truth. Though i'm sure you can find many free sources online as well.
Also, visit a concentration camp in Germany if you can. I've been to several.
As far as factual information about the number dead? Who knows really.. but transcripts like http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Appeal/Appeal-Session-03-07.html seem to give you a glimpse at truely factual information.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Debate and commentary from May, 2007. The mark-up is mine, as is the commentary on the entry page, but the rest of the files in the sub-site are verbatim XHTML mark-ups of The Congressional Daily Record, parsed from Government Printing Office served ASCII source files, and the links to the sources are given on each page.
I don't like hate crime laws, because they cross over a double jeopardy line in my mind. There is something wrong with being punished twice for the same criminal act, which is what hate crimes legislation does, but this has nothing to do with constitutionally protected speech, as many members of the House Republican Conservative Committee were alleging. The crime for being an accessory to an act of violence, for conspiratorial speech which was a part of a felony's commission, or speech which directly incited criminal behavior has never been protected speech. It does not matter that some assholes believe their religion teaches them to hate fags, or if a preacherman said it. It is still a crime, and this law does not change that. It only changes the sentence meted out if the victim of a violent felony was targeted, because they were a member in a listed group.
The argument made about special protected classes is lame too, when considering sentence guidelines promulgated by the DOJ. With violent crimes in which the victim was specifically targeted because of being a law enforcement officer, there is already a 6 step sentence enhancement. With victims targeted because of excessive vulnerability (aged, children, mentally or physically disabled, etc.), it is a 2 step sentence enhancement. For this specific hate crimes legislation, a 3 step sentence enhancement is proposed. It's covered in the entry page at the above link.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
None of this has anything to do with speaking within America. You can freely speak about your doubts, but if you speak in a manner that directly incited a violent felony to be committed, you have committed a criminal act. This is the same with or without hate crimes legislation.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
What was alleged was that Obama supported a "hate speech" bill". Do not conflate these two concepts, or prove yourself to be incapable of understanding why they are entirely different concepts.
At the same time, aske yourself, why these god-fearing Conservative Republicans have suddenly gotten ale riled up about differing sentencing standards, when they had no problem with sentence enhancements for a crime tacked-on, when the protected groups were ones they desired to protect. As I mentioned earlier, intentionally targeting a person because they are a law enforcement officer is recommended in the DOJ's sentence guidelines as a 6-step enhancement. Torching SUV's and ski resort construction sites is arson, for which the law has well-defined code and sentences for. It is not terrorism. How about burning churches? Should the perpetrators of acts of arson targeting churches receive longer sentences than a person who torched his own business to hide financial improprieties from the authorities?
The simple facts are that there exists a myriad of U.S. legal code that increases sentencing based only upon the perpetrator's targeting choices. What the true underlying issue here is that these politicians are opposed to protections extended to persons because of gender identity or sexual preferences, but they are just too damn dishonest to say so.
And let's face it, what is there to really fear about transvestites anyway? If you cannot outrun some guy wearing spike heels and a long tight cocktail gown, you really ought to go down to the gym and work out a bit.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
More like "Apples, meet Oranges".
The president is my employee; he's your employee too, if you're a US citizen. The entire Executive branch works for us, not the other way around. Thus we have a very strong interest in keeping track of what they are doing. Safeguards are of course necessary for security matters and so forth, but as a rule, everything my employee does on company time and company equipment should be open to inspection by me, you and all citizens.
Your medical record, OTOH, are something *I* have no right to, because we have NO relationship.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Oops - actually, upon re-reading, I see I mis-understood your point entirely. I completely agree with mandatory journaling of all government email.... and the default should be "open to public" with protection only rarely ... and even then, available when there is suspicion of foul play.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
....the records (if any still exist) will be long gone. Hmmm--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -