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.
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.
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!
"Sorry, I'm only the FBI director's SECRETARY. I don't have substantial independent authority." The FOIA does apply to all government agencies.
However, if the "agency" does not have "substantial independent authority" from the Executive, then it is not considered an agency for the purposes of the FOIA, it is considered a unit of the Executive Office.
Here's a 13 year old case that references even older cases supporting that interpretation
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5411a.html 5 U.S.C. 552(f) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held thatSo while I agree with the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that "The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails," I'd have to say its pretty obvious that the Bush Administration is on sound legal footing when they do so.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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."
Here's a 13 year old case that references even older cases supporting that interpretation
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5411a.html 5 U.S.C. 552(f) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that
"the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office [of the President] whose sole function is to advise and assist the President" are not included within the term "agency" under the FOIA. So while I agree with the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that "The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails"...
I'd have to say its pretty obvious that the Bush Administration is on sound legal footing when they do so.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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."
From the Wikipedia article on E.O. 13233:I wonder what he's getting in return for holding the party line until the destruction is a fait accompli?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
She's a Clinton appointee and other than this hasn't really been friendly to the Bush administration:
"In August 2007, in a rare move, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the administration of George W. Bush to give its views regarding records requests by the ACLU on the National Security Agency's wiretapping program"
"On October 1, 2007, Judge Kollar-Kotelly reversed George W. Bush on archive secrecy in a 38-page ruling, which said that the U.S. Archivist's reliance on the executive order to delay release of the papers of former presidents is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law."[3] The National Security Archive at George Washington University alleged that the Bush order severely slowed or prevented the release of historic presidential papers."
Both via her Wikipedia page. I'd say if anything, she's refusing to be partisan either way.
>Cheney says the office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive branch.
He is correct. The Vice President's primary duty is to serve as President of the Senate.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.