Slashdot Mirror
Trying To Find White House Missing E-mails
Gov IT writes "On Wednesday a federal court ordered all employees working in the Bush White House to surrender media that might contain e-mails sent or received during a two and a half year period in hope of locating missing messages before President-elect Barack Obama takes over next week."
They are unable to find Iraqi WMDs either - maybe the emails have also long since been destroyed.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
For security purposes, it is a little known fact that Dick Cheney was a major proponent in getting the entire Executive Branch to adopt RCF 2549 methods of transport. Message deletion consisted of a little "hunting accident" on the family ranch.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
going to do with a 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 inch Penis?
There is no way in hell the emails disappeared without the act being intentional (and thus in violation of the law). George Bush needs to be held to account for this.
Prosecute an outgoing President?
I don't like Bush as a President at all. But the job of the President is to make tough decisions and along the way he will make lots of enemies. However, just because a person is my enemy, it does not mean that he made those difficult decisions with anything but his best intentions and the country's best interests at heart. So it would be petty and irresponsible for us "enemies" of the current President to pursue this type of vindictive hounding because 4 years from now those same tactics will be used against a President I support.
Respect the office.
A covenant without a sword is but words among men.
Good luck finding the agency with those emails. They've all been destroyed because there was specific Bush-related dirty laundry that couldn't ever be cleaned. These emails implicate so many people that they had to disappear.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Is that really so bad?
It's not like he got a blowjob or anything!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...it's sailing away!
Really people this is over.
I'm a serious lefty. I hate war criminals because I am Jewish. I marched in Manhattan against the war in Iraq the February before it started. It happened. The crimes have been committed. We blindly followed zealots and morons into domestic and foreign policies that have ruined our nation morally and economically.
My question is, what new things do you expect to learn? Is there any reason to read these emails? We know what they did and who is responsible. Maybe we don't have every gory detail. I doubt we need them. We could already try the major players.
But what punishment would be appropriate? The point of investigating these actions would have been to stop them and we did not do enough, as the American Citizenry, to stop them. WE EVEN RE-ELECTED the criminals.
We won't hang the offenders as is appropriate (Nuremberg anyone?), we won't hand them over to the victim nations. We didn't stop the crimes and as members of a democracy that makes us complicit.
Imagine a parent who gives their kid a case of beer and the keys to the car. The kid gets drunk and drives the car through the neighbor's house. What would the neighbor think if all the parents did was ground the kid for a few weeks?
Because Obama will be sure to properly archive all of his emails...and SMS messages...
Another cliched punchline from the outgoing admin. Why am I too tired to laugh.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
It's not the judge's prerogative to rule over the executive branch. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to judge the President via impeachment, not the courts.
I read that Clinton and Bush both never used email while in office to avoid anything in the future to come back and haunt them ....This is a great example....Bama wants to keep his blackberry should be fun
This administration has been known for their easy relations and quick co-operation with the Department of Justice. I'm sure this request will be just as promptly answered, and always with courtesy!
All I have to say is good luck with that...
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
Your people? __Your people__?
My people are humans. Humans are fucked up. Of course my people are doing wrong.
In Dafur.
In Isreal.
In Palestine.
At Guantanimo.
In Abu Grahib.
In the wilds of Uganda.
In the jungles of South America.
In China.
In Russia.
In Burma.
In Afghanistan.
Review IT architecture of (the late) Mike Connell for the GOP:
Read the links, Videos with Spoonamore, another GOP IT Guru.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F23%2F2128209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJi7ViN35O8
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Foul_play_not_suspected_in_GOP_0113.html
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/
You telling me Systems people don't do backups?
Thought not.
~hylas
the reason why this needs to be investigated is for Justice. Justice is a simple promise that when someone breaks the law, and attempt will be made to punish them according to the rules laid down by society.
Because he is the president, it is all that much more important that a crime that he might have comitted be investigated and if needed, prosecuted. America was founded on the ideal that all men are equal, that there are no kings that are above the law, and the rules will be applied fairly.
One might suggest that dealing with a potential criminal in the highest office in a just fashion could be our greatest affirmation of that idea.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
If its like the rest of his administration, he tried to delete it. Its still in the recycle bin, just undelete it.
Do they have to retain all spam messages too? If not, who determines what is spam and what isn't?
The people have the right to sue the executive branch. The venue for such suit is naturally the courts. In that case, it is indeed the prerogative of a judge to resolve the suit according to law.
Impeachment is a different beast entirely, which could result in actual punishment instead of just forcing them to hand over their documents.
(...) irrespective of Bush's theft of two elections.
From my point of view, there could have been a theft of ONE election, not TWO. In any case, he still got a few people to vote for him, hasn't he? (2000, 2004)
Who's to blame, here?
Really people this is over.
Not really. The only ship that is sailing is the executive pardon ship; there isn't a chance in hell Obama will pardon anyone from the Bush administration for the torture stuff, and when you're out of office, it makes it much harder for you to retaliate (or get anyone in the current administration to retaliate) for going after you criminally.
There was a long podcast on Fresh Air recently (I think this is the one) about how nobody in the Bush administration is traveling outside the US- no book deals, conferences, vacations, or speaking tours. It's uncharacteristic (look at Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Bush Sr., for example.) Basically, they're scared shitless of being arrested and extradited. The human rights violations (torture, for starters) are so heinous in international law that ANY COUNTRY that signed the various conventions can choose to prosecute- and any that does can use extradition treaties to get their hands on such a person. Worse still, they can press the US government to cooperate with the investigation; do you really think Obama will fight handing over evidence of human rights violations and war crimes? He's already pissing off people left and right with his inauguration choices and proposed appointments...
Now, suddenly, we also internally have no hold on the justice department (which will be working for Obama and a democrat-controlled congress) who could choose to investigate, mainly because it's much less embarrassing to take care of this in-house than not. It's practically a slam-dunk case; Cheney admitted on national TV that he reviewed (and thus authorized) the torture of gitmo prisoners.
Please help metamoderate.
And wink.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
What do you want....a body? He confessed - that's how this thing came to light...case closed.
I think that this whole business of constantly suing the President by the Congress for all of the records of his or her deliberations is a load of shit. It was wrong when Republicans did it to Bill Clinton and it is wrong for Democrats to do it to Bush and will be wrong when Republicans do it again to Obama.
The President is an independent branch of government from the Congress and the only essential things he could really do that cause his removal would be to attempt to engage in a power that belongs properly to the Congress.
This is my sig.
...if those missing emails get recovered, and wind up conclusively proving that Bush and Cheney did NOT lie about Iraq WMDs but instead were lied to intelligence and/or State Department minions who turn out to be Democrats?
Will it all get quietly dropped, or will the same zeal that was used to attack Bush/Cheney be used to attack the individuals responsible?
Impossible, you say? Consider the fact that the post-2006 Congress was none too eager to persue impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney, in spite of the loud drumbeats from the moveon.org minions. One would think they would have been delighted to do so if it were the open/shut case that some people claim.
Remember that The Law Of Unintended Consequences is always ready to pounce upon the unwary. Never assume that things will work out the way you think. Sometimes, things recoil the exact opposite way that you intend.
YES, those emails should be recovered if at all possible. They are important historical documents. Any and all significant facts in these emails should be added to the historical record and publicized -- no matter WHO it embarrasses.
And that includes the Democratic Party and other elements of the Left.
They are not written by Congress, and the
Constitution says that Congress shall write the laws.
Since Congress did not write the signing statement,
the signing statement means absolutely nothing.
Signing statements are bullshit and an attempt to
con the public into letting a corrupt president
subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
If you believe signing statements mean anything,
then you do not respect the Constitution and the
Rule of Law, and you are an idiot like bush.
It is only a matter of time and the Judiciary
to make my point clear to the public and to
the Executive branch.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Having some deniability was pretty handy too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
We don't know if bush did not get a blowjob.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The problem then becomes what to do with the records to prevent deletion. You could have a branch of gov't that deals specifically with protecting the White House's data other than IT people. The problem is always going to be its for the Office of the President so 1) there's always going to be political interference in the decision making; 2) the data can be highly personal or classified; 3) the President is probably going to have a say or veto if in his/her best interests to get person of their choosing.
I'd hate to see e-mails go missing. Paper files are always better. But there's always going to be doubt in any system. People can used non-issued computers to communicate and paper can go missing easily with no proof it was ever written.
If 100,000 e-mails are missing, surely the date and time stamps + sender and receiver are pieces of information that should be kept on file in the archives. It would reveal some details about the discussion. Afterall, since they have a good idea of the precise number of e-mails missing, they should have logs to back up this evidence. If not, perhaps even more e-mails are missing.
life's complex. part real, part imaginary. - Phantom of the Opera's sig
Help stamp out iliturcy.
OK, I do believe in the imaginary :)
"I'm sorry, your honor. We are completely incompetent." Who's NOT going to believe that after the last 8 years?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The only way this will change is if someone is held to account for it.
Dick Nixon was held accountable and all successive Presidents have learned from that lesson.
Maybe we can find out who killed JFK! Or who put thermate cutters in the WTC.
I'm not holding my breath though.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Your an idiot if you think this is anything new. It isn't. Clinton lost documents that was logged in record, he lost emails too. Before that Bush and Reagan had some of the same problem. Everything you said is still true with them and it fucking happened. But no, you want to look at your NAS that has been running for 10 years (year right) and assume that everything in your little rosy life is the way it is everywhere else. The problem is that the government doesn't hire the best or the brightest people. so your ideal world probably couldn't exist it you wanted it to anyways.
But let's not look at fucking reality. Lets all just live in your little perfect world and see everything through your rose colored glasses and ignore the realities of life.
Personal attacks aside, the point is that 700 days of email server records dont just vanish.
Of course not, but as the Clinton administration proved, it is not punishable - "no controlling authority". The Obama administration which is already starting out with corruption will do the same. Status quo.
They started to impeach Dick Nixon over too many records kept and the only reason it didn't stick was that he resigned first.
In a few years we'll be talking about missing emails from Obama's White House. Nothing to see, move along.
When you have not had an honest President since Taft over a century ago, it is in NO ONE's best interest to have accurate records.
Hmmm, get busted for deleting email or treason?
Not a hard choice for Bushies.....
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
...he'll find those missing emails in 24 hours.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And being a Citizen of the United States, is under the Jurisdiction of United States Law.
Therefore, the United States Attorneys, IF they had a shred of Honor and Integrity would bring the clear evidence that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell el al violated ( at least ) both 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001 to a Grand Jury for possible Indictment.
Now, while there's the ADDITIONAL impeachment process in Congress, it's silly to pretend that any of these US Citizens have super-powers keeping them immune from US Law.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Don't worry Mike will fly them down to the Judge,
Uhh.. Ooops.
I think that this whole business of constantly suing the President by the Congress for all of the records of his or her deliberations is a load of shit. It was wrong when Republicans did it to Bill Clinton and it is wrong for Democrats to do it to Bush and will be wrong when Republicans do it again to Obama.
It is pretty well known that Bush deliberately used computers and accounts he should not have been using for government business.
Perhaps if he played by the rules, then this would not be necessary.
The people allegedly hired the president, we have a right to check his work.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'll see your "Contempt of Court" and raise you "Separation of Powers".
And I'm sure in the final days of a lame duck administration where everyone is trying to transition things to the next administration and a lot of people this was applicable to have moved on...I'm sure they have plenty of time in the remaining 6 or so days (1 being a holiday) to do this.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The people allegedly hired the president, we have a right to check his work.
You have a right to check his work but have no right to how he does it. You have no right to his personal thoughts or associations. He is an employee, not a slave.
You have the result, and if you like it, you can re-elect him to one term, and if you don't, then you don't. That's all you get because it is all you need.
This is my sig.
Message deletion consisted of a little "hunting accident" on the family ranch.
Meh. Pigeons or Planes, no difference...
http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/36482529.html
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Having met, talked to, and worked with people from various three letter agencies I will argue the fact about them hiring the best and brightest. Some of the people that work for the government are scary intelligent. The best data recovery tools I have ever seen or used came out of one of said agencies, the same that came up with SELinux. So I'm going to say that lost email in this instance, while certainly inside the realm of possibility and more than likely, is borderline criminal negligence.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Holy crap, dude, you've got it completely backwards. If the president that you currently support pulls the same shit as Bush, you should be happy if he gets hounded.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Clinton lost ~100,000 emails (a generous estimate based on spurious claims that never held up in court). The Bush Administration lost them for two fucking years. Which administration spied on US citizens (and they've always been able to, but this is nominally the jurisdiction of the FBI)? Which one specifically authorized violating the Geneva Convention (torture, wars of aggression), flaunted the Constitution, and suspended habeas corpus?
Hmm... I wonder why people would want his emails.
Again with the unrealistic view of backups. NOBODY working in enterprise IT thinks that NAS is a long-term backup solution (long term = more than a couple days).
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
I think it's a highly erroneous policy stance to say that once someone is removed from office, we should let slide their misdeeds. If Bush committed felonies - or warcrimes - while in office, or anyone in the administration did, then they should like everyone else be judged in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Note that for Clinton, we didn't move on. We dragged an ultimately silly sexual interaction out for years - and he still gets crap about it. We like to pretend, though, that Bush didn't authorize illegal wiretaps, didn't authorize torture, didn't authorize a war and cover it with false evidence. Frankly, I think people are too afraid to face the fact we, as a nation, aren't perfect. But we all need to get over that, and deal out justice where justice is due.
[Ego]out
Quite honestly, if the law cannot be made to serve against literally any citizen that breaks it, then we are all diminished in our freedoms. Even if he made decisions with the best of intentions, if he chose to break the law, he should be held accountable.
If the right thing to do was break the law - that is what appeal is for, so that we can examine the law and decide if it is just. But to avoid the judicial process entirely - regardless of it's length or apparent vindictiveness - is to remove a primary protection that each of us, as citizens, count up to sustain our freedoms.
It is neither petty nor irresponsible. It is quite the opposite; it is the only way we have to shed light on the truth, be that what it may. In what other manner are we to operate this democracy? Or are some truly more equal than others?
[Ego]out
Should not be too hard to walk across the street from the courthouse and get copies of all of the e-mails ever sent anywhere...
No, no, no. The Iran-Contra folks had the same problem that they "lost" their emails, but they soon discovered that the Whitehouse email system made automatic copies which could then be subpoenaed (and which proved to be politically embarrassing). That was the real Washington email problem, and you can be sure Bush-Cheney made sure it was fixed early on.
-JS
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
This is a lie. The republicans held 51 seats of the senate from 2002-2004 and gained even more in 2004-2006.
Actually, not. Before you go and start calling people liars, you should learn how to read. You show a chart for the election in 2002, which was held in November. The Iraqi war vote took place BEFORE that election. Here, check this out..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Majority_Leader
And explain to me, how Tom Daschle, a Democrat, is Senate MAJORITY leader, up until 2003? Just thought I'd throw that out there.
The Iraqi War Resolution was passed in October 2002. Democrats were desperate to retain the Senate, so they voted for the war really for politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
As I've said. The facts are there. One month before an election where the Democrats were in trouble, (they would ultimately lose), they voted to hand George Bush JR a blank check to invade Iraq. Senior Democrat Robert Byrd said, on the floor of the Senate, these three things:
a) there was not sufficient evidence that Iraq was building WMD
b) they were voting on a defacto declaration of war.
and finally
c) this was a gulf of tonkin resolution, which only reaffirms the idea of trumped up charges leading to a us intervention.
Therefor, if one of the more respected leaders (earmarks aside) of the Democratic Senate thought the war was a crock, and lead a charge of some against it, then, obviously, Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others were rolling the political dice when they voted for it, and THEY KNEW IT.
So all this talk about the war being a lie cooked up by Bush and the Democrats were just goaded into it and were victims, is a lie. Bush may have pushed for war for oil, but Democrats did it just so they could pick up some votes in an election they would lose anyway, and then, to evade any moral responsibility with their own base, they went and cooked up the "lie" story, and idiots on the left just believed it.
This is my sig.
They were warned and STILL continued making mistakes. The lost data wasn't quickly recovered but was stalled so they had time to accidentally overwrite it a dozen times. Not to mention the run around they'd give if somebody forced them to hand over the drives... they'd give the wrong ones etc.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If they didn't know it is no defense; especially when they were made aware of it.
"Mistakes" still gets normal people in trouble-- just imagine how much better the MOB would have done if they could have taken victims for hunting accidents.
The Executive branch is the enforcer of the law; although, its gone way out of bounds since the founding. Its their JOB to enforce the law (which include implementation.)
Are American's so incompetent that they excuse other people's incompetence out of self pity? Golden Rule??
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm no fan of GWB, but give him credit: the Free Speech Zone policy did not originate with Bush.
Remember the Battle of Seattle? Who's watch was that on? And that wasn't the start of it.
GWB certainly made use of the FSZ policy and did not reverse the trend, but it's more that many on the left only *noticed* the accelerating trend toward limiting public protest after they no longer had the glare off Bill Clinton's saxophone to blind them.
Here's hoping Obama doesn't get a free pass to do the same stuff just by flashing his grin and speaking in complete sentences. Sadly, I'm not very hopeful.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
All I know about these WORM tapes and T1000 backup stuff is that the backups work best if you don't first delete all the emails to be backed up.
You have the result, and if you like it, you can re-elect him to one term, and if you don't, then you don't.
If only it worked that way.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So they werne't tossed on there and left for 10 years. That was my point. A few years ago isn't ten years ago. I'm betting that you don't have all the email from ten years ago. I'm betting that of the data on it, a lot of the data in use ten years ago isn't even there too. But the point was, that you cannot simple achive something on a tape and expect it to be there 7 years from now.
Actully, I didn't cherry pick what to reply to, I just didn't reply to the things I didn't disagree with. And yes, I am in a position to know what kid of IT people the government hires. I have dealt with them on many occasions and most people who are at the top of their game in IT will make 3 to 4 times the amount working in the private sector. The IT staff at the white house is mostly people who learned on the job as the technology came about with a little specific computer and networking training from back in other administrations. They don't fire and replace everyone at the white house when a new administration comes in.
Keep believing that. I will laugh in your face when (not if because it's a matter of when) things backfire in your or the parents face. As soon as you think your doing something properly, that's when you realize you haven't. You have employees who get complacent and rely on the redundancy which ends up in gaps, you have management who think things are working just fine so they don't need to spend another $500 on tapes for backups, you have all sorts of things outside your control that will fail you.
I can agree with negligence, criminal, I'm not sure about. Now, when your dealing with three letter agencies, find out how many of them do the mundane IT work for congress and the white house and all the other government agencies.
You see, they don't hire the brightest and the best to do low level IT work, they put them in more valuable positions. Smarter then you doesn't mean the best and brightest either. Anyways, I don't care what law there is, managing backups and running the exchange servers just isn't high level. The bright people will be doing other things.
Why they want them has no bearing on why or how they are missing. That's like saying you really wanted the car but the dealership is evil because he has to charge the price that you can't afford and he sold it to someone else specifically because you wanted it. Now if they were saying we want this and it came up missing after wards, then yea, I could put the two together. The problem is the disappearance can be traced back to before they were requested so assessing causation because of the request just doesn't cut it.
Anyways, things happen in IT that aren't intentional. Things happen all around the world all the time. Sometimes this results in data loss and anyone who says they are perfect and it will never happen to them are the same people it will happen to. There are all sorts of reasons why it happens, some technology related, some employee and human error related. But it happens and when it does, it doesn't mean anything malicious was going on. It's more often the cause of ignorance then to blame malice- regardless of what someone wanted later.
Failed analogy. As noted in my other post, read this. Rife with incompetence, destroyed a working solution to rely on manual user intervention, et al.
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
Lol.. so Clinton gets a pass but Bush-Cheney are up to no good automagically. Ok, I give, how do you know that outside of some inference your pulling out of your ass? The point is that it happens and has happened before and it's likely to happen again.
I've seen that page a dozen times before talking to you. Despite it is a biased, it is somewhat accurate and provides records that you seem to be willing to over look. The automated solution didn't distinguish between personal and official communications nor did it distinguish between classified and non classified information. If they would have went ahead with it, you would be sitting here today complaining that they disclosed classified information.
Use you head and think as if you don't have an agenda to fulfill.
It's is entirely accurate, and you're seriously calling the National Security Archives "baised"? Uhh... right.
It, frankly, doesn't matter if the automated solution distinguished or not. The automated solution complied with the Records Act by capturing all communication, which could be filtered later. After all, they have a few years before they need to actually release the records, and that sort of distinguishing is not hard to do, given that classified emails always have it in the subject line.
Funny how the Clinton admin, George H.W. Bush admin, and Reagan admin didn't have any trouble with not disclosing classified information.
What agenda could I have? Abiding by the law?
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
That page only lists the stuff that we have access to. It doesn't list the stuff that has been redacted or not introduced into the court cases. It is not the national security archives and it is not unbiased. You really need to step back and get a grip on reality.
The automated solution, according to the papers listed on that site (you have read them right?) said that it wouldn't have completed the sorting until well into the last year of Bush's term. There would have been no time to distinguish classified information and mark it, no time to review and remove personal information, it just wasn't a solution no matter what you want to ignore.
Lol.. You are really confused aren't you? None of those administrations disclosed classified information. They had the ability to mark it classified because they didn't go through a redesign of the mail system which used a proprietary format. I can understand that your attempting to live in a vacuum and view everything through the most biased lenses availible to man, but fuck, come back to reality and look at things for what they were. You can still pretend that Bush was Evil but don't over look the set of specific events that were unique to Bush just so you can make your point. You simply can't ignore very real events in order to make a statement be true. that's called a fallacy and you seem to be living it.
FAIL. The National Security Archive is maintained at George Washington University. That ~nsarchiv part? That's because their site is at GWU. They are detailing their efforts to get the information preserved.
Yes, the automated solution wouldn't have finished sorting until well into Bush's last year. You fail to realize, however, that the Presidential Records Act doesn't require them to be released until twelve years after he leaves office. Are you honestly telling me that you don't think they could properly categorize email during that time? The system had an estimated 18 month ingestion time, but remember that it took them five years to even get to that point, with a manual system in the meantime.
It's clear from the White House's response to lawsuits that they simply don't want to try, and think they're somehow above the requirements in the PRA.
Those administrations had the ability to mark it classified because they had a centralized repository of email (and if you think Exchange is somehow more proprietary than Lotus, you don't know what you're talking about, again), and they utilized at least two of the twelve years granted to them under the PRA to ensure correct classification.
I can understand that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you want to view everything through the piss-poor experience you've had in IT, along with an inability to digest clearly presented information. You can put words into my mouth (Bush was "evil"), and scream your political affiliation (hint: "unique" events do not exempt one from the law), and you're not going to be swayed by objective information or realistic thought.
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
Yep, I was thinking the national archives which is a government site. This site is a private third party site dedicated to pushing a viewpoint with publicly availible information. As I said, it is biased and it isn't the entire story. This means while I got the site confused with another, my point is still valid, this is not a government website and their is no assurance of accuracy.
And what you fail to realize is that the administration would be gone and no one would be there to mark items classified or person to be excluded from public view. What part of that concept is difficult for you to handle? When the administration is gone, it is gone... They don't stick around for another 12 years finishing what they started.
Ok, so what if they do think that? There is no punishment for violating the PRA and neither their contempt for it nor anyone's desire to honor it negates and real technical issues that may have happened resulting in the loss of the emails. Your simply inferring intent with little to no proof backing it up other then your interpretation of documents provided in response to a lawsuit. And in doing so, your purposely ignoring real issues that happen all around the world in IT.
They got it marked properly because they did not have a 3 to 5 year back log due to a switch in systems. Fuck, what is so hard to understand about that? Are you going to deny that there was a back log when the very site you profess to be authoritative in the subject offers papers declaring that? It has nothing do with being proprietary. It has to do with being able to keep up.
If I don't understand what I'm talking about, you must be really fucking lost. To date your argument has been ignore those facts and this is what happened because in 2009 thing are done this way so there is no excuse for whatever happened 5 years ago in 2003. Fuck dude, get a god damn grip on reality. I have enough experience in IT to know you are fucking clueless and your limited experience is just that, limited. Unique even don't excuse one from the law but it places avenues for honest mistakes and complications that simply were not there in previous administrat
Yep, I was thinking the national archives which is a government site. This site is a private third party site dedicated to pushing a viewpoint with publicly availible information. As I said, it is biased and it isn't the entire story. This means while I got the site confused with another, my point is still valid, this is not a government website and their is no assurance of accuracy.
Uh, it's a registered non-governmental nonprofit at the leading foreign policy institution in the US. Read their Wikipedia page. The reason a lot of the information you refer to is publicly available is because the National Security Archive fights with FOIA requests to get it out there. Their funding comes from journalistic organizations which want access to the information, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, et al. You claim they're "biased"? Uh-huh.
And what you fail to realize is that the administration would be gone and no one would be there to mark items classified or person to be excluded from public view. What part of that concept is difficult for you to handle? When the administration is gone, it is gone... They don't stick around for another 12 years finishing what they started.
Presidential libraries, heard of them? This is one of the tasks they accomplish. Previous administrations haven't had any trouble abiding by the requirements of the PRA. Why do you think this one is magically exempt?
Ok, so what if they do think that? There is no punishment for violating the PRA and neither their contempt for it nor anyone's desire to honor it negates and real technical issues that may have happened resulting in the loss of the emails. Your simply inferring intent with little to no proof backing it up other then your interpretation of documents provided in response to a lawsuit. And in doing so, your purposely ignoring real issues that happen all around the world in IT.
Contrary to your belief, the PRA falls under Title 44 of the United States Code, and is in effect as statutory law. It's accepted as prima facie evidence in court. In particular, I suggest you look at the US Code Title 18, Chapter 37, and Title 18, Chapter 73.
My interpretation of the documents is not necessary, as the legal briefs are clear and accessible to anybody with a reading level 9th grade or above. The point is that the "real and technical issues" should never have happened, as it was willful negligence.
They got it marked properly because they did not have a 3 to 5 year back log due to a switch in systems. Fuck, what is so hard to understand about that? Are you going to deny that there was a back log when the very site you profess to be authoritative in the subject offers papers declaring that? It has nothing do with being proprietary. It has to do with being able to keep up.
I don't know where you keep getting a "3 to 5 year backlog." The White House clearly stated an 18 month ingestion process which they didn't want to do, even though it would have been completed by the end of his second term, citing concerns over the ability to properly mark things for archival (even though the Office of Administration had certified the system to do exactly that previously).
You brought up the proprietary aspect, not me (as you were somehow ignoring that Lotus is proprietary also). They did, in fact, have the ability to comply (per the White House's own statements), and chose not to. I don't see why that's so hard for you to grok.
If I don't understand what I'm talking about, you must be really fucking lost. To date your argument has been ignore those facts and this is what happened because in 2009 thing are done this way so there is no excuse for whatever happened 5 years ago in 2003. Fuck dude, get a god damn grip on reality. I have enough experience in IT to know you are fucking clueless and your limited experience is just that, limite
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
Ohh.. their Wikipedia page, wait a minute, I'll change that. Anyways, they are not a government agency and do no, I repeat "do not" have access to any more information then any of us do through freedom of information requests and public sources. In other words, they don't have the full story and because they are a 503c company or whatever doesn't change that. Nonprofit status says nothing about biased, look at moveon dotorg's nonprofit status. There are plenty of biased nonprofit charities and so on.
DO your saying that as long as bush provides the emails before the ten year limit is up for the presidential library then the missing emails at this point pose no problem? Right? I mean why are we talking about the presidential records act when he doesn't have to have them separated or turned over until 12 years later? You see, you don't even believe that to be true because your sitting here bitching about it. If it was possible for the libraries to continue the work then it wouldn't matter until after that time had expired. Not being able to find them now because of the circumstances that we know of doesn't mean they will be missing in 12 years when the library withholding terms end. Your really grasping for straws here.
actually your wrong. Nothing in the PRA gives punishment prescribed in title 18 and nothing in 18 refers directly to the presidential record. At best, you can manipulate the destruction of documents connected to a case or investigation but a FIOA request is neither and the lawsuit ordering the production of the record happened well after the deed. You simply cannot show in a convincing way anyplace where there is a civil or criminal punishment for not following the PRA.
The documents show that the loss happened before they were asked for and it shows that no punishment can be handed to them. However your reading them to get your delusional interpretation is just plain wrong. You don't even need a 9th grade level of reading comprehension to do that. You are purposely inflating the wrong values and pushing your disdain where no other court has been able to in order to support your accusations. Your already conflating separate issues, the production record via a FOIA request verses the PRA fulfillment which neither are connected outside the fact that the same records are in question.
Ohh.. their Wikipedia page, wait a minute, I'll change that. Anyways, they are not a government agency and do no, I repeat "do not" have access to any more information then any of us do through freedom of information requests and public sources. In other words, they don't have the full story and because they are a 503c company or whatever doesn't change that. Nonprofit status says nothing about biased, look at moveon dotorg's nonprofit status. There are plenty of biased nonprofit charities and so on.
Where did I say they have access to more information than the rest of us? Nowhere. I said that it's their mission to obtain as much foreign policy information as possible through FOIA requests. As a Journalism/PoliSci school, they have no reason to be biased (unlike Democracy Now, the American Enterprise Institute, and some other nonprofits). Don't conflate nonprofit with partisan hacks.
DO your saying that as long as bush provides the emails before the ten year limit is up for the presidential library then the missing emails at this point pose no problem? Right? I mean why are we talking about the presidential records act when he doesn't have to have them separated or turned over until 12 years later? You see, you don't even believe that to be true because your sitting here bitching about it. If it was possible for the libraries to continue the work then it wouldn't matter until after that time had expired. Not being able to find them now because of the circumstances that we know of doesn't mean they will be missing in 12 years when the library withholding terms end. Your really grasping for straws here.
You have comprehension problems (also, FFS, "YOU'RE" is not "YOUR"). I'm bitching about it because they are not going to have the records in 12 years. They are fighting against even attempting to recover some of the millions of emails that they lost through gross incompetence. If it were about waiting another ten years for FOIA requests or something, that'd be one thing. This is the administration saying "we don't have them, and we never will." Not the same thing.
actually your wrong. Nothing in the PRA gives punishment prescribed in title 18 and nothing in 18 refers directly to the presidential record. At best, you can manipulate the destruction of documents connected to a case or investigation but a FIOA request is neither and the lawsuit ordering the production of the record happened well after the deed. You simply cannot show in a convincing way anyplace where there is a civil or criminal punishment for not following the PRA.
Again, you fail. The PRA does not prescribe specific punishments, but Title 18 applies to every US citizen.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Hmm...
Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime.
Hmmm.....
Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
You claimed I was wrong when I said they don't have all the information. And yes they are biased- they take biased stands all the time. They write articles on foreign policy for think tanks and influence foreign policy. There is an implied bias right there, as soon as they support or refute something, bias is present.
Who fucking cares about your you're. Grammar erros don't make my points invalid and you know it. I'm surprised you didn't go after the Do instead of So as if it actually meant something. And no, they are fighting against providing them right now...Not 12 years from now. If they have the twelve years, shut up until they aren't there because otherwise, they don't need to produce them right now. Even for FOIA requests, technical issues is grounds to deny them so even for the FOIA stand that you want to conflate is dead. If they have the 12 years, then wait until the time is up. If they don't then admit you were wrong.
I can't believe your really this fucking stupid. Listen very carefully and if you must, ask an adult to explain this to you. In order for a law to have a punishment, it either directly has to prescribe one in it's wording or have another law encompass it. Nothing in title 18 nor the PRA provides punishment for not following the PRA. I asked you to show where it was in case I missed it and all you can do is claim that title 18 applies to everyone. Well, that is true but if title 18 doesn't prescribe any punishment for violating the PRA, then there is still NO FUCKING PUNISHMENT. What part of that do you not understand? If you know something I don't know, show it and be specific. Pointing to a title with thousands of sections in it doesn't prove you found anything, give the exact section or shut up about it. BTW, I know you can't find it so you can save some time and give up now.
In the first two sections you are quoting, you are missing some very important points. The first one is "or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case". It only applies if you destroy or lose the material because you are getting sued over it. In the white house's case, it was gone before any lawsuits where filed. In fact, this couldn't even apply today because any case over the missing emails (FOIA or otherwise) is after the fact which means it couldn't have been motivated to influence the case or proceedings.
The second, "the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States" is again after the fact. The emails were lost before any court proceedings were filed. The record indicates that in both cases, the email was lost because of the switch to another system that wasn't a smooth transition and in both cases the emails missing are so before any court cases were served.
Everything else you quoted is the same, the next one says "other proceeding, in any court of the United States". Do you see where
You claimed I was wrong when I said they don't have all the information. And yes they are biased- they take biased stands all the time. They write articles on foreign policy for think tanks and influence foreign policy. There is an implied bias right there, as soon as they support or refute something, bias is present.
Ah, no. I said that they get a lot of information declassified through FOIA requests, not that they "have all the information". I wasn't aware that publishing declassified information (which is what their articles are) constituted bias. Being used as a reference by a think tank != writing for a think tank. Beyond which, the very fact that they publish declassified information years after the fact prevents them from "influencing foreign policy" (unlike Project for a New American Century). Some of their "newest" documents are about Kissinger, and nuclear response teams from 1974-1996. <sarcasm>Those must have a huge influence.</sarcasm>
Who fucking cares about your you're. Grammar erros don't make my points invalid and you know it. I'm surprised you didn't go after the Do instead of So as if it actually meant something. And no, they are fighting against providing them right now...Not 12 years from now. If they have the twelve years, shut up until they aren't there because otherwise, they don't need to produce them right now. Even for FOIA requests, technical issues is grounds to deny them so even for the FOIA stand that you want to conflate is dead. If they have the 12 years, then wait until the time is up. If they don't then admit you were wrong.
So, you're suggesting that we essentially wait until the statute of limitations is up before we ask that they comply with the law? The Reagan admin didn't have any trouble complying (even though Oliver North destroyed emails during Iran-Contra, they were recovered). The Clinton admin didn't have any trouble (campaign finance inquiry in 2000, emails from the Office of the VP were missing). I don't need to wait 12 years to say that they're never going to do it, and your argument thus far as been that it's impossible for them to do so after they leave office. Contradicting yourself is fun.
I can't believe your really this fucking stupid. Listen very carefully and if you must, ask an adult to explain this to you. In order for a law to have a punishment, it either directly has to prescribe one in it's wording or have another law encompass it. Nothing in title 18 nor the PRA provides punishment for not following the PRA. I asked you to show where it was in case I missed it and all you can do is claim that title 18 applies to everyone. Well, that is true but if title 18 doesn't prescribe any punishment for violating the PRA, then there is still NO FUCKING PUNISHMENT. What part of that do you not understand? If you know something I don't know, show it and be specific. Pointing to a title with thousands of sections in it doesn't prove you found anything, give the exact section or shut up about it. BTW, I know you can't find it so you can save some time and give up now.
This from the person who can't interpret two fucking sentences in the Constitution (15th Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" has no bearing on legal rights to marry, nor inter-racial marriage, and it never did. Ever. Not in a single federal court case)? Yes, Title 18 applies to everyone. It's where every punishment in the US Code is detailed (they are not listed under the laws). Just because it doesn't explicitly say "for violation of the Presidential Records Act" doesn't mean it's not applicable, unless you expect them to update for every fucking act of Congress. I'm not going to give you the exact section because you can fucking Google it from the quote. The entire US Code is up at Cornell's website.
"The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
SO you were dancing around it attempting to imply it without saying it. Wow, doesn't that make you just like Bush? BTW, you need to take a better look at them and why they are there, there is bias. The employees, high level ones at that, have produced anti-Bush documentaries and you can get a hint of their leaning just by looking at what they are promoting on the home page. You can't make an honest argument about them not being biased. You can argue the amount of bias but your cannot claim it isn't there.
I'm saying that if the law says they have X years, then bitching about it before X years is up is stupid. Your the one claiming that he has another 12 years so yes, the proper and lawful thing to do is wait until he has actually broken a law before condemning him for not complying with a law. I don't understand why you think this should be any different. Would you stand for the government dropping penalties and seizing your property in January because you haven't filed your taxes by march of the same year? If you have till march, while would they penalize you in january? You see what your trying to do?
and this has what to do with out conversation? Oh yea, that's right, your grasping at every fucking straw you can find to make your point in your own mind. Yea, and if you would have read the reat of those comments, you would have clearly seen where I admitted to just looking at the description of the amendment instead of the wording and conflated it with the civil right act. But that's ok, I never did expect you to be intellectually honest or anything. You already showed you can't do that. That much is obvious when you cite so called laws without the sections they are under and then make claims about it later. You do know there is a law that says the president can arbitrarily