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."

80 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. Finding Stuff by KingAlanI · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Finding Stuff by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Come on in, folks! Come on in, it's the epic Battle of the Stupids. Which is stupider? Come and see!

      In this corner, moonbats claiming that Trig isn't actually Palin's son.

      And in this corner, wingnuts who claim Obama hasn't released his birth certificate despite the Hawaiian government having released it.

      FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

    2. Re:Finding Stuff by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sweet!, I've been waiting for UFC's answer to the Special Olympics!

      --
      I hate printers.
  2. Good Luck! by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. What the hell is a federal court... by bagboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    going to do with a 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 inch Penis?

    1. Re:What the hell is a federal court... by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

      That gives the phrase "judicial probe" a whole new meaning!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:What the hell is a federal court... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fuck Alpha Centauri?

    3. Re:What the hell is a federal court... by Sebilrazen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, maybe there's something to this. Imagine a transportation system requiring only a vast amount of viagra and willing men.

      People of the future may actually travel the universe by shimmying up someone's penis.

      Why not, it works for the social ladder. Paris, get down from there!!!

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  4. Contempt of Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Contempt of Court by jlarocco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Important data is deleted by accident all the time. In other words, "real" IT people get it wrong all the time. You're expecting government IT people to get it right? Let's just say government employees aren't typically known for their competence.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Bush and the gang, but either possibility (purposely deleted or accident) seems equally likely to me.

    2. Re:Contempt of Court by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      , but either possibility (purposely deleted or accident) seems equally likely to me.

      700 days' worth of email are missing. I think you'd have to work pretty hard to "accidentally lose" that. You might neglect a backup or two. To do it for two years ... well, Bush can just isue himself and his staff pardons to cover it.

    3. Re:Contempt of Court by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is?

      Maybe in your company it is, but believe it or not, there are places where that just isnt true!

      For example, for me and my domain of users, an important file may be deleted by accident by someone. But that is why we have backups where the oldest file is no more than 12 hours old.

      To try and claim that this much EMAIL went missing, when it is so trivial to accomplish that even a govt employee could do it with their eyes closed, is a bit too much slack to give.

      "Real" IT people DONT get it wrong all the time. In fact "Real" IT people dont get it wrong at all.

      I feel sorry for you if your environment has led you to believe that level of competence is normal. I wish you the best of luck in your quest to find a place to work at that shatters your surroundings of incompetence

    4. Re:Contempt of Court by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > George Bush needs to be held to account for this.

      Yes, sure, but... What makes you think anyone in the Bush administration is going to be held any more accountable than Bernie Madoff, who is walking around when he should be in jail?

    5. Re:Contempt of Court by Nimey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, how the fuck does that Madoff thing work? Is he getting a pass because of the sheer enormity of what he did?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Contempt of Court by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, sure, but... What makes you think anyone in the Bush administration is going to be held any more accountable than Bernie Madoff, who is walking around when he should be in jail?

      In the short term, the worst that will happen to Madoff is he ends up in jail.
      In the long term, he will go down in the history books as a swindler and a liar.
      I've already seen the expression "he Madoff with our money" used in print.
      That will be his legacy and for individuals like him, it is a far worse punishment.

      To bring this back on topic, without an accurate historical record, right wing think tanks will do (have been doing) their best to whitewash Bush & Cheney's actions and there will be a huge hole in the facts which can be used to refute them.

      They've successfully run out the clock.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Contempt of Court by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would he need to? There are no penalties over the deleted files. At best, they can lecture them and maybe get some sort of contempt of court punishment if a judge gets irate enough. However, I doubt they would even go that far because if there truly is no way to recover them, then those punished for no doing so in that manner will have some good grounds for a lawsuit.

    8. Re:Contempt of Court by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, you convienently forget the emails that disappeared on the Clinton/Gore watch...

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Contempt of Court by carlzum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would argue it takes more effort to wipe out all traces of email and files than find a backup. I call shenanigans if the White House claims any email was "lost" and can't be recovered.

    10. Re:Contempt of Court by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Madoff hasn't been found guilty yet. Why should a "presumed innocent" person be in jail, whether he is Madoff, or you, or me?

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    11. Re:Contempt of Court by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like I said, Im sorry that you also are in an environment where you think this is normal.

      Personal attacks aside, the point is that 700 days of email server records dont just vanish. If your job is to make backups and ensure data integrity, then that is your job. Period. Its quite easily doable, and there are options available other than 'tapes'. It all depends on your personal cost/benefit profile.

      If you arent willing to do what it takes to ensure your data integrity, then it isnt very important data. It is not wise to apply your life experiences to the rest of the world. What you are describing sounds like some backwards office in a strip mall. Im just guessing here, but I would think the requirements for U.S government duties when it comes to backing up and insuring integrity of data are spelled out pretty clearly in a law somewhere. I wont quote Title/Section for you, as Im sure you can look it up yourself if you so desire.

      I liked this line the best;
      "A lot of times, this doesn't go back further then 6 months because it is expensive to keep large volumes of unneeded data sitting around"
      Unneeded data? Your choice of words betrays your mindset, as it applies to your understanding of the subject at hand.

    12. Re:Contempt of Court by tftp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now tapes get mixed up and over written all the time, someone doesn't realize what's on them and thinks it's just something that can be rotated in or someone thinks the information is in another place and the tapes are redundant or something.

      Yes, competence abound. In *real* IT, though, tapes, once written, are marked and sent to an offsite storage. They are never recalled from there for "rotation" - the only reason to request your old backup is because you want to restore it.

      The problem comes from backup media being expensive

      I can understand if a liquor store owner can be too cheap to write once and archive the tape. However I think the US government can afford a few tapes, and if not it is negligent in its duty.

      Almost all magnetic media starts losing it's luster after about 5 years and needs refreshed from time to time

      It's always nice when people point out a problem and then immediately offer a good solution :-) How many employees will it take to copy tapes? Probably one tech will be too many: insert tape A, insert tape B, press the button. If you use LTO or T10000 WORM tapes then they can't be erased accidentally. Also, LTO tapes are rated for 15 to 30 years, plenty of time to copy them on our future X-Ray 100 PB storage crystals.

    13. Re:Contempt of Court by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or the fact that people seem to think that Bush is the dumbest guy there is yet able to circumvent whatever backup and security precautions are in place.

      I never no which Bush people are talking about -the evil mastermind or the bumbling idiot.

      Bush is gone soon. Quit bitching and move on like we have done for Clinton and Carter and the rest

    14. Re:Contempt of Court by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was reading some tapes from 1982 the other day. With respect Sir, you may be very skilled in other areas but you really do not have a clue how easy it is to archive data. That normally wouldn't be a problem, but you are ranting in your ignorance at someone that does have a bit more of a clue and leading casual readers astray.

      I really do not care if you are trying to find an excuse for your hero's behaviour. Surely you can find another that makes a little more sense.

    15. Re:Contempt of Court by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At certain levels of decision-importance, it is no longer sufficient to use incompetence as an excuse to escape punishment.

      If you allow people who are involved with such matters to use incompetence to escape punishment, then they can easily use the facade of incompetence to cover both honest mistakes and malicious activities, plus there is no incentive for them to try and improve their competence.

      Once the decision-making power reaches a certain level of importance, then if you want your leadership to behave in a competent manner, then you MUST punish them for screwing up, regardless of whether they made a mistake or whether they were deliberately misbehaving.

    16. Re:Contempt of Court by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, competence abound. In *real* IT, though, tapes, once written, are marked and sent to an offsite storage. They are never recalled from there for "rotation" - the only reason to request your old backup is because you want to restore it.

      In real IT, the people doing the backups know that Tapes degrade and can't just sit in Storage off site somewhere. After about 5 years or so unless your in extremely ideal conditions (read not), you will have break down of the binders holding the magnetic particles, you have to rewrite the information to them or you start running a serious risk of loosing information permanently. Simply dropping tapes that are older then 5 years can be enough to make then inaccessible. And don't get me started on the UV filters for the lights that managment always thinks is over kill. Sure, costly procedures can probably be done to recover the data but it can't just sit there. This should have been one of the first things you learned about backups. You simply cannot take a backup tape and toss it in a room and expect it to be usable with all the information on it 5 or more years down the road. It might be accessible but then again, it probably won't be, at least not in it's entirety.

      I can understand if a liquor store owner can be too cheap to write once and archive the tape. However I think the US government can afford a few tapes, and if not it is negligent in its duty.

      There is a lot more involved with writing once and archiving the tap. First, tapes are made daily, in most cases multiple times a day, those get rotated and generally only one tape a week or month or so gets archived. Even then, the archived tapes need to be taken care of in ways that are more then just putting it on a box or on a shelf. The taps are generally bar coded with a long serial number because they go in robotic tape drives that record everything and the barcode it easier to read for the robot. Right there alone can be a source of lost data, someone screws up the loader and erased the stored codes and restores from an archived list that doesn't have the old drives on it, then you end up with 65 or more tapes for those years that don't correlate with anything for each machine being backed up. Supposed 10 servers, one tape a week plus a monthly a six month and a year end tape is backed archived, that's 66 tapes per machine per year.

      Now, it has been my experience that the government can screw things up worse then the corner liquor store. Look at the state of Ohio who just a few years ago lost the information on millions of people because their backup policy was to take the tape home with the last person to leave. You can't just assume that the Government will always do things right. I mean hell, Katrina should be an example of that, government on three levels fucked up severely, local state and federal.

      It's always nice when people point out a problem and then immediately offer a good solution :-) How many employees will it take to copy tapes? Probably one tech will be too many: insert tape A, insert tape B, press the button. If you use LTO or T10000 WORM tapes then they can't be erased accidentally. Also, LTO tapes are rated for 15 to 30 years, plenty of time to copy them on our future X-Ray 100 PB storage crystals.

      The really nice thing is that you actually expect that your going to get 15-30 years from an LTO tape stiting in storage. This is what I was talking about. You will only get that if you do everything perfect. You have to control the UV light around the tapes, the temp, the humidity, protect them from shock, vibrations and people dropping them. You have to do everything perfect and ideally to get the 15-30 years life from one sitting around. Guess what, I seriously doubt that you even paid attention to that so in 7 years, you will probably pull a tape out that has been archived and find that it doesn't work.

    17. Re:Contempt of Court by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really don't care about your anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about the industry standards here and the practical limitations to any magnetic media.

      The problem isn't that you found two bits of information that you could use, it is that archiving and storing the information isn't as easy as the parent pretends it is. There will be lost information and the potential for it is there. You cannot just say Guess what I dove my car on the wrong side of the road the other day, everyone should be able to do it when everyone knows that there can be problems with driving your car on the wrong side of the road.

      I really do not care if you are trying to find an excuse for your hero's behaviour. Surely you can find another that makes a little more sense.

      I don't need to find an excuse for anyone. Funny though how you actually think this is about protecting the administration instead of the practice pitfalls of long term data storage. Can I assume that your entire comment was politically motivated and should be regarded with as little respect as that would deserve?

    18. Re:Contempt of Court by overbaud · · Score: 2

      "Unneeded data? Your choice of words betrays your mindset, as it applies to your understanding of the subject at hand."

      Well played old chap your deserve a high five, check and mate.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    19. Re:Contempt of Court by ericspinder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why would he need to? There are no penalties over the deleted files.

      From the Presidential Records Act

      Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

      John Dean had it right when he called it 'Worse than Watergate'.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    20. Re:Contempt of Court by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it was a server glitch, HD crash, incompetent admins, normal IT problem then sure I could easily understand. Giving 88 white house people separate email accounts, non .gov domain names, and going through the RNC computers instead of the normal white house computers is just too fishy. Read the summary of findings found by oversight committees and you won't help but see it wasn't an IT fault it was a deliberate skirting of the laws. This is as bad as Cheney making the claim that the office of the VP isn't part of the executive branch so he doesn't need to give records to the national archives.

    21. Re:Contempt of Court by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In most real life situations, the data older then 6 months generally gets purged from the system... This generally mean Email goes

      And herein lies the root of problem. Your level of experience is so incredibly lacking, that you think 6 months is a long time.

      About a year ago, I was involved in some work regarding a contract arbitration case. Records were successfully pulled form 5 years before, that specifically related to this case, and a settlement was reached out of court.

      But please, tell me again how important your data is that you wipe it out after 6 months? Why are you even backing it up in the first place? If you handle even a single piece of financial data, I would HIGHLY recommend that you do not admit to your backup methods in public anymore, as YOU will be the one held accountable when it goes missing. Because guess what, there's a backup of your words in this thread freely admitting to such. Wouldnt that be irony?

      Have a nice day.

    22. Re:Contempt of Court by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the laws mandating archival are relics themselves. For a local example, here in Maine they keep lists of campaign contributions made to various local politicians. But they are only required to hold two years of records, which is basically useless for determining any historical patterns of contributions.

      The laws need to be updated to reflect changes in technology. With the price of storage these days, there's effectively no reasonable difference between archiving 2 years of data and archiving 20 years. We (the people) simply have to decide it's important enough to update the rules. Because you know the politicians have no incentive to suggest such legislation themselves.

    23. Re:Contempt of Court by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now tapes get mixed up and over written all the time, someone doesn't realize what's on them and thinks it's just something that can be rotated in or someone thinks the information is in another place and the tapes are redundant or something. Next thing you know, they are gone and no one know why.

      No. Tapes go offsite to a secure facility once they have been used and are physically modified so that they cannot be overwritten. This is something even wet-behind-the-ears junior sysadmins understand. For records of such high importance, I would expect no less than 3 off-site copies are kept, in well-separate geographical locations (and probably more like two or three times that number, stored both within the US and internationally).

      The problem comes from backup media being expensive plus it degrades over time. Almost all magnetic media starts losing it's luster after about 5 years and needs refreshed from time to time so it isn't like throwing them into a box and forgetting it forever actually works.

      Rubbish. Decent tape media lasts for decades, especially if properly stored.

      There are only two possible reasons such a large amount of such important data could have gone "missing" - deliberate action to destroy (or avoid keeping) it, or incompetence of nearly unimaginable proportions. "Accidentally" doesn't even pass the laugh test.

    24. Re:Contempt of Court by sgtrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This environment is called the IT industry. One that you obviously don't participate in much. Shit goes wrong all the time. People who know better get complacent and don't do what they are supposed to. This all adds up and you cannot say that it has never happened in your company unless it is 2 months old of something. Give it 8 years or more and you will sing another tune.

      Excuse me? If this is really what the IT industry is like, then I must be imagining all of the data retention laws that require my company to retain all electronic records for all of our registered traders (stock brokers and the like) for up to 7 years. Not just email, either. We also have to retain copies of all texts as well.

      I must also be imagining the $12 million fine that we were slapped with 5 or 6 years ago when just one case of WORM media got accidentally destroyed by our external records storage vendor that unfortunately contained emails related to a civil suit that a former employee got us embroiled in. The Justice Department, the OCC, and the SEC have no sense of humor about this stuff. (Before you ask, yes, it was a real accident. Settling the suit itself cost us less than $1 million. You think we wanted to put ourselves in a position to risk that kind of fallout over such a small legal issue?)

      BTW, you ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley? Have you ever tried to tap dance your way out of an audit by claiming that you just "lost" some files that were more than a few months old?

      I'll go further and assert that not even the most incompetent Federal organization is so bad that they accidentally lose that much email. This is about the most routine IT task imaginable. Solutions for automated, multi-level backups of email have been around for literally decades. There is simply no conceivable reason to assume that the Feds haven't implemented such solutions at every level and in every branch. The fact that you regard this as SOP simply highlights just how little you really know about what IT means in the context of large corporations and governments.

    25. Re:Contempt of Court by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      700 days' worth of email are missing. I think you'd have to work pretty hard to "accidentally lose" that. You might neglect a backup or two. To do it for two years ... well, Bush can just isue himself and his staff pardons to cover it.

      Indeed, you've hit upon the core point of the matter. This was either (a) an accident, or (b) a deliberate subversion of law in an attempt to avoid the public finding out what people in the executive branch (you know, our employees?) were doing. Both of these possibilities are extremely bad.

      The latter possibility should have had people on both sides of the aisle calling for an independent investigation. But even if it were "merely" an accident, where was the high-level firing of IT personnel? In my company if two years' worth of e-mails were lost, a few IT people would be out the door in a heartbeat. Who got fired from the White House IT staff as a result of what most people would consider a serious calamity?

    26. Re:Contempt of Court by HiThere · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) This information is out of date, so don't rely on it. It's only for checkpoint use.
      2) We had data stored on 800 BPI odd parity tapes. After 20 years most of them were still readable. Most of them had not been looked at in the intervening time. The tapes *were* stored in an air conditioned room, so there wasn't lots of thermal cycling, but it temperature wasn't closely controlled. Variations of 10 to 20 degrees were common occurrences.

      However, saying the tapes were readable doesn't imply that there weren't any non-recoverable errors. There was an average of two or three per tape. This gives a grossly distorted picture, however. Most tapes were clean. Some had multiple errors throughout.

      We did this check while moving to 9-track tapes. (The move was never completed, because about then the 6250 tapes came out, etc.)

      I don't know what the tolerances of the current tapes are. I suspect that they've gotten increasingly sensitive. And with the introduction of block coding, an unrecoverable error means not the loss of a record, but rather the loss of a block, which probably bears no logical relationship to the data being stored. (Actually, in most cases a block is probably some large number of records, but one can't really presume that. Some programs have switched to writing an entire batch of output as a single record the size of the file that will hold it. In such cases losing a block or two may mean that nothing can be recovered from the file [given a proprietary file format]. Presumably there are specialist who could easily recover files that I would just give up on.)

      Actually, based on my recent reading, the best backup media currently are external hard disks. But this is short term only.

      Professional data librarians still seem to prefer tapes, but they aren't the tapes of yore. They seem to require more maintenance, and they store a tremendous amount more.

      And as always, if you really care use multiple copies at different sites. (And thermostatically controlled rooms. And read the tapes every year or two to be sure that they're still legible. If they aren't, pull a copy from one of the other sites.)

      20 years isn't a long time. Sometimes it's not long enough. We really regretted one of the tapes that turned out to be unreadable. But at the time automated tape verification wasn't an option...not with our budget. Now nearly anyone who can afford a tape could afford to verify it. (Not all do, admittedly. Small organizations frequently try to make too few people do too many different things.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  5. And then what? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And then what? by chill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't you mean "respect the law"?

      I have no idea if they could even remotely find evidence that President Bush was directly responsible for the intentional destruction of evidence, but I seriously doubt it. But the law trumps the office. That is one reason we have a PRESIDENT, not KING.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:And then what? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

      So you're saying he should get away with violating the law and failing to uphold his oath of office, since your guy might do the same thing?

      Criminals should answer for their crimes, even if they are the president.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    3. Re:And then what? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "When the President does it, that mean's it's not illegal" - Richard M. Nixon

      --
      This space available.
    4. Re:And then what? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      A) You seem to be lumping partisans who hate Bush alongside citizens who believe that public officials should follow the law.
      B) If Obama pulls the same bullshit I sure as hell hope that he gets endlessly hounded for it.

      Respect the office.

      The office means jack shit if the President doesn't respect the law and the constitution.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:And then what? by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who voted for Obama, I sure hope to hell if he does a tenth of the illegal crap Bush seems to have, he is vindictively hounded out of office a lot sooner than 4 years from now.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    6. Re:And then what? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the thing, over the decades, Congress has given the Executive branch so much power, either through legislation or the lack of actually standing up for themselves to assert their own authority that President of the United States is creeping on becoming a Caesar-like position. For example, signing statements shouldn't have been enshrined in precedence, and we had a president that decided to invalidate or water down any law or provision that he doesn't like but can't veto.

    7. Re:And then what? by EsJay · · Score: 5, Informative
    8. Re:And then what? by bledri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prosecute an outgoing President?

      If Bush didn't like the conditions of employment, he should not have taken the job. Same goes for Obama.

      because 4 years from now those same tactics will be used against a President I support.

      I supported Obama. If his administration fails archive communications as required by law, then I will support a lawsuit to try to correct the, um, oversight.

      I suspect that the information is "lost." And that really sucks. Not from a standpoint of trying to prosecute anybody, but from the standpoint of developing and growing as a nation. The administration is suppose to support the archives, not hide from them as if this is some sort of childish game. Eventually, based on time, future presidents and security issues, the information is suppose to become available. Then we get to learn from our mistakes.

      Every effort should be made to recover the current administrations communications. Furthermore, we need to improve the laws and processes so that future administrations can't so easily skirt them.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    9. Re:And then what? by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To paraphrase Dick Cheney [washingtonpost.com], if the president has the power to unilaterally launch a nuclear strike and wipe out the human race, he has the power to have water poured in someone's face.

      FAIL. The Constitution explicitly names the President as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces (Article 2, section 2). As commander-in-chief, he can order the use of any weapon in the arsenal against any enemy that Congress has authorized him to attack. This is a legitimate, explicitly enumerated power granted to the president by the president.

      The use of cruel and unusual punishment is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution. As it is an amendment, it supercedes anything in the main body of the Constitution that might be interpreted as giving the President this power.

      Constitutional authority aside there is a simpler answer to this: we are the good guys. We don't do that.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    10. Re:And then what? by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Informative

      NPR had a segment talking about the oath of office today.

      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      See that sentence? The President is not above the law since he swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution trumps the President. The NPR segment even mentions how the words "my Judgment" was changed to "my Ability" to make sure that the President doesn't even get a choice in this. He's there to obey and execute the law, not overrule it.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    11. Re:And then what? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the law trumps the office.

      Do you mind if I ask what was your position when the previous President was on trial for Perjury, Subornation of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:And then what? by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do realize that Nixon was never impeached nor convicted of anything right?

      How can you expect anything you say to be taken seriously when you don't even have basic history right? It isn't like Nixon was another no eventful minor era in the history of the united states. You should at least have a basic understanding of it if your going to open your mouth on it.

    13. Re:And then what? by drmitch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what exactly is it when a person does not give you the information you want, so you torture them? A birthday present? It's "punishment" which is not equal to "justice". I say that anyone that says what is done is not torture should have to endure it. Take that military guy that was voluntarily water-boarded for something like 18 seconds. He said he still is afraid, and that anyone who has it done WILL say it's torture. How can you argue with that? Try it first, then say it's not torture.

    14. Re:And then what? by zig007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're going to try to use logic to invalidate a person's post, please learn which arguments are valid and which mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

      It was my own post. I hate it when i misspell something. However, I do thank you for your concern. :-)

      --
      Baboons are cute.
  6. Cut GW some slack by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So they trumped up bogus evidence to started a bogus war that killed many thousand people and put a severe economic drain on the country.

    Is that really so bad?

    It's not like he got a blowjob or anything!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Cut GW some slack by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      But what about the claim that he was tied to terrorism? The only "tie" they found was that al Qaeda contacted him, asked to train in his country, and Saddam turned them down. Yes, he spoke with them, that was the "tie" to terrorism. He refused to let them in. As for the WMDs, there were lies about yellow cake. Bush stated things in public after his administration was told that information was incorrect. Either false information propogates instantly and corrections take until the media notices, or they knew and lied. No usable WMDs were ever found. They weren't there. He may have had some facilities, but the only WMDs he had were essentially provided by the US and he was never really able to manufacture them effectively on his own. Not that he didn't want to. And yes, Saddam lied to indicate that he did have them. His people probably believed he had them. If he didn't have the appearance of having them, there was the real possibility of invasion or revolt. So Saddam was lying in saying that he had them. But, of course, no inspection ever revealed them and none were found.

    2. Re:Cut GW some slack by maladroit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where's the 'delusional' mod when you need it?

      How about this lie? : http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/16/Armey_Cheney_misled_me_on_Iraq/UPI-53871221586641/

    3. Re:Cut GW some slack by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... killing something that isn't alive ...

      Ignoring your self-contradictory use of the English language, your assertion that there's a stage between "sperm and egg" and "adult" where animals are non-living is absurd. Next time simply state "I don't believe that the killing of human fetuses is morally objectionable", and avoid using falsehoods to rationalize your moral stance.

    4. Re:Cut GW some slack by yndrd1984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that since it has unique human DNA, it should not be killed

      I find this moral stance quite odd - it would suggest that the deliberate destruction of the only surviving tissue sample of a deceased person should be treated as a murder.

    5. Re:Cut GW some slack by TheRedSeven · · Score: 2, Funny

      As for the WMDs, there were lies about yellow cake.

      The yellow cake is a lie...

  7. Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by gorehog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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?

    1. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by Mashhaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's important for us to know every gory detail, if only for historical posterity; not that we're likely to be able to recover any of these emails at this point. After all, they likely contained incriminating evidence, and were destroyed for that reason. However, I still feel it's important for historical accuracy, and as a warning to all future presidents, that every last piece of dirty laundry of this administration be made public, and finally when that's all said and done, and the office of the presidency is muddy, bloody and dishonored, then we prosecute the criminals for their willful disregard of the rule of law, to the full extent of the law. If we do not take these steps, we are inviting future chief executives to do exactly the same thing as BushCo did. Not to mention the million innocent Iraqi souls who would still be alive if not for the pointless war we've waged over there; they deserve justice, as much as BushCo deserves to be brought to it.

    2. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by Mashhaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saying that the truth won't necessarily prevent the past from repeating itself is a weak argument against fighting for the truth in the first place, in my opinion.

      If nothing else, full disclosure of the activities of this administration would force the American public to see the truth of the past eight years, and would likely result in at least some high profile convictions of the outgoing administration.

      Just because we can't see to it that they get as good as they gave, doesn't mean we should let them ride off into the sunset unmolested.

    3. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by gorehog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how does that relate to White House emails and the crimes of the Bush administration?

      Alright, I'll address it anyhow.

      1)Israel was being attacked by rouge elements of Hamas that the Palestinian government was unable or unwilling to control. How many Israeli citizens do you think should have died before they went in there and stopped the Palestinians from building and firing rockets?

      2)I am Jewish by heritage and am acutely aware that some people would kill me for the shape of my nose and texture of my hair (see some of the other replies to the parent post if you question that.) I have no religion and question the wisdom of dying for "Holy Land". You may call me an atheist if you need to label me.

      3)If the Israelis DO commit war crimes then yes, I do hope that the authorities are held responsible before the public eye.

    4. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, it doesn't matter whether Bush oversold the war or not. In fact, he probably lied. All Presidents lie. You can't goad people honestly into war or tell the truth as to why you have them. War is as much an act of statecraft and politic on the national stage as any other and honesty in war making is arguably detrimental to national security.

      The crime isn't that he lied. The crime was that he lied when he took the oath of office to uphold the constitution. I know a lot of people don't care about civil liberties and regard the constitution as just a piece of paper that sometimes gets in the way of their goals. I don't. Its sacred to me as much as anything could be; I know that is silly, but I don't care.

      Also, he was a dumb ass that really hurt the US, but there is no specific law against that.

    5. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by gorehog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not asking for a prize. Just explaining my perspective. I was raised to be seriously offended by war crimes and genocide.

      As for political persecution look at the Clinton impeachment. You guys did it first.

      You are also correct in that there will never be enough support for criminal proceedings against Bush, and even if there were there would never be enough support for an appropriate punishment.

      Congress gave him approval, but based on false information that he provided. That's a crime right there.

      As for "Yeah he lied, they all lie, he had to lie" argument...it's weak. Even if it's true then he is responsible to lead us into war competently and should be held responsible for doing it badly.

      You final paragraph is weak rhetoric. Congress was given lies and failed to call Bush on it. but guess what? It was a Republican controlled Congress and Bush was head of the party, so again, the responsibility lies at his feet.

      Now. Go turn off Fox News and stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Time to go get your own thoughts.

    6. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by symbolset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Faith in the nonexistence of the Divine without proof is also religion.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The constitution has a certain spirit that is violated by the intrusion of conversations, is violated by the banning of arms from citizens, violated by giving money to church organizations.

      The constitution was written to be vague in details, but specific in meaning and in spirit. Bush's policy of making 'free speech zones' (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/) is enough to convince me he is no guardian of American ideals.

    8. Re:Oh hey, look, in the distance, that ship... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All he had to do to quell the dissenters was release a single piece of paper and yet he provided what is unarguably a falsified document.

      Unarguably? Then why are you arguing it is false when he asserts it isn't. That's an argument. And that makes your statement false. So why should we listen to anything else you say when you base the whole argument from lies? Have you seen any evidence that he was born anywhere else? Where is his birth certificate from the other place? Why do you think it false when you have no evidence it is false other than your apparent hatred of the man?

  8. Oh hey, but Obama should have his Blackberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because Obama will be sure to properly archive all of his emails...and SMS messages...

  9. Seperation of Powers & Impeachment by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Seperation of Powers & Impeachment by KiltedKnight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is in charge of the Senate as it hears the Impeachment Trial, not the Vice President. Remember that in all other cases, the Vice President is, constitutionally, the President of the Senate and only casts a vote there in the event of a tie.

      --
      OCO is Loco
  10. Right... by zwekiel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  11. Your people? by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Fight or Flight by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  13. Honest question by Zuke8675309 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do they have to retain all spam messages too? If not, who determines what is spam and what isn't?

  14. Lawsuit versus Impeachment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  15. Perfect Defense by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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?

  16. Dick Nixon showed the way by SL+Baur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Your an idiot. by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  18. Nothing to see, move along by SL+Baur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nothing to see, move along by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Citation (other than tin foil hat links) needed.

  19. Send in Jack Bauer.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...he'll find those missing emails in 24 hours.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  20. Re:Your an idiot. by chuckymonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    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