Slashdot Mirror
Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit
DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
They didn't get the email.
Does anyone seriously believe the excuses as to how the emails went 'missing'?. Even if they deleted the emails there would be numerous copies on the backup tapes.
new government mascot
Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails? If the task falls to Obama's staff who weren't even there during the whole Bush thing, then I can't really blame him. If you took on a new job, would you like to be told that rather than focus on the tasks that they were hired to do, instead your staff was going to have to digging around through your predecessors crap to try to find something that may or may not be there?
Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails? If the task falls to Obama's staff who weren't even there during the whole Bush thing, then I can't really blame him. If you took on a new job, would you like to be told that rather than focus on the tasks that they were hired to do, instead your staff was going to have to digging around through your predecessors crap to try to find something that may or may not be there?
they can hire extra IT staff to do the job.
See, job creation!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I kinda like leaving it the courts. If it does go to court and a decision is rendered, it might help stop future sneaky behavior. Wishful thinking, I know, but it'd offer better protection than just capitulating would.
Now with tint control!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The new Administration has fallen far short of a lot of people's expectations, including mine. Two points though. One, it's been only a month. And two, if you consider the situation that they have been handed, I think they are at least trying to do best that they can. I can't comment on the e-mail case specifically, but I have done a lot of reading on the black hole of illegally held terrorism suspects. In that case, they have two choices: bring lawsuits against a greater part of the current government and past governments involved, or do the right thing from here on out.
Personally, I would love to see every senior officer kicked out in disgrace over what they have done to American principle. Even if it's often violated in secret, at least we could pretend that we had some moral standards. But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job. If the new Administration spent years wringing the necks of officers following orders, would the chain of command still work?
Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail. And sure, the economic crisis may be something that the Obama Administration is intentionally overplaying in order to have some breathing room on everything else. They're not stupid, so they either believe the situation is that dire, or they are pretending to for political purposes.
For the sake of argument, imagine if you bought out a poorly run company. You may find mountains of incriminating papers, a staff that was half corrupted, and accountants who deserve to be set on fire. But if you're to turn this company around, would the smart thing to do be to march them all into the street for a mob lynching, or quietly and over time reform the company without completely ruining it's reputation in the process? The absolutely right thing to do is probably bankrupt the company and start over. It may be that in the current steaming pile of shit situation that the Bush dynasty has left us, re-forming the government is correct, but reforming the government is prudent.
we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.
Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?
We must not allow the government to operate in secret. It is our lack of vigilance that put us where are today, with a government that becomes more corrupt with every passing day. We don't need you making excuses for them.
What?
Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket,
Economic policies have long lag times. It has taken 6 years to the results of Greenspan's low interest rate regime. Similarly, Volcker's policies were very unpopular when they were implemented, but they paid off 3-4 years later.
You judge a president by whether he has the balls to not push the cost on to future generations and make politically unpopular decisions. A good president would say "we've spent way more than what we have, so let's take the pain for the next 4-5 years and make sure our children are not burdened".
Don't hold your breath to see someone like that.
if ANYONE had ANYTHING on Bush he would have been impeached a long time ago...
This tells me that they are all corrupt, we NEED a viable third (or more) political party(ies)!
Namely someone who respects the Constitution.
Every president since the concept of executive privilege has fought tooth and nail for it. This includes defending your predecessor's use of it. Regardless of intent, Obama could be hurt by a ruling against the previous administration.
I think I can expect a little more from my government than cash in my pocket and no occupying forces in my neighborhood. In particular the way the government treats minorities of various kinds (both in terms of physical characteristics and ideological views) is very important - even if the average person ends up better as a result. Should I be happy if the government institutes slavery if it makes me weathier and doesn't cause a war - I should think not!
I can't say I'm surprised by the current administration - it is all working out basically how I thought it would. I'm sure that Obama will right some of Bush's wrongs, and create more than a few wrongs of his own. Republicans will hail him as the antichrist, and Democrats will hail him as the messiah. Eventually the Democrats will make some major blunder and the Republicans will sweep in to save the country. Lather, rinse, repeat... No doubt the promoted special interests will be different, but corruption will be there.
The one thing that gives me hope is that it would be very difficult for the next four years to be as bad as the last four were. It is certainly possible, but I'd think it would be difficult to pull off even by design. That doesn't give the current administration a free pass when they blunder, and it doesn't make any Republican proposal not worth considering...
Slashdot articles about Obama are hilarious. There's always the initial, hysterical article about how Obama is doing something oh-so-terrible (e.g. killing net neutrality). Then, some days or weeks later (if we're lucky) there will be a followup article calmly stating that the previous article was overreacting (e.g. nothing against net neutrality in the stimulus bill).
Remember all those complains about the stimulus package being full of pork? Then we discover that the supposed "pork" is actually money for schools and Internet access.
I have no doubt that this effect is replaying itself yet again. It's a good sign that there are so few real scandals that we have to invent our own, but a bad sign that we are so eager to be distracted by scandal.
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. Bush administration officials [...]
I know /. news tends to be a bit behind the times, but I would have thought folks would have noticed by now that Bush isn't part of the U.S. government any more.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
His appointees in the executive branch, his Supreme Court appointments, and the federal bureaucracies he guided most certainly are. They've been battening down the hatches for the last six months or so to protect themselves and continue their current programs and policies. Opening them up is not going to be easy.
So basically, all of the the talk of transparency was lip service, either that - or they have been made aware of what the content of those emails will show.
Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month. It's not like he is reneging on a campaign promise, it sure makes it seem like practically his ENTIRE stated message about transparency in government was total bullshit.
I wanted Ron Paul, and I think that anybody who understands how our government really functions these days, the constitution, the lessons of history as they relate to empires and our debt based Federal Reserve manipulated economy who got a chance to hear his message likely did too...
Unfortunately I think the current state of the economy and it's effect on the day to day lives of most Americans is spec-fuckin-tacular compared to where it's headed - We're following the path of the Weimar Republic here, and guess how that turned out...
I live right next door to independence hall - it's literally something I see when I walk outside of my home every morning; I see that, and the eternal flame which burns at the mass graves of al of the unknown revolutionary solders buried in Washington Sq ....it's really sad, and sadness is what I feel every time I see these reminders of our history and founding...our empire is crumbling and most of the people on the street don't even know what the word "empire" means and how it applies to America today and are more interested in some Hip Hop MTV retard beating his girlfriend or what happened on TV last night. We don't need to be an empire, empires always end one way.
After Obama won (and out of him and McCain) I figured he would be better choice out of the two because at least he was saying he wanted to limit executive power and was all about openness, etc, etc ad infinitum - I knew the guy was a politician, but given the passion with which he seemed infused with he seemed to have some integrity....I guess we'll see how much he really does....
Right now think the best thing people can do is support the states rights movement - 20 states are taking action to formally remind the federal government of the limits of their power under the 10th Amendment, 20 states are re-asserting sovereignty under the 10th amendment - There is some great stuff going on in New Hampshire also - it seems they really do want to 'live free or die' there...; PA rep Sam Rohrer is heavily active in promoting these resolutions , and it's very important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbrXnYJOo
If you are concerned about what the federal government is doing - make sure to support the resolutions, in the state, in the house and senate by contacting your reps.
I suggest that people monitor the following site:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
It gives a good overall view of whether it is 'bait and switch' or not.
So far the meter shows 15 promises kept and 2 broken. That is almost close to 90%. I'd say that is a pretty good score.
How so? Particularly with regard to government operations.
And yet you have not established that secrecy is a necessity for honesty.
But I can give you MANY examples of secrecy being a necessity for DISHONESTY.
Why would that be necessary?
And that makes sense as long as you agree with every decision made.
Fuck that.
This is our elected government. Not our king.
So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.
Fuck that, too.
They're elected officials. This is not an autocracy.
Someone appointed/hired by Obama's administration.
If you were hired in the civilian sector and one of the things you sold yourself on to your new boss was your belief in email recovery, wouldn't you expect to be asked to do just that?
Get a job in IT. That's what I have to go through ALL THE TIME.
What decisions were made.
Why were those specific decisions made.
How were they implemented.
Why were they implemented in that specific way.
And yes, a LOT of it DOES involve going through my predecessor's email and notes.
If I am hired to recover the email, I work on recovering the email. Even if I have to recommend bringing in a recovery specialist. There are 300 million people in the USofA. It shouldn't be that difficult to find a few people to handle this. Instead, he's arguing against even TRYING.
he now claims he wants to reduce the deficit by 2/3 by increasing the tax on the employers. (Who do you think the "rich" are anyway???)
Why shouldn't the rich pay more taxes than the poor?
Haven't you ever heard of Robin Hood? You do realize he was one of the good guys, right?
With Bush, we reduced taxes on the rich. Did their money trickle down? Not so much. Instead, they used it to inflate a huge stock market bubble. Now, everyday Americans see their retirement savings cut in half.
Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.
(The same mistake was made before the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, though other mistakes were made too.)
Do not ignore the many non-partisan people who object to any wrong-doing on any party's part. Excusing every wrong by pointing out that someone else did the same wrong, does not lead to a situation with less wrong-doing, but rather more.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Liberals regard Warren G Harding as the worst President ever. He was the epitome of smoke filled room deals .. getting the Presidential nomination in one, and his own Presidency was just mired in scandal, from womanizing, conflicts of interests, and bribes. Were he around today, he'd be impeached a week after swearing the oath. But....
During his administration, he cut taxes, deregulated, and also cut spending to match, and the economy boomed. Unemployment fell to a record 1.9%, a record which STILL stands.
This is my sig.
We are electing politicians. Not princes and kings.
And now you're confusing oversight with "harassment".
Your "logic" is self contradictory.
By your "logic".
They were elected to do a job.
Once they are elected, they can do whatever they want to do.
And no matter what they are doing, the public must not bother them about what they are doing.
Even if what they are doing is the opposite of what the people who voted for them asked them to do.
Fuck that. Fuck princes and kings. I'm watching my elected officials. I'm watching what they're doing. If I don't approve, I let them know.
You can keep your princes and kings.
Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.
No, the mistake is claiming that the rich aren't being taxed.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
In 2005, the top 20% paid 86.3% of federal income taxes, and 68.7% of all federal taxes (social security, individual and corporate income, excise). The average pre-tax income in that quintile was $231,500, although that was adjusted for household size. See the footnotes for an explanation.
For the top 10%, it was 72.7% and 54.7%, on average pre-tax income of $339,100.
For the top 5%, it was 60.7% and 43.8%, on average pre-tax income of $520,200.
And for the top 1%, it was 38.8% and 27.6%, on average pre-tax income of $1,558,500.
The same URL provides information about effective tax rates, which range from 25.2% for the top 20% to 31.4% for the top 1%, when accounting for all taxes.
In comparison, the lowest 20% paid 0.9% of all federal taxes, on average pre-tax income of $15,800. The facts are a lot different than the propaganda.
I keep hearing about how Obama represents a "Mixed Bag".
Whatever. The whole show keeps moving forward. Keep an eye out for the "Amero".
And when the rocks start falling, people will be willing to follow this president to the shelters. Just remember, that barbed wire is for our protection. Don't be alarmed by the fact that it's facing inwards. I'm sure there will be a good rationalization for that.
-FL
You should try actually reading the Constitution. The President does not have all the powers you imagine he has, and, in fact, today's presidency is far beyond what it should be.
The ONLY exclusive power the President has is to grant pardons and reprieves. All other powers are subject to approval by Congress. Even the, much flaunted, Commander-in-Chief power: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" (emphasis mine).
Congress calls the military into service -
"The Congress shall have the Power... To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
If that is not enough for you, read further down (powers of Congress):
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So, you see, Congress has the power to make laws concerning all the power given to the entirety of the Federal government, President included. It really is supposed to be the supreme branch, not co-equal. Too bad today's Congress has no spine and no intelligence.
Your well-formatted, statistically dense post conveniently glossed over the fact that income taxes are not reflective of the entire tax burden.
Care to have another go at it?
Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month.
He has barely been in a month. And inside that month, I've heard more final-sounding verdicts on his presidency than in any new president's time in the last 16 years of following politics. He's just another politician. He doesn't care about privacy. Or the constitution. Or transparency. His talk of bipartisanship is empty. He doesn't understand economics. He's vindicated Bush by having any measure of continuity. He's responsible for the next terrorist attack. All in four weeks.
I think in another 2-4 years, it'll be time to come to conclusions about these things. Not that there's anything wrong with asking questions now, but anybody who's somehow arrived at a *conclusion* about Obama's presidency this early in the game is jumping to them, not thinking them through.
I also think it's worth pointing out that some of the things he's promised have tension between each other -- for example, bipartisanship and transparency regarding the previous administration (that might in fact be part of what's going on here, since the transparency policies regarding Obama's own administration seem promising so far). An unsubtle view would be that this tension between two principles always implies that a politician who has stated commitment to both is simply dissembling, but when you get down to the business of leadership, just like engineering, you're often (if not usually) working with tradeoffs between values that may each have their worthy points. Maybe I'm different from a lot of other voters, but I picked Obama precisely because I thought he seemed like he had the kind of mind that could navigate things this way, not because I thought he was a pure avatar of an ideology.
So far, the only thing I'm solidly unhappy with is his FISA reversal (and that was a senate decision) and decision to federally fund international clinics that would use abortion as a family planning method. Everything else looks like he's considering tradeoffs.
Tweet, tweet.
I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job.
He or she was elected by the people and as such the people should know what the president does. Hiding documents show government is not to be trusted.
These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President
Trust? Neither the USA's Founding Fathers nor I trust government. And wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Trust, but Verify"?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Being president should not be a job to aspire towards
My point is that you get the Presidents you pay for.
This is my sig.
Your well-formatted, statistically dense post conveniently glossed over the fact that income taxes are not reflective of the entire tax burden.
Is there any other federal tax burden that the poor and middle class, as a whole, bear more heavily than the rich?
Sales tax is local. Property tax is local. Even vehicle tax is, seeing how it's levied by the DMV of each state, local.
At the federal level, the rich have been getting shafted on the income tax and haven't even been getting a word of thanks for supporting the rest of the country (federally-supported-program-wise, which is most of the welfare program in U.S.).
Yes, perhaps the poor pay more sales tax. But sales tax is not part of the presidential (or even congressional) platform.
I suggest that, rather than taxing earned income, we exempt it and tax only unearned income.
That way, the more you work the more money you keep. If you make $20,000 in retail, you get to keep all of it. If you make $250,000 being a stock broker, you keep it. If you sit around on your ass waiting cashing in capitol gains (which means you sold a stock and are taking money _out_ of the system), living off the teat of dividends (again, money which is _not_ being reinvested directly by the company) or interest, you pay a flat rate...say 20%.
Businesses make up for the slack by paying a paltry 1-3% of gross receipts.
Or are you trying to defend those who don't work for a living?
I might note - and you'll no doubt agree as a fiscal conservative - that retirement is not a basic "right" guaranteed in the constitution. You should be careful not to rest on either taxing work (wages) or granting the undeserving a free ride (retirees who haven't saved enough) - as both hard work and paying your own way are planks in the Republican platform.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Here we go again... Just another lie! Where is the transperency he promised? He made A LOT of promises and hasn't kept ONE yet.... The global elite really are pulling this guys strings worse than Bush....
Can one of the Obaaaaaamanoids tell us ONE promise he made he has kept????
This is starting to remind me of the Ministry song "Lies, Lies, Lies"..
"America has been hijacked
Not by Al Qaeda, not by Bin Laden
But by a group of tyrants
That should be of great concern to all Americans
We're on a mission to bring out the facts
You got your stories but they all have cracks
Misinformation, lies and deceit
What made you think that we were all asleep
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3
Surpise surprise"
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Lynching Bush Administration worthless to Obama right now. Wait until 2010-2011, THEN let the dirt start to be dug up about Bush & Co. When the public finds out it was much worse than we though, it will hurt the Republicans that much more. Welcome to politics.
I live and operate a small business in a municipality with a gross receipts tax, and it blows as both a business owner and as a consumer.
Fixed that for you. 'Modern politics' has become such a media circus, I'm surprised they haven't turned it into a reality show yet.
Oh, wait...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Yeah, congress rolled over (all along, even now) and would have declared whatever Bush told them was needed. The specifics of who signed (or didn't) which piece of paper seem unimportant.
As for your earlier point about tracking every presidential actions, it's an issue of trust. If we had a system where we could trust our president, even a little, to mean and do what he says we'd might be willing to look away for a moment.
Your example of the Barbary pirates is a good one. We do authorize the president to deal with these things assuming that he's acting in our names or will stop if he realizes he made a mistake. Even in areas where this means things that would otherwise be crimes if he didn't have the shield of working in our names like killing pirates, tapping phones, etc.
Bush lied though. Repeatedly. Directly, and indirectly by paying people to lie to him. He knowingly and in so many words manufactured a case for war where there wasn't one. If we had the info, the people would all be jointly liable for the errors. But by lying to us Bush took away our oversight ability. Essentially starting an unjustified war and (to use the word the rest of the world would, murdering) hundreds of thousands.
So I'm seeing more of a reason to keep close tabs on the president than not. In fact, if you want to have any claim to the USA being an ethical nation I think you'd acknowledge that we all have a responsibility to ensure that corruption is investigated and harshly punished.
That trust I mentioned though. I know of one way to have a bit of it. If there was a law (not a one-time decree aimed at parting rivals) that would get Bush tried for his crimes then it would also apply to Obama if he did the same.
Bush taught us to watch closely or there'd be another torture camp deporting our and allied citizens for torture. If the only way we can avoid the worst depravity is constant vigil than constant vigil it must be.
Which one are you talking about? The 5 day waiting period? Pfft... that's not about transparancy.
According to a wide variety of other commentators it certainly is.
http://www.propublica.org/article/take-two-obama-short-on-transparency-pledge-again-090205
What about his promise that he wouldn't continue Bush's abuse of the state secrets privilege? Because he has ignored that.
I would not exactly say he ignored it. For example in his first day in office he implemented a roll back of an important Bush secrecy directive which was clearly an abuse of exactly what you are talking about, the state secret privilege.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/22/obama-lifts-bushs-veil-of-secrecy/
There has been a roll-back of the Bush position in many cases, however in a few high profile cases he has continued the Bush policy. Speculation is that in some cases he is following the Bush policy because releasing documents would then compel prosecutions of former Bush officials - something he has stated he doesn't want.
Personally I think judgement on this will have to wait a bit for the overall picture to emerge.