Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Wins Ruling On E-mail Records

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the unleash-the-shredders dept.

United States 243

An anonymous reader writes "The White House Office of Administration is not required to turn over records about a trove of possibly missing e-mails, a federal judge ruled Monday. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the agency does not have 'substantial independent authority,' so it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act."

cancel ×

243 comments

To sum up then: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815105)

The White House Office of Administration is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act, a judge says.
What. The. Fuck?

Wrong way around (3, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815499)

Fuck the what.

Oh well, only a few months left

Re:Wrong way around (5, Insightful)

Clockwork Apple (64497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815709)

"Oh well, only a few months left.

But this sets a legal precedent that similar emails will NEVER be subject to the FOIA. The next president will not even have to think twice about it, or bother to hide or lose them. They just don't have to let us see them.

One more method of accountability has been lost. I don't see that as an "Oh Well," situation.

C.

Re:Wrong way around (4, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816103)

Presidential communications are not subject to FOIA. If Congress wants the public to have access to those communications, they should pass a law requiring that.

Access to communications required by subpoena or Congress, however, should most certainly be required.

Re:Wrong way around (2, Informative)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816449)

now lets cross our fingers that someone almost-half-sane will sponsor such a bill before everyone else squashes it.

Ah well, that's okay (5, Funny)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815107)

Openness is overrated in democratic societies, anyhow. I'm sure they wouldn't be keeping this all a secret if it weren't in the best interests of the people.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go send my credit card numbers to these nice former Nigerian heads of state.

The Microsoft connection (4, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815167)

Isn't Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly the same bonehead that overturned the Microsoft ruling?

And, can we expect this ruling to be appealed?

Here is a picture of the stupid cunt (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815261)

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/judgecolleenkollar-kotelly.jpg [wired.com]

The treasonist whore is whoring out our rights to the highest bidder with the most power.

I hope the twatwad gets hit by a car on the way out of the courthouse.

And yet she stands next to the united states flag which means nothing to her. Perhaps she uses it to wipe her ass after shitting on our constitution?

Re:Here is a picture of the stupid cunt (1)

Thyrteen (1084963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816131)

In somewhat vulgar terms, the above post perhaps represents some of my innermost, unexpressed feelings. I'm sorry, Troll.

Re:The Microsoft connection (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815263)

Karma whore much [slashdot.org] ?

Re:The Microsoft connection (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815279)

Yes. But don't blame the judge for the ruling; she can only rule based on the evidence before her. Blame the prosecutors who did a shoddy job of putting the evidence before her, and the Microsoft defense attorneys who drew out the case beyond the states' will to pursue it with the required attention and vigor.

Re:The Microsoft connection (4, Interesting)

freenix (1294222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815351)

Select, Right-Click, Wikipedia search [wikipedia.org] . She did screw up Penfield's work on the M$ trial. She should have refused because Penfield was the only person who could have know enough to judge the case. More to the point, she just reversed an October 2007 ruling about Presidential documents.

On October 1, 2007, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reversed George W. Bush on archive secrecy, (38-page) ruling that the U.S. Archivist's reliance on the executive order to delay release of the papers of former presidents is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law." National Security Archives, at George Washington University alleged that the Bush order severely slowed or prevented the release of historic presidential papers.

Involvement with FISA should disbar anyone - the court violates the 4th amendment by being a secret court.

Moderators: please note (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816405)

Do not mod posts by this account up. "freenix" is one of twitter's [slashdot.org] army of eleven [slashdot.org] accounts, which he uses to manipulate the Slashdot moderation system.

Re:The Microsoft connection (2, Informative)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815457)

And, can we expect this ruling to be appealed?
From TFA:

The watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had sued under FOIA. The group expressed disappointment in the ruling and said it is appealing the decision.

Re:The Microsoft connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816003)

Yeah, but she can write really good comments about the legal code. At least 70-80% of the time.

Re:Ah well, that's okay (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816547)

Ignorance is Strength

When did this change? (4, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815123)

IANAL, but I'm still surprised to hear that the FOIA only applies to government offices which have "substantial independent authority."

From everything I've heard, it applies to all government agencies. Does this mean if a government office can make itself appear harmless enough, it doesn't have to cooperate?

"Sorry, I'm only the FBI director's SECRETARY. I don't have substantial independent authority."

Re:When did this change? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815257)

From everything I've heard, it applies to all government agencies. Does this mean if a government office can make itself appear harmless enough, it doesn't have to cooperate?

"Sorry, I'm only the FBI director's SECRETARY. I don't have substantial independent authority."
The FOIA does apply to all government agencies.
However, if the "agency" does not have "substantial independent authority" from the Executive, then it is not considered an agency for the purposes of the FOIA, it is considered a unit of the Executive Office.

Here's a 13 year old case that references even older cases supporting that interpretation
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5411a.html [georgetown.edu]

5 U.S.C. 552(f) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held thatSo while I agree with the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that "The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails," I'd have to say its pretty obvious that the Bush Administration is on sound legal footing when they do so.

Re:When did this change? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815375)

And so how do the people of the United States get open access to the records of the "Executive Office"?

Plus, didn't the White House -- ahem, "Executive Office" unit -- lose all the relevant emails in a catastrophic data loss event during an upgrade to a mainstream commercial email server system?

And, if the emails were lost, why did the judge who formerly ruled in Microsoft's favor (after being appointed to her position by George Bush) bother ruling on this matter.

I mean, the White House lost the emails, so why does it matter if the people of the United States would like to see what their government is up to or not?

Re:When did this change? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815481)

Crap, I munged the quote somehow

Here's a 13 year old case that references even older cases supporting that interpretation
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5411a.html [georgetown.edu]

5 U.S.C. 552(f) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that

"the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office [of the President] whose sole function is to advise and assist the President" are not included within the term "agency" under the FOIA.
So while I agree with the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that "The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails"...

I'd have to say its pretty obvious that the Bush Administration is on sound legal footing when they do so.

Re:When did this change? (5, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815699)

So, have I got this right? (IANAL):

The President's records fall under "Executive Privilege", and cannot be subpoenaed or FOIA'd. Rationale: the Pres needs to be able to make independent decisions without being second-guessed or legally harassed.

Federal agencies with authority independent from the President do not have this privilege, and must comply with FOIA. Rationale: the people should know what their government is up to.

Legal question: Is the White House's internal bureaucracy part of "the President" or is it an "independent agency" from the president? Judge's answer: it's part of the President, and therefore privileged.

Can't say I like what the White House is doing, but the judge's decision looks pretty clear-cut as I see it.

Re:When did this change? (1)

Thyrteen (1084963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816267)

If that's accurate, I find that a great clarification of how this pans out

Re:When did this change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816325)

I understand the logic and arguments. But I do not agree with the following statement:

Rationale: the Pres needs to be able to make independent decisions without being second-guessed or legally harassed.

Re:When did this change? (4, Informative)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815283)

IANAL, but I'm still surprised to hear that the FOIA only applies to government offices which have "substantial independent authority." From everything I've heard, it applies to all government agencies.

It does not apply to all government entities. The opinion in this case explains the relevant standards:

In 1974, Congress amended the FOIA definition of agency to cover any "establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." 5 U.S.C. 552(f). This definition "was not, however, meant to cover 'the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President.'" Armstrong, 90 F.3d at 558 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-1380, at 14 (1974) (Conf. Rep.)). Indeed, Congress intended to codify the D.C. Circuit's decision in Soucie. Id. ("That the Congress intended to codify Soucie is clear enough.") (citing Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). Soucie, however, offers two possible tests for determining whether an EOP component is an agency subject to the FOIA: (1) whether the entity exercises "substantial independent authority," and (2) whether the entity's "sole function is to advise and assist the President." Soucie, 448 F.2d at 1073, 1075; see also Armstrong, 90 F.3d at 558. Following the 1974 Amendments to the FOIA, as discussed in greater detail below, the D.C. Circuit considered these two factors in determining whether a variety of EOP components were agencies subject to the FOIA.

In 1993, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, which "managed to harmonize" the two Soucie criteria "by using a three-factor test to determine the status under FOIA of a unit in the Executive Office of the President." Armstrong, 90 F.3d at 558. Specifically, the Meyer court determined that, in "apply[ing] Soucie to those who help the President supervise others in the executive branch . . . it is necessary to focus on three interrelated factors . . . [(1)] how close operationally the group is to the President, [(2)] what the nature of its delegation from the President is, and [(3)] whether it has a self-contained structure." 981 F.2d at 1293.

In short, it is well-settled law that some executive entities are not covered by FOIA, and there is significant precedent for making the determination. That's not to say the judge was right or wrong, just that "FOIA applies to all agencies" is not the proper mode of criticism.

Re:When did this change? (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815295)

It looks like I was wrong, hence the IANAL disclaimer. Thanks for the clarification!

Re:When did this change? (4, Informative)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815545)

In short, it is well-settled law that some executive entities are not covered by FOIA

Does this even matter very much? So they escape the FOIA, are they still not subject to the Presidential Records Act and possibly the Hatch Act?

Re:When did this change? (4, Insightful)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815333)

My question is: if the WH Office of Admin doesn't have independent authority, then that implies that it is under some other organization's authority, right? If so, we should be able to send the FOIA request to that authority.

That is, if this isn't bullshit.

Re:When did this change? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816423)

My question is: if the WH Office of Admin doesn't have independent authority, then that implies that it is under some other organization's authority, right? If so, we should be able to send the FOIA request to that authority.
The problem is the authority they report to is the Office of the President who is evoking his Executive Privilege [wikipedia.org] and not turning over information.

Re:When did this change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815497)

If it only applies to such a limited group, then the law has been changed so much that it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. (Keeping the Nixon government's excesses from happening in the future.) As we can see, it's failed miserably of late. It WAS supposed to apply to all government, with exceptions for secret info that would harm the US if told. I'd think the fact that those emails were allowed to be tossed demonstrates the group has substantial independent authority.

Then again, the FOIA was changed under Reagan, and changed several times under GWB. We don't really need citizens to know what their government does, in order to make sound voting decisions, do we? Let's just wave some flags and say it's too important to have voters know what's going on.

Re:When did this change? (1)

conlaw (983784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815987)

Actually, it changed in 1996, after the case discussed below. The relevant subsection (5 USC 552(f)) now reads:

(f) For purposes of this section, the term-- (1) ``agency'' as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency; and (2) ``record'' and any other term used in this section in reference to information includes any information that would be an agency record subject to the requirements of this section when maintained by an agency in any format, including an electronic format.(emphasis added)
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=652953318827+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

I bet... (0, Troll)

DnemoniX (31461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815137)

They didn't want anyone to see all of those e-mails for v1agr4 that somebody has been saving...

Cue the Bush bashing (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815139)

Really, it would have been either party, and any person in office that would have fought this.

They are politicians, what do you expect?

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815217)

This isn't about Bush bashing. This is wrong no matter what president is in office. The whole point of our constitutional government is so that government cannot make itself more important than the people it governs. In short, to prevent the mistake that England and other governments made which necessitated [bloody] revolution. We've got secret laws, secret courts, and now even more secrecy within the government that we do know about.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815377)

This isn't about Bush bashing.
I happen to agree, but i was just commenting on what will become a bashfest and the true issue will be lost in the noise. You are speaking rationally, which isn't in vogue here when it comes to political issues.

Cue the Republican pissiness. (4, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815729)

I happen to agree, but i was just commenting on what will become a bashfest and the true issue will be lost in the noise. You are speaking rationally, which isn't in vogue here when it comes to political issues.


Actually, I don't think there is that much pure Bashing happening around these parts. --I equate 'Bashing' with the desire punish by proxy for purely emotional reasons devoid of rationality or factual data. You can see evidence of this on those blog sites which are hopelessly obsessed and enraged far beyond any measure of reason by such things as, 'welfare moms milking the system'.

When discussing Bush, however, it's hard when pointing out basic reality to sound like one is doing anything BUT bashing. This is due to the reality being so very grim and the damning facts so plentiful. Welfare Moms and similar concerns generally don't have much impact on anything, whereas Bush policies have resulted in $120 per barrel oil, a crashed dollar, a quagmired immoral war, the hideously mis-managed Katrina disaster, to name just a few items. So the complaints may sound like 'Bush Bashing' but really, I would say that it is rational and necessary discussion, especially in the lead-up to the next election. Calling legitimate complaints about things which affect everybody in the country 'Bush Bashing' and condemning it as such smacks of Republican pouting and pissiness.

Sorry. I refuse to allow people make me feel guilty for having legitimate complaints. Abusive parents do the same thing to their kids.


-FL

Re:Cue the Republican pissiness. (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815967)

I surely wish I had mod points for this one. But of course they expired last week.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815471)

If you know about them, are they secret?

I guess this situation is partially because the political system that developed to organize the massive territory of the United States has not adapted to the current technological/social situation. People have a much greater power for oversight at this point in time, but states/governments never relinquish powers/authorities easily. The fact that you know about these machinations of powers is probably more a sign of this than of any increase if corruption or secrecy. Though I shall not argue that there is in any way less secrecy than before, there were undoubtedly some secrecy within the political administration of earlier days; you just don't know about it since these things actually stayed secret.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (4, Insightful)

Breakfast Cereal (27298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815223)

Could you explain this statement? You seem to be saying that we shouldn't be critical of one particular politician and/or party because another hypothetical politician and/or party would do the same thing, at least hypothetically. Doesn't this constitute a race to the bottom for ethical standards, and shouldn't we demand better than that?

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (5, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815231)

Really, it would have been either party, and any person in office that would have fought this.

That's entirely irrelevant. I don't really care what party it is, if the Democrats were in this situation they would be scrutinized just as much as the current administration is.

They are politicians, what do you expect?

That they be held accountable for their actions?

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815297)

That they be held accountable for their actions?

'You must be new here,' says the anonymous coward.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (2, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815323)

Really, it would have been either party, and any person in office that would have fought this.
That's entirely irrelevant. I don't really care what party it is, if the Democrats were in this situation they would be scrutinized just as much as the current administration is.
Unfortunately, the politics can't be just ignored. All it would take is a 3/4 majority in either house to get a Freedom of Information Act revision to make it speicifically applicable to the executive office. But likely any voting on such a thing would go down party lines, and once more the politics of the day take precedence over what's best for the country.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815353)

(er, 3/4 for constitutional amendment to get around the usual defence of "Article Two" by Bush so far)

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (1)

penguinbrat (711309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815485)

They are politicians, what do you expect?

That they be held accountable for their actions?


They are politicians, what do you expect?

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815791)

They are politicians, what do you expect?

Free cheese, baby!
Oh, wait. I make too much to qualify for a 'stimulus' check.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (2, Interesting)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816345)

That's entirely irrelevant. I don't really care what party it is, if the Democrats were in this situation they would be scrutinized just as much as the current administration is.
I wish that were true, but I worked for a company involved with White House e-mail being screwed up when Clinton was still in office. It made the news, then the story died a normal death (typical government screw-up) just like the now routine stories of sensitive information being lost on laptops, they don't even bother to report all of those these days.

My guess is that these earlier e-mail screw ups were partially responsible for the decision to move from Lotus Notes to MS Exchange. It would seem that this transition has been a disaster.

Never ascribe to malice what can be more easily blamed on incompetence. Or something like that.

But know that the media has biases, and they quite frequently bury a story earlier if it adversely affects someone or something they like. I won't go so far as to say they universally favor one party or another, but I think if you pay close attention you will see a pattern.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815419)

Cue the Bush bashing
by nurb432 (527695) on Monday June 16, @04:45PM (#23815139) Homepage Journal
It's not Bush who is the real problem. (Actually I think he's a good person who meant well even as he goofed everything up.)

The problem has been throngs of douchebags like yourself who voted for him.

Re:Cue the Bush bashing (2, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815737)

The problem has been throngs of douchebags like yourself who voted for him.
TWICE.

Kollar-Kotelly (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815145)

This ruling brought to you by the same judge who overturned most of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision in United States v. Microsoft! Completely boneheaded as usual.

Huh? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815165)

Is this another bone-headed IT mistake? [slashdot.org]

It must be Monday. I really suck at Mondays.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816211)

Looks like somebody's got a case of the Mondays..yuk, yuk.

That Name Seems Familiar (0, Redundant)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815171)

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Now where have I heard that name before?

In what way.. (2, Insightful)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815175)

..Has this Administration NOT had 'Substantial Independent Authority'?? Haven't Bush & Co. been arguing that they have since the beginning?

Not that the White house has ever given a damn what any judge has said anyway. If any backups of those emails had been made, they would have disappeared long ago.

This administration sickens me when I think about it, so I'll stop.

Re:In what way.. (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815369)

The court did not find that "the Administration" lacked "substantial independent authority." It found that the White House Office of Administration , which provides "financial management and information technology support, human resources management, library and research assistance, facilities management, procurement, printing and graphics support, security, and mail and messenger operations" to the Executive Office of the President, lacked substantial independent authority.

Re:In what way.. (1)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815937)

Fair enough, I failed to comprehend.

Re:In what way.. (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815393)

..Has this Administration NOT had 'Substantial Independent Authority'?? Haven't Bush & Co. been arguing that they have since the beginning?

The FOIA only applies to offices that are substantially independant FROM the executive (ie Bush & Co). Obviously the executive is NOT substantially independant from itself, so the FOIA doesn't apply to them. The judge probably ruled correctly, according to the FOIA.

Not that the White house has ever given a damn what any judge has said anyway. If any backups of those emails had been made, they would have disappeared long ago. This administration sickens me when I think about it...

That is an entirely different issue, not related to FOIA, on which I completely agree with you.

I'm Surprised (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815179)

I'm surprised that they even admitted there were missing e-mails!

Note to self: (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815185)

1.) Conduct all illegal activities through email
2.) When I get sued, pay off court clerk to assign case to Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
3.) ???
4.) Profit!

Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whines (3, Insightful)

Loopy (41728) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815219)

Note that, unlike popular current trends, judges are not there to decide what the law _should_ be and rule on that but only to enforce the applicability of current laws to the specifics of the case at hand. Might think about that before you decry the ruling. Bottom line: if you don't like this, stop whining and playing the martyr and go vote for someone that will do what you want. Otherwise, see Catharsis(4)(a) [thefreedictionary.com] .

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (2, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815341)

Are you serious? No, you can't be, either that or you've missed the entire point of the supreme court. Judges are there specifically to decide how a law should be enforced or even if it should be enforced at all.

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (4, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815465)

No, I think you missed the point of his post. Judges aren't there to make law. They are there to interpret the law, as written, and weigh the merits of the case at hand as to what precedents apply based on current facts.

The Supreme Court also is supposed to do this, its just that at that level they are almost exclusively supposed to put the law in the context of the Constitution. Then the thing is, if they are strict constructionist or not, as to what "side" they're likely to come down upon.

Thing is, When Washington was appointing judges, its not like they had to reach very hard to find out what the guys who wrote the Constitution meant -- they were alive and kicking and hanging out down the block. The system was created before political parties when it was just assumed that people would know what they were supposed to do.

Of course, things are different now. People who see themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans," "Liberals" or "Conservatives," instead of just as "Americans" are in the position to appoint judges who will agree with their specific neo-tribalist sensibilities, slants and biases.

However, I would venture to say that no matter what form of government was constituted, the end result would have been the same because the pattern is obvious since the time of Rome, if not before.

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815873)

> They are there to interpret the law, as written, and weigh the merits of the case at hand as to what precedents apply based on current facts.

The fun thing about the law... and all the caselaw that goes with it, is that there's so much of it.

You could argue it either way.

So underlying legal philosophies do come into play. That's why it matters who
gets apointed to the bench. They can push the law in one direction or another.
They may choose to only push inches at a time but they can still push.

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (5, Insightful)

nickhart (1009937) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815381)

Bottom line: if you don't like this, stop whining and playing the martyr and go vote for someone that will do what you want.

If voting could actually change anything, then it would be illegal. You think shuffling around Congress and the White House will change the entrenched corruption, pay-to-play atmosphere and pro-corporate agenda of the US government (or any government)?

Voting is little more than a democracy placebo. Every few years you are given a "choice" between corporate candidate A and corporate candidate B, both of whom support the exact same agenda--only phrased differently and with a few minor variations. Enter the compliant corporate media to highlight and magnify those differences and shut out any genuine challengers to the status quo.

Meanwhile, everyone is so busy arguing over which of the terrible candidates is less terrible, that the task of building a genuine progressive, grassroots movement for change (against the war, for worker's rights, health care, etc...) is indefinitely shelved. The only way to win progress is through struggle. As abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." So instead of actually struggling for change we're herded into the political system controlled by the same people who benefit from the status quo and resist our every demand for progress. All of our demands are dropped or watered down to suit the electoral needs of your chosen candidate--and after the election they are forgotten completely.

The major parties aren't worth wasting more than 1 minute or 1 dime on. The real task is to create a movement powerful enough to win our demands regardless of which corporate tool sits in the White House. As famous historian Howard Zinn put it, "the really critical thing isn't who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens."

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815453)

Note that, unlike popular current trends, judges are not there to decide what the law _should_ be and rule on that but only to enforce the applicability of current laws to the specifics of the case at hand. Might think about that before you decry the ruling.


Yeah, in a perfect world, this is true. But in the real world, which judges sit where is such a hotly contested game precisely because personal bias and political allegiance does in fact make a significant difference and everybody with a brain knows it. --Even you, otherwise you wouldn't be recommending people vote for people who, "will do what you want".

In other words, either write in a manner which doesn't self-contradict while at the same time condemning thinking people as 'whiners', or please just stop typing, because right now you sound both evil and wrong.


-FL

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (4, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815529)

Well, they (judges and justices, all-inclusive) are there to both interpret the law and to determine if the law is constitutional.

This is why people roll their eyes when wackjobs start harping about "activist judges". That's what judges are there for, to temper the will of the people (or their representatives), and the power of the executive branch, via applying the filter of the Constitution to their actions.

Re:Cue the "corruption at the highest levels" whin (1, Troll)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816277)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The People have lost. Not enough people care about what happens as long as they have American Idol and Survivor, and credit cards.
Those who do care are less than 1 percent, and are also branded as nutjobs.

We have already lost, and can change nothing. Voting is a sham; the people we elect will do what they want anyways at the cost of screwing over the little people, and if we don't vote the way they like, they'll just mess with the votes of electronic voting.

And don't even think about an armed revolution; the army is much more powerful and much more well armed than 50% of the US combined and wouldn't bat an eye at "putting down" such a thing.

The reason we whine is because we're left with no other choices. It's the result of our loss.

Next up: Mandatory Journaling (4, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815247)

Time to get some mandatory email journaling voted in, folks.

Seriously, what if the roles were reversed? The Feds are looking for some HIPAA-related email, and you can't produce it. What would they say??

"You should have had a system in place that you could rely on..."

Goose, meet Gander.

Re:Next up: Mandatory Journaling (2, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815829)

mandatory email journaling voted in

They have, it's called the Presidential Records Act.

This ruling just says that the general public is not allowed to use the FOIA in order to find out whether the administration is complying with the law or not.

Re:Next up: Mandatory Journaling (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815975)

Seriously, what if the roles were reversed? The Feds are looking for some HIPAA-related email, and you can't produce it. What would they say??

"You should have had a system in place that you could rely on..."


Well, sure. Because there are actually regulations in place that call for that. It's the law. In the case of people who have been hired by an executive administration to provide research, advice, and political guidance... they aren't subject to that same standard, for a reason. They're not an agency. We're not talking about official communication between, say, the C-in-C and the military people under his command, or between that office and the TSA, or the Dept Of The Interior, or the State Department related to issues overseas. That stuff is all archived, and subject to FOIA. And that's the whole point. You hire an executive to bring their own judgement and the thinking of the people he or she chooses to help in complex judgement calls to the issues in front of them. They then ACT on their judgement, and leave quite a FOIA-able paper trail behind them.

If every conversation that President Obama wants to have with his pastor of the week - in person or by e-mail - as he thinks through an upcoming condition-free meeting with Hugo Chavez is information that you get have by FOIA, then how likely is it that he's going to use such channels for frank communication while arriving at the opinions he was hired to act upon?

Next step? (1)

trickofperspective (180714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815291)

Excuse my ignorance -- does this mean they can file a FOIA request against some other aspect of the White House, then, who _does_ have substantial independent authority, and for whom the Office of Administration was acting?

Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815293)

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [wikipedia.org] , who just created this official, binding policy that the government is above the law, is a fascist judge. She might be familiar to Slashdotters as the judge who the incoming Bush "Justice" Department got to run the Microsoft monopoly verdict's appeal and toothless "remedy [wikipedia.org] phase.

You might not know that Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the execution trial of Saddam Hussein that "the United States has no right to interfere with the judicial processes of another nation's courts", when such interference might mean Hussein might live to tell more of what he knows about US interference in Iraq, or rather its lengthy cooperation with his murderous regime.

And you might not realize that Kollar-Kotelly is the presiding judge of the Bush-packed FISA Court [wikipedia.org] , that has rubberstamped Bush's regime's tens of thousands of "exceptional" wiretap requests that violate the 4th Amendment (which artificial loophole is the entire purpose of that court). Which is why today's Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to put telco amnesty for violating FISA under the FISA Court's jurisdiction, instead of a regular court that actually obeys the Constitution.

Kollar-Kotelly is the go-to judge for Unitary Executive [wikipedia.org] fantasy privileges, whenever they can squeak some out. After all, she kicked off her legal career as a lawyer for Nixon's "Justice" Department.

Play ball!

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (4, Informative)

Snowgen (586732) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815413)

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly [wikipedia.org], who just created this official, binding policy that the government is above the law, is a fascist judge. She might be familiar to Slashdotters as the judge who the incoming Bush "Justice" Department got to run the Microsoft monopoly verdict's appeal and toothless "remedy [wikipedia.org] phase. You might not know that Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the execution trial of Saddam Hussein that "the United States has no right to interfere with the judicial processes of another nation's courts", when such interference might mean Hussein might live to tell more of what he knows about US interference in Iraq, or rather its lengthy cooperation with his murderous regime. And you might not realize that Kollar-Kotelly is the presiding judge of the Bush-packed FISA Court [wikipedia.org], that has rubberstamped Bush's regime's tens of thousands of "exceptional" wiretap requests that violate the 4th Amendment (which artificial loophole is the entire purpose of that court). Which is why today's Congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to put telco amnesty for violating FISA under the FISA Court's jurisdiction, instead of a regular court that actually obeys the Constitution. Kollar-Kotelly is the go-to judge for Unitary Executive [wikipedia.org] fantasy privileges, whenever they can squeak some out. After all, she kicked off her legal career as a lawyer for Nixon's "Justice" Department. Play ball!

Wow. We should be very mad at President Clinton for appointing her to the Federal Bench.

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815513)

Touche!

Burn!

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815515)

I am. Almost as mad as I am for his appointing Republican senator William Cohen [wikipedia.org] as his Defense Secretary (1997-2001), who dismissed Wesley Clark from commanding NATO (apparently for winning the Kosovo War without any US casualties). Which gave us the Pentagon that backed Bush every step of the way lying us into the Iraq War, while letting Binladen go (despite Clinton forcing Cohen's Pentagon to bomb Binladen's bases).

Aren't you mad about all that too?

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815535)

Yeah, it's pretty funny how often the actions of a judge/justice have very little to do with who appointed them.

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815547)

Slashdot Legal Lexicon:

Rulings you agree with:

Legally correct in every degree.
Common sense.
Right On
about Time

Rulings you don't agree with:

Fascists.
Bush brown nose.
Incompetent
On someone's payroll.

I can't wait for the howls when the 2nd Amendment ruling comes down.

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815441)

that may be all well and true, but don't call her a fascist. only because, much like the epithet terrorist, the word has lost all meaning due to overuse

"fascist" was once reserved for the likes of franco, mussolini and hitler. it is now applied to small town planning and zoning boards, website administrators, and bad hairstylists

pick an epithet with more oomph next time if you want to insult the woman, you terrorist ;-)

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815785)

No, she's a fascist. Fascists are people who support corporate rule of the people through force by a nationalistic government under a personality cult dictator (we call it a "Unitary Executive"). Since corporate rule, rather than by the people, cannot rely on the people's cooperation, it comes with all kinds of familiar coercion and propaganda. Scapegoating minorities, keeping them in concentration camps. Manufactured foreign threats trumped up into war. All for the profit and power of the ruling corporations.

Sound familiar? It's fascism.

Kollar-Kotelly has a record of ruling in favor of exactly that kind of fascism in the US, including this latest travesty. She's no small town planning board member. She's a big shot, with a trail of wreckage all over her resume.

Don't be afraid to call them fascists when they are fascists. There was nothing magic about the 1930s-40s fascists, or our ancestors who fought them under that name. Except that they were willing to do it, and they won. Except they took their eye off the ball in Spain with Franco, and his fascism lasted decades, setting back Spain by a century. We don't have that luxury.

She's a fascist, and she just set us back. Back to a fascist era, but this time we're the fascists. Though I'm not. I'm more like a terrorist - though Americans call my kind a "freedom fighter".

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

Software (179033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815477)

Yes, and damn that co-fascist Bill Clinton who appointed her to the federal bench [wikipedia.org] ! (see the third paragraph).

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816105)

I already have many times, and again just now [slashdot.org] . Clinton's brand of "bipartisanship" was called "triangulation" [wikipedia.org] . Which included all kinds of gifts to fascists, like some of his other "bipartisan" appointments, like Republican Defense Secretary William Cohen, who created the Pentagon that drove us into Iraq once they had all the points of the triangle covered with Republican control.

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (2, Informative)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815493)

Kollar-Kotelly is the go-to judge for Unitary Executive fantasy privileges, whenever they can squeak some out.

Really? Perhaps you can explain why she "ruled that the U.S. Archivist's reliance on the executive order to delay release of the papers of former presidents is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law" [reuters.com] .

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815885)

Because fascism isn't totally unopposed in this country. "Pimpin' ain't easy."

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815553)

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who just created this official, binding policy that the government is above the law,
Numerous people above you have already pointed out that this ruling was based on settled case law.
And by "settled" I mean "decided by the Supreme Court"

So while the rest of your assertions may be true, the first sentence is patently false.
She did not create any "official, binding policy that the government is above the law".

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815859)

So let me get this straight... when a judge rules in a way you dislike... she's a fascist... despite the precedent her decision is based on... and yet when a week earlier the Supreme Court throws out a long standing precedent (see Johnson v. Eisentrager [wikipedia.org] ) to give accused terrorists more rights than Nazi's had... it's ok?

Riiight.

(Before invoking Goodwin please see Johnson v. Eisentrager [wikipedia.org] to understand the validity of this comparison).

Re:Judge Kollar-Kotelly is a Fascist (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815969)

"More rights than the Nazis"? You're a fascist too. Er, I mean "Republican". Oh, right, 2008 - that's "libertarian", check.

If you weren't a fascist, lying to make Nazis look like victims, you'd know that that's a bullshit lie [dailykos.com] .

But hey, you're really not sticking up for Nazis. You're really just defending the kidnapping and secret torture of "accused terrorists", denying them protection of their Habeas Corpus rights that the Constitution requires.

How "libertarian" of you.

Conversely, when the courts do their job defending the Constitution and our rights, I applaud them. When they give you the unaccountable dictator you prefer, I loudly boo. Them and you.

In case you are missing the context here (4, Interesting)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815327)

In case you are missing the context here, the emails in question are interesting for a whole slew of reasons. The probably contain evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors (most likely by Cheney, but who knows [firedoglake.com] ) and pretty much have to contain evidence of perjury (with the morass of statements that have been made under oath, someone is surely lying, we just don't know who). And them there's the Hacth act violations, the Abrimoff issues [wikipedia.org] , the election tampering, and on and on.

These are the missing 18 minutes gone gonzo,

--MarkusQ

freedumb? f*ck yeah! (0, Flamebait)

kubla2000 (218039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815339)

Nothing says "f*ck you" to the terrorists like a strong white house! Huzzah for freedumb!

And so (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815343)

And so the information stays in a lockbox forever, information which should be public knowledge and which could incriminate the heads of the administration, which would then affect the judicial branch and make the legislative branch look really, really good.

A really good quote appeared in the footer of the page just now: "Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce"

don't worry about it folks (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815363)

if you can't get the transparency from your democratic government that you deserve, petition the chinese government to air their copies of our government's email

i'm sure they have a copy of the inboxes in question sitting around somewhere [slashdot.org]

thank god for shoddy us government computer security and snooping totalitarian regimes: securing the transparency in our democracy that we deserve!

Wait, what? (1, Insightful)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815405)

Boo! Hiss! *cough cough BLOWJOB!!! cough cough*

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816009)

That was NOT offtopic. Crude of me perhaps, but not offtopic. I suspect that the federal judge in question is in Bush's "good old boy" network -- therefore they may as well be performing oral sex on each other. :p

Backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815417)

Why don't they do a restore from a backup tape? They can also recover with recovery software these days. DA state and government works!

bone-headed corepirate nazi 'mistakes' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815549)

it would all be so laughably pathetic if the outcomes weren't so disastrous. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Wrong headline (5, Insightful)

drquoz (1199407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815551)

It shouldn't be "White House Wins" -- it should be "Citizens Lose".

There's a difference? (2, Informative)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815671)

Not with this White House.

Just the first step in a long appeals process... (1)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23815581)

Ok. This is just a District Court, and with Judges like Kollar-Kotelly, it was bound to happen. This is just the beginning of an appeals process that will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, as with so many cases that appeal to the Supreme Court, a final judgement could take years by which time there will be a new President and the records (if any still exist) will be long gone.

'judge' coaltar-kelly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23815823)

isn't she the jurist who freed billygates (aka fuddles) after he'd been captured during the height of his gottiesque softwar gangster years. she should ought to know all about email now?

kids: the lesson you should take away is (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816093)

BE DISHONEST! it pays. its the quickest way to succeed in the New America(tm).

please don't believe in 'good guys win, bad guys lose'. clearly, bad guys WIN BIG. they cover their tracks, they lie and cheat and steal and kill and start wars to further their personal needs.

we all take our examples from our highest leaders. if something is game for our leaders, it should be good enough for us, too.

so kids, don't bother being honest and ethical. it does not pay nearly as well as being dishonest.

I believe we should be as honest and ethical as our exemplary leaders. they set the tone and the pace for what our society is becoming. so take your cue, kids; its not worth it to be honest and decent. lie, cheat, steal and do whatever you want because ITS WHAT OUR LEADERS DO.

"do not as I say but as I do"

FOIA isn't the big dog in this fight, is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23816459)

I thought it was the Presidential Records Act [wikipedia.org] which established the President's procedures for making these records available and archiving them? Doesn't look like FOIA is invocable yet.

The government has spoken. (2, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 6 years ago | (#23816575)

Long live King George II.

I await King George III so the people may repeat history. Again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...