William Kelly Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/01...his-murder.html For MLK Day - Free the Files on his Murder When asked about MLK Day being a national holiday, the old Southern sheriff says, "Hell, let's kill another n and take two days off." Well now MLK Day is a national holiday, and is the day before the inaguration of the first black American president, calling unprecidented attention to the holiday they ask you to make a day of public service. If you don't have anything good scheduled, consider sitting down and writting you Representative in the House and sentators and asking them to pass the MLK Act releasing the MLK Assassination records of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and hold the mandated oversight hearings on the JFK Act, which has yet to have one hearing since it was passed over fifteen years ago. With a Democratically controlled Congress, and a new executive administration coming into office, it appeared that the House Reform and Oversight Committee, responsible for such hearings, would actually get around to holding them. Hearings on the proposed MLK Act are actually scheduled for mid-March, during Open Government Sunshine Week, and hearings on the JFK Act would be naturally held at the same time. But Henry Waxman (D. Calf.), the hardnosed chairman of the House Oversight committee, is moving on, and his replacement, REp. Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D.NY) has already made known his priorities - holding hearings on the NCAA college football playoffs scheme. The committee has also held hearings on athletes use of steroids, and took sworn public testimony on the issue, and now the Justice Department has responded to the Committee's request and has conveined a Federal Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to indict anyone who testified before the committee for perjury. The HSCA also asked the Justice Department to investigate the destruction of evidence and records in the assassination of President Kennedy, but no such Federal Grand Jury has been similarly conveined. Lie about taking steroids? They're going to come and get you. Lie about the destruction of evidence in the murder of the president? Nothing. Well now we know the House Reform and Oversight Committee is responsible for holding public hearings on the proposed MLK Act and the 15 year old JFK Act, and hasn't done it yet, so why not write a letter to your congressman and senators and ask them why not? Why haven't there been hearings on such an important topic as releasing the government records related to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the President of the United States? Other, apparently more significant issues like the NCAA college football playoffs and the use of steroids by professional athletes are taking precident over the release of the government's records on the assassinations of President Kennedy and MLK, but these misplaced priorities can be changed. They can be changed if people contact their representatives and tell them what's important. You can begin with Rep. Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D. NY) who is black, comes from a tough hood, and has served on this committee for twenty years, so he knows what's going on. http://oversight.house.gov/ http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2304 Apparently Rep. Ed has breakfast every Sunday after church at Juniors on Flatbush Avenue, where the "Lords of Flatbush" hang. Perhaps someone who lives near that neigborhood could mossey on over to Juniors and meet Rep. Ed Town for breakfast and explain to him the necessity of holding hearings on the MLK Act and JFK Act? Any takers? Rep. Edolphus Towns (D.NY) Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-5051 You might be able to relate with what he has to say. In his first speech as new chairman he said, "We need to quickly end this era of secrecy. This secret approach to government has failed the majority of American people and has led to decisions that beneffit small and elete sectors of our society..." and "...one simple recomendation of properly auditing Defense communications contracts could save over $800 milion dollars alone...." Chairman Towns Speech on Oversight Priorities The Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C. January 14, 2009 I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss the role of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the 111th Congress. We are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. Last November, the American people did some soul searching and for the second election in a row voted for change—demanding that those unique American ideals we all believe in—freedom, liberty and justice for all—be used to restore our faith in government and our standing to the international community. I say all this because I am very excited about the role that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will play in the new Congress working with the incoming administration. I have been a member of this Committee for 26 years – in the majority and the minority, through six chairmen and a few name changes along the way. I have been preparing for this opportunity throughout my entire tenure in Congress and I am ready. I wanted to take our time here today to share what is going to be a robust agenda for the Committee this year and for this Congress. Allow me to begin with the word on everyone's mind—OVERSIGHT. Let me be clear to everyone — our committee will provide vigorous oversight of the new administration, corporate wrongdoing and other timely issues. I feel strongly—as does the new President Elect—that Congressional oversight should not go away just because the Administration and Congress are run by the same party. Constructive oversight can expose and solve small challenges before they become national catastrophes. Congress has a responsibility to the citizens of this nation—to be a check on the executive branch. Looking back, the Republican Congress did the Bush Administration a disservice by turning a blind eye to problems created in the executive branch. At this point, many Republicans would admit and agree on this..... ....Everyone in Washington agrees on the need for government to run more efficiently and restore that trust to our constituents. There certainly is no quick fix or silver bullet but the first step on this journey is to bring more transparency to federal programs, and stop sweeping our problems under the rug—I believe that Americans can in fact handle the truth! AND we need to tell them the truth! It's not really that complicated—especially when you follow what I like to call the "Sunday Morning Test." The Sunday Morning Test is not whether the pundits on Meet the Press or Face the Nation understand and agree with what the government is doing. My Sunday morning test involves my constituents who talk to me after church on Sunday morning or at breakfast at Junior's on Flatbush Avenue understanding what their government is doing—***And let me state for the record—if you have EVER been to Brooklyn, you know that people are not shy about telling you what is on their minds!!! But THAT is why I go back home every weekend. I listen to the stories of working people as they share their experiences and concerns about the future of their families, their communities and their country. One can see pretty quickly how the Sunday Morning Test can help guide our work, making government more understandable and more approachable, which hopefully will encourage more participation in our democracy! Constructive congressional oversight should be a dialogue between the people's representatives and their government. That is why I am heartened to have developed a friendship with my ranking member, Congressman Darrell Issa, who is equally committed to working in a bi-partisan fashion for the continued success of the Committee and for the benefit of the American people. We need to quickly end this era of secrecy. This secret approach to government has failed the majority of American people and has led to decisions that benefited small and elite sectors of our society, with the hope that these benefits would trickle down to the majority of the American people. We have already made strides in this regard; in our first week, we passed three bills, issued an oversight report, and launched an investigation—AND this is only the beginning. The very first bills to pass the House were H.R. 35, the Presidential Records Amendments Act, and H.R. 36, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act. These bills will ensure that records from this and future administrations will be made available to the public in a timely fashion. Presidents must understand that their records, library donors and visitor logs belong to the nation, not simply to the safety deposit box of their choosing. These two pieces of legislation are a down payment on the types of open government initiatives supported by the public, who in addition to expecting the truth from their government; want a smart, effective government. And....transparency will always be the foundation to success.........All of these pressing matters I've shared with you show why leading the Oversight Committee at this critical juncture in history means so much. We have the opportunity to go right to the core of the problems facing our country—Americans are eager to believe again and I for one feel that there is room for all of us to work together to make that a reality. Thank you for your time this morning. Rep. Ed Towns Chair. Subcommitte on: Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Jurisdiction includes public information and records laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Census Bureau, and the National Archives and Records Administration. Wm. Lacy Clay, Chairman Paul E. Kanjorski Carolyn B. Maloney John A. Yarmuth Paul W. Hodes Michael Turner, Ranking Minority Member Chris Cannon Bill Sali Issues and Investigations As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter. In 1998, Rep. Waxman formed the Special Investigations Division to conduct investigations into issues that are important to members of the Oversight Committee and other members of Congress. Towns: Committee will perform strong oversight FCW.com, VA - Jan 15, 2009 Towns promised to hold hearings related to current events, if he sees a need. "The headlines and bloggers will help us determine what we will get involved in," Towns said. "I advise you to read the paper because [some of] our actions will be dictated by current events." Edited January 20, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003933029 On Day One, Obama Overturns Era of White House Secrecy By Mark Fitzgerald Mark Fitzgerald (mfitzgerald@editorandpublisher.com) is E&P's editor-at-large. Published: January 21, 2009 4:58 PM ET CHICAGO In his first full day in office, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum ordering government agencies to examine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with a bias toward release of the documents -- overturning eight years of a Bush administration directives to find ways not to disclose information. "For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said. "The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known." Obama's "Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" was immediately hailed by open government advocates, including the Sunshine in Government Initiative, an umbrella of media groups including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists. "It's wonderful that Priority One on Day One for this administration is transparency and restoring public trust," said Rick Blum, the coalition's coordinator. "Yesterday's policy of 'When in doubt, leave it out,' today became, 'When it doubt, let it out.' And this policy will help keep the public informed in our technology-driven, connected society. On open government, the dawn is breaking." Obama's memorandum orders an administration task force to come up with an "Open Government Directive" within 120 days laying out the specifics of the new marching orders on FOIA. It also orders the attorney general to issue new guidelines favoring disclosure. Under the Bush administration, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed agencies to err in favor of non-disclosure -- promising legal backup from the Justice Department. Obama also signed an "Executive Order on Presidential Records" that removes many of the barriers to public access to documents of past administrations. "This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends," a White House press release said. That's an allusion to the Bush administration's novel interpretation of the Watergate-era law that allowed current and former vice presidents, including George H.W. Bush, to assert executive privilege to bar release of historic documents. "Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse," the White House said. "And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution." "I will also hold myself, as president, to a new standard of openness," Obama added. 120 Days - Let's see - according to my calculations that's May 20, 2009, a workday Wednesday. BK Also note Executive Order -- Presidential Records http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...dentialRecords/ By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee. ( "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration. © "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207. (d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270. (e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records. (f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created. (g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch. (h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken. Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative. ( Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice. Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified. ( The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination. © If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General. (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order. Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege. ( In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative. Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals. ( This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. © This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009 Edited January 22, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rosen Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Historians in Handcuffs is a good article from The Nation by Jeff Kisseloff. Quotes James Lesar, FOIL and AARC attorney "who has spent four decades investigating the assassination of President Kennedy" (!) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/kisseloff?rel=hp_picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Historians in Handcuffs is a good article from The Nation by Jeff Kisseloff. Quotes James Lesar, FOIL and AARC attorney "who has spent four decades investigating the assassination of President Kennedy" (!) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/kisseloff?rel=hp_picks Thanks for that Steve, As we are certainly moving towards a new era where there may be no real secrets worth knowing. Jim Lesar is a true American hero, and the idea of FOIL and Historic Records Act flips the coin on those who insist that certain informaiton must always be kept secret, for reasons of national security, personal privacy, or whatever excuse they want. The bottom line is that if its a government document it was paid for by the taxpaying citizens, and ultimately belongs to them. Maybe a group like FOIL can make something significant happen. The President is expecting a report on May 20th from his committee on Open Government, and perhaps FOIL can give them something to think about a new policy. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 http://www.archive.org/stream/effectivenes...00unit_djvu.txt Full text of "The effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 : hearing before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress; first session, November 17, 1993" THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBUC LAW 102-526, THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 1992 Now its time for another hearing on these issues. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4397.shtml Obama’s DOJ quietly sought dismissal of missing White House emails lawsuit By Jason Leopold Online Journal Contributing Writer Feb 23, 2009, 00:22 One day after he was sworn in as president of the United States and in the same week signing executive orders ushering in a new era of government transparency, Barack Obama’s Justice Department quietly filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a long-running lawsuit that sought to force the Bush administration to recover as many as 15 million missing White House emails. In a legal briefs filed Jan. 21, the Justice Department admitted that a secretive restoration process implemented during George W. Bush’s last months in office was still incomplete, and that a bulk of the emails sent between 2003 and 2005 were deleted from servers in the Executive Office of the president and unrecoverable. The missing emails cover a time frame that included the lead up to the Iraq war, a lawsuit involving the identities of individuals and corporations who advised Dick Cheney on energy policy and the leak by White House officials of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. But despite it all, the newly minted Obama administration said in court papers that the issue revolving around the missing emails is “moot” because some steps, however incomplete, had been taken by the Bush White House to preserve and restore missing emails, even though the work has been conducted under the cover of secrecy by an unknown outside contractor hired by Bush administration officials. Now, one month after the Justice Department filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the National Security Archive, the historical project that operates out of George Washington University, have filed their responses to the Justice Department with a district court judge. CREW and the National Security Archive sued the Bush administration two years ago alleging the White House violated the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act by not properly archiving emails from 2003 to 2005. CREW said the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit “is yet another gambit in a series of actions designed to avoid transparency and accountability by obscuring the fact the Bush White House did nothing for years about a serious email problem that left a gaping hole in our nation’s history.” The group said because there has not been an accurate and truthful accounting of how the emails went missing in the first place, “we have no assurance the problem will not be repeated.” “With the recovery process far from complete, defendants want to go no further,” CREW said in court papers filed Friday. “But the claims in this case are not moot, requiring the court to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.” Further, “defendants have cast themselves as the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse door and argue in essence no outside involvement by [National Archives and Records Administration] or the attorney general is necessary because the White House -- the very entity that created the problem in the first place -- is comfortable with its analysis of and remedy for the missing email problem.” In a sharply worded response to the position taken by Obama’s Justice Department, Archive director Tom Balnton said, “President Obama on Day One ordered the government to become more transparent, but the Justice Department apparently never got the message, and that same day tried to dismiss the very litigation that has brought some accountability to the White House email system.” “Justice could have pulled back from that first misstep but they have not,” Blanton added. “The White House email presents a high-level test of the new Obama openness policies, and, so far, the grade is at best an incomplete.” In a 46-page opposition to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss filed Friday, the National Security Archive said that “as a matter of law, this issue must be resolved on the basis of a full record through summary judgment or a trial on the merits.” “Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss is a last-ditch attempt to keep the facts of this case from seeing the light of day,” the Archive’s court filing says. “This court has held that the Archive’s Complaint adequately alleges that records are at risk of destruction. The Archive is entitled to develop these allegations and, if it wins on the merits, is entitled to judicial relief compelling the agency action that to this day is still withheld: referral of this matter to the Attorney General.” In its motion filed Friday, the Archive said the White House “inexplicably selected for restoration emails from only a portion of the days that they themselves acknowledge have deleted emails; the White House did not conduct an analysis or restoration for the entire period during which emails are alleged to have been deleted; the White House excluded key periods from their analysis and restoration effort allegedly because of the migration from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange; the White House relied on a statistical analysis for its estimation of whether emails were missing that used as a starting point, the quantity of email on the very servers that the White House now acknowledges were incomplete; and the White House has provided no evidence that any of the problems that led to the loss, mislabeling, and misallocation of emails have been corrected. Six days before Obama’s Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Helen Hong, a DOJ attorney, told a federal judge presiding over the case that the White House spent $10 million to locate the emails. She claimed the emails would be transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration, along with 300 million of other documents in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, immediately after President George W. Bush left office. As such, Hong asked the court to dismiss the case. Hong’s disclosure was made hours after U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy granted an emergency order to the National Security Archive that directed Bush administration officials to immediately search all White House workstations “and to collect and preserve all emails sent or received between March 2003 and October 2005.” Hong had also explained that independent contractors hired by the White House found the missing emails by looking through 60,000 disaster backup tapes. In a mid-January court filing that sought dismissal of the lawsuit, the Justice Department claimed that the 14 million emails were never actually “missing,” rather the emails were simply unaccounted for due to a “flawed and limited” internal review by the Office of Administration in 2005. The documents were retrieved, the Justice Department claims, “through a three-phased email recovery process.” The Justice Department offered up a highly technical explanation in its court filing on why the emails were unaccounted for during the internal review four years ago. Previously, Payton and White House press secretary Dana Perino had blamed the loss of the emails on the administration’s transition from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook. “The 2005 review attempted to identify the number of email messages archived in .PST files by various Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) components for dates ranging between January 1, 2003 and August 10, 2005, and concluded that 702 component days between January 1, 2003 and August 10, 2005 had “low” message counts in the EOP email system, including 493 component days had zero message counts,” the DOJ’s court filing says. “The [Office of the Chief Information Officer] discovered that the counting tool used for the 2005 review had a message count limit of 32,000 email messages per day in a .PST file. But because large .PST files did contain more than 32,000 messages, the tool used for the 2005 review failed to “count” those messages and attribute them to components for specific days. Moreover, the 2005 review apparently relied on the name of the .PST file to allocate all of the individual email messages contained within a file to the component named in the file. “As a result of the technical limitations of the 2005 review, 14 million messages that existed in the EOP email system in 2005 were not counted in the 2005 review. Accordingly, the 2005 review presented inaccurate message counts, concluding that approximately 81 million messages existed in the EOP email system in 2005 when, in fact, approximately 95 million email messages were preserved in the EOP email system. Those “14 million” messages were therefore never “missing,” but simply uncounted in the 2005 review.” Obama’s Justice Department appears to have taken the Bush administration on its word that a good faith effort has been made to restore missing emails, according to CREW’s 24-page motion arguing against having the case dismissed. “One day after the Bush administration ended, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that reflects an incredibly cynical and narrow view of defendants’ obligations under the Federal Records Act (“FRA”),” the watchdog group’s court filing says. “According to defendants, because they have taken some action -- no matter how flawed, incomplete or limited -- the first four counts of plaintiffs’ complaints are now moot. Hiding behind technical jargon and theoretical constructs, defendants attempt to obscure three basic facts: we still do not know how many emails are missing; we still do not know the source of the problem that caused emails to be missing in the first place; and we still do not know if the problem has been fixed. “That is because rather than measure what is missing and compare that to what they have to answer the relevant questions of which emails are missing and why, defendants adopted an approach seemingly designed exclusively to undermine the results of OA’s earlier analysis. Toward that end defendants made certain assumptions not grounded in fact, employed an abstract, highly restrictive theoretical methodology to identify missing emails while ignoring the full inventory of actual emails contained on the backup tapes, and inexplicably decided to restore missing emails from less than 50 percent of the days even the most recent analysis identified as missing significant numbers of emails. Not surprisingly, defendants have not and cannot say they now have a complete set of emails from the Bush presidency.” Sheila Shadmand, an attorney for the Archive, said she hoped the Obama administration “would give a hard look at whether to allow the defense of the Bush administration’s loss of millions of White House emails to proceed on its current course.” “Despite assurances by Hong that “missing” emails have been recovered, David Gewirtz, an expert on email, and the author of the book Where Have All the Emails Gone? has advised the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to treat White House computers left behind “like crime scene evidence. “What must happen is this: each computer your team finds in the White House and the [Executive Office of the president] must be treated as evidence,” Gewirtz wrote in an open letter to Obama in the magazine Outlook Power prior to Obama’s swearing in Jan. 20. “Each machine must be cataloged and then removed for forensic examination. Under no circumstances should anyone on your team boot up any of those machines or use them.” Jason Leopold is the author of “News Junkie,” a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview. His new website is The Public Record. Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal Email Online Journal Editor MORE ON THIS ISSUE: http://fcw.com/articles/2009/02/23/bush-email.aspx http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/obama-ccing-bush http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-...-of-Bush-policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9031903806.html Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A09 Holder Tells Agencies To Open More Records The Obama administration advised federal agencies Thursday to release their records and information to the public unless foreseeable harm would result. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. issued guidelines fleshing out President Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, whenever another law doesn't prohibit release. The new standard essentially returned to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It replaced a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department defended any sound legal argument for withholding records. "We are making a critical change that will restore the public's ability to access information in a timely manner," Holder said. The Complete Story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...nyXsAAD97195KG0 Federal data to be released unless harm foreseenBy MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN – 1 day ago WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is telling federal agencies to release their records and information to the public unless foreseeable harm would result. Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines fleshing out President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act in cases where release isn't specifically barred by another law. The new standard essentially returns to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It replaces a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department defended any sound legal argument for withholding records. Holder said it was "a critical change" to restore timely public access. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is ready to tell federal agencies to release records to the public unless foreseeable harm would result, a Justice Department official said Thursday. Attorney General Eric Holder has approved new guidelines fleshing out President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, the official said. This person spoke anonymously because the official announcement has not been made. The guidelines were expected to be released later Thursday, amid Sunshine Week, an annual national observation by journalism groups and other organizations to promote open government and freedom of information. The new standard essentially returns to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It would replace a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department would defend any sound legal argument for withholding records. Justice is responsible for government-wide guidance on how to implement the records law because it defends agencies in court if they are sued by people who disagree with a decision to withhold records. Under the Holder standard, Justice lawyers would not defend a decision to withhold records unless their release could be shown to produce foreseeable harm. The new standards were also expected to encourage agencies to release more documents where the law leaves the decision to their discretion — an amplification of Obama's order that they adopt a "presumption for disclosure." The standards could also affect the outcome of a dozen or more pending lawsuits, including ones to obtain the legal rationales behind Bush administration anti-terrorism tactics like wiretapping Americans without a warrant and harsh interrogation of terrorism detainees. It was not immediately clear whether all pending lawsuits would be reviewed under the new standards. If not, the requesters could just file new freedom of information act requests for the same data after the new guidelines take effect. The Freedom of Information Act dates back to 1967. Since then, Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged in a three-decade pingpong game over how it should be enforced. In May 1977, President Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, issued guidance to err on the side of releasing information and said Justice would only defend withholding records whose release could cause "demonstrable harm." In 1981 under President Ronald Reagan, Attorney General William French Smith reversed that; he told them when in doubt — withhold — and Justice would defend any "substantial legal basis" for withholding records. Under Clinton, Reno reversed it again; she told agencies their presumption should be for release and she would only defend withholding information to prevent "foreseeable harm." But President George Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, went back the other way in October 2001. He told agencies that he would defend any sound legal justification for withholding documents. Congress later sought to undercut Ashcroft's order, passing legislation in December 2007 that toughened FOIA by establishing a hot-line service to help people requesting information deal with problems they may encounter and an ombudsman to provide an alternative to litigation in disclosure disputes. But money to pay for the ombudsman was only recently passed by Congress and signed by Obama. Edited March 21, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rosen Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 AP: Obama Can't Reform FOIA Fast Enough Contradictions Abound In Promise To Fulfill Freedom Of Information Act Requests http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/...in4870945.shtml This story discusses a 1960s FBI memo written from Cartha "Deke" DeLoach to Gerald Ford about a supposed $6,500 payment from the Cuban government to Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. The CIA black-lined parts of the memo in 2008 before turning it over to the AP, even though it was released over 2 decades ago in full. Jefferson Morley discusses in Our Man in Mexico that David Atlee Phillips vouched for Gilbert Alvarado, who floated this $6,500 payoff story. Alvarado was a CIA informant, a key fact that was largely unknown to the U.S. officials who had to evaluate and act upon the payoff story's implications. Phillips later distanced himself, "theorizing" in The Night Watch that the Alvarado story was a figment of Nicaraguan intelligence - an organization created and controlled by the CIA. Why does the CIA consider the Alvarado story worthy of being censored today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rosen Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Timely article posted on MaryFerrell.org by Lamar Waldron: Many US Government Files about JFK and King Assassinations Still Secret http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...ns_Still_Secret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) Progress from Obama adminstration in "erring on the side of the people's right to know"= T-R-A-S-H-E-D http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-hou...as-excuses.htmlDeconstructing Obama's Excuses by Dan Froomkin ...."[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past. The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." But as The Washington Post notes: "[N]o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account. Then there was the no-good-would-come-of-this excuse..... ......And finally, there was the new-argument excuse. Gibbs said "the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security." But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the argument that releasing the photographs could create a backlash "was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash 'clearly speculative' and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. "'There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, 'so this must be a political decision.'"..... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...otos/index.html......(7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it. The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government's possession relating to what it does is presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place..... http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein...ouse_again.htmlGroups: let us FOIA (part of) White House again More than three dozen open-government groups are asking the Obama Administration to reverse the Bush Administration's policy and again accept Freedom of Information Act requests for a portion of the White House known as the Office of Administration. In a letter sent Thursday to White House Counsel Greg Craig, the transparency advocates say such a move would send a signal that President Barack Obama is serious about implementing his post-inauguration promises to institute "an unprecedented level of openness in government." "Such a reversal best accords with the actual functioning of [the Office of Administration] and President Obama's January 21 memoranda concerning transparency and open government," the letter said. "As the President noted, '[a] democracy requires accountability and accountability requires transparency.' Without question, transparency in the functioning of the Executive Office of the President and its components like OA play a critical role in meeting this commitment." A White House spokesman had no immediate comment on the letter. Some offices at the White House which directly advise and coordinate with the president have never been subject to FOIA. However, the Office of Administration, which handles personnel, technology and financial support for the White House was considered subject to FOIA until 2007, when the Bush Administration abruptly asserted that the office was exempt...... Anybody wanna bet above request to rescind the Bush ban of FOIA requests to the white house OA will be approved anytime soon? We've just come from eight years of a secretive, far right presidential administration. By too many emerging measures we are burdened with yet another one. Do you think it will be any easier to successfully demand the initiation of impeachment investigation of this "poser" and hypocrite in the white house, a year or two from now? Obama only took his oath of office four months ago, and he acts as if he's forgotten what it is he swore to "preserve and protect". Bob Gates at the Pentagon was supposed to "stay on" for "six months", but..... not enough difference between the old Bush and this new Bush, to matter much, IMO. Edited May 15, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 Progress from Obama adminstration in "erring on the side of the people's right to know"= T-R-A-S-H-E-DSO O'BAMA DOESN'T WANT TO RELEASE ANY MORE PHOTOS OF PRISONER ABUSES AS THEY WILL INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF FOREIGNERS AGAINST US, BUT INSTEAD, HE FLAMES THE PASSIONS OF TOM SCULLY. THOSE PICTURES WON'T BE WITHHELD FOREVER, TOM, YOU'LL GET TO SEE THEM SOMEDAY. YOU CONSIDER THE PEOPLE'S "RIGHT TO KNOW" INCLUDES VIEWING OBSCENE S&M PHOTOS OF PRISONERS BEING ABUSED, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO SATISFY YOUR OWN S&M URGES? IN THE MEANTIME, THE 120 DAY REPORT OBAMA ORDERED ON SECRECY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT IS DUE SOON, SO WE'LL SEE. I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA. YOU CAN TELL THEY'RE MAKING WHOOPIE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND OBAMA'S GETTING LAID. BK http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-hou...as-excuses.htmlDeconstructing Obama's Excuses by Dan Froomkin ...."[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past. The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." But as The Washington Post notes: "[N]o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account. Then there was the no-good-would-come-of-this excuse..... ......And finally, there was the new-argument excuse. Gibbs said "the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security." But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the argument that releasing the photographs could create a backlash "was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash 'clearly speculative' and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. "'There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, 'so this must be a political decision.'"..... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...otos/index.html......(7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it. The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government's possession relating to what it does is presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place..... http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein...ouse_again.htmlGroups: let us FOIA (part of) White House again More than three dozen open-government groups are asking the Obama Administration to reverse the Bush Administration's policy and again accept Freedom of Information Act requests for a portion of the White House known as the Office of Administration. In a letter sent Thursday to White House Counsel Greg Craig, the transparency advocates say such a move would send a signal that President Barack Obama is serious about implementing his post-inauguration promises to institute "an unprecedented level of openness in government." "Such a reversal best accords with the actual functioning of [the Office of Administration] and President Obama's January 21 memoranda concerning transparency and open government," the letter said. "As the President noted, '[a] democracy requires accountability and accountability requires transparency.' Without question, transparency in the functioning of the Executive Office of the President and its components like OA play a critical role in meeting this commitment." A White House spokesman had no immediate comment on the letter. Some offices at the White House which directly advise and coordinate with the president have never been subject to FOIA. However, the Office of Administration, which handles personnel, technology and financial support for the White House was considered subject to FOIA until 2007, when the Bush Administration abruptly asserted that the office was exempt...... Anybody wanna bet above request to rescind the Bush ban of FOIA requests to the white house OA will be approved anytime soon? We've just come from eight years of a secretive, far right presidential administration. By too many emerging measures we are burdened with yet another one. Do you think it will be any easier to successfully demand the initiation of impeachment investigation of this "poser" and hypocrite in the white house, a year or two from now? Obama only took his oath of office four months ago, and he acts as if he's forgotten what it is he swore to "preserve and protect". Bob Gates at the Pentagon was supposed to "stay on" for "six months", but..... not enough difference between the old Bush and this new Bush, to matter much, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Progress from Obama adminstration in "erring on the side of the people's right to know"= T-R-A-S-H-E-D http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-hou...as-excuses.htmlDeconstructing Obama's Excuses by Dan Froomkin ...."[T]his is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." But this suggests that Obama has bought into the false Bush-administration narrative that the abuses of detainees were isolated acts, rather than part of an endemic system of abuse implicitly sanctioned at the highest levels of government. The Bushian view has been widely discredited -- and for Obama to endorse it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the past. The notion that responsibility for the sorts of actions depicted in those photos lies at the highest -- not lowest -- levels of government is not exactly a radical view. No less an authority than the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded in a bipartisan report: "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own....The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." But as The Washington Post notes: "[N]o commanding officers or Defense Department officials were jailed or fired in connection with the abuse, which the Bush administration dismissed as the misbehavior of low-ranking soldiers." And the "appropriate actions," as Obama put it, have certainly not yet been taken. The architects of the system in which the abuse took place have yet to be held to account. Then there was the no-good-would-come-of-this excuse..... ......And finally, there was the new-argument excuse. Gibbs said "the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security." But as the Los Angeles Times reports, the argument that releasing the photographs could create a backlash "was raised and rejected by a federal district court judge and the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which called the warnings of a backlash 'clearly speculative' and insufficient to warrant blocking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. "'There's no legal basis for withholding the photographs,' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, 'so this must be a political decision.'"..... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...otos/index.html......(7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it. The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government's possession relating to what it does is presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place..... http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein...ouse_again.htmlGroups: let us FOIA (part of) White House again More than three dozen open-government groups are asking the Obama Administration to reverse the Bush Administration's policy and again accept Freedom of Information Act requests for a portion of the White House known as the Office of Administration. In a letter sent Thursday to White House Counsel Greg Craig, the transparency advocates say such a move would send a signal that President Barack Obama is serious about implementing his post-inauguration promises to institute "an unprecedented level of openness in government." "Such a reversal best accords with the actual functioning of [the Office of Administration] and President Obama's January 21 memoranda concerning transparency and open government," the letter said. "As the President noted, '[a] democracy requires accountability and accountability requires transparency.' Without question, transparency in the functioning of the Executive Office of the President and its components like OA play a critical role in meeting this commitment." A White House spokesman had no immediate comment on the letter. Some offices at the White House which directly advise and coordinate with the president have never been subject to FOIA. However, the Office of Administration, which handles personnel, technology and financial support for the White House was considered subject to FOIA until 2007, when the Bush Administration abruptly asserted that the office was exempt...... Anybody wanna bet above request to rescind the Bush ban of FOIA requests to the white house OA will be approved anytime soon? We've just come from eight years of a secretive, far right presidential administration. By too many emerging measures we are burdened with yet another one. Do you think it will be any easier to successfully demand the initiation of impeachment investigation of this "poser" and hypocrite in the white house, a year or two from now? Obama only took his oath of office four months ago, and he acts as if he's forgotten what it is he swore to "preserve and protect". Bob Gates at the Pentagon was supposed to "stay on" for "six months", but..... not enough difference between the old Bush and this new Bush, to matter much, IMO. "Meet the new boss - same as the old boss." Pete Townshend, The Who (1971) Won't Get Fooled Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) SO O'BAMA DOESN'T WANT TO RELEASE ANY MORE PHOTOS OF PRISONER ABUSES AS THEY WILL INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF FOREIGNERS AGAINST US, BUT INSTEAD, HE FLAMES THE PASSIONS OF TOM SCULLY. THOSE PICTURES WON'T BE WITHHELD FOREVER, TOM, YOU'LL GET TO SEE THEM SOMEDAY. YOU CONSIDER THE PEOPLE'S "RIGHT TO KNOW" INCLUDES VIEWING OBSCENE S&M PHOTOS OF PRISONERS BEING ABUSED, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO SATISFY YOUR OWN S&M URGES? IN THE MEANTIME, THE 120 DAY REPORT OBAMA ORDERED ON SECRECY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT IS DUE SOON, SO WE'LL SEE. I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA. YOU CAN TELL THEY'RE MAKING WHOOPIE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND OBAMA'S GETTING LAID. BK Bill, "This" is not about me, so I don't see a basis for your taunt directed at me. I clearly provided support for my opinions, and it is accurate to say that Obama has reversed his initial policy on FOIA, which was a reversal of the Bush policy, which flew in the face of the purpose of FOIA. Attempting to "paint" me as a voyeur, if I did not know this vitriol is coming from you, has the flavor of a right wing *** **** attack in lieu of a reasoned response. It is odd to read your defense of new, extremely poorly justified Obama secrecy, in defiance of a court order from a federal district court judge and a 2nd circuit appellate panel. It is odd to read such a politically right slanted opinion from someone who is so committed to rule of law and the people's right to know, in the matter of the assassination of JFK. Your deference to the judgment of the executive, especially in these circumstances of an abrupt reversal of Obama's announced position on FOIA reform and on human rights, along with the fact that the issue of the release of the photos was already lost on appeal, is a right tilted political position, no matter how apolitical you think it to be. Your criticism of me, which amounts to defending Obama's awkward and illogical justification to withhold what the court has ordered the government to make public, reversing his earlier decision, gives me the impression that you are deeply conflicted, politically, because this decision flies in the face of the more open and just government you were anticipating. "THOSE Kennedy assassination records WON'T BE WITHHELD FOREVER, Bill, YOU'LL GET TO SEE THEM SOMEDAY. " Edited May 15, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 SO O'BAMA DOESN'T WANT TO RELEASE ANY MORE PHOTOS OF PRISONER ABUSES AS THEY WILL INFLAME THE PASSIONS OF FOREIGNERS AGAINST US, BUT INSTEAD, HE FLAMES THE PASSIONS OF TOM SCULLY. THOSE PICTURES WON'T BE WITHHELD FOREVER, TOM, YOU'LL GET TO SEE THEM SOMEDAY. YOU CONSIDER THE PEOPLE'S "RIGHT TO KNOW" INCLUDES VIEWING OBSCENE S&M PHOTOS OF PRISONERS BEING ABUSED, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO SATISFY YOUR OWN S&M URGES? IN THE MEANTIME, THE 120 DAY REPORT OBAMA ORDERED ON SECRECY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT IS DUE SOON, SO WE'LL SEE. I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND OBAMA. YOU CAN TELL THEY'RE MAKING WHOOPIE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND OBAMA'S GETTING LAID. BK Bill, "This" is not about me, so I don't see a basis for your taunt directed at me. I clearly provided support for my opinions, and it is accurate to say that Obama has reversed his initial policy on FOIA, which was a reversal of the Bush policy, which flew in the face of the purpose of FOIA. Attempting to "paint" me as a voyeur, if I did not know this vitriol is coming from you, has the flavor of a right wing *** **** attack in lieu of a reasoned response. It is odd to read your defense of new, extremely poorly justified Obama secrecy, in defiance of a court order from a federal district court judge and a 2nd circuit appellate panel. It is odd to read such a politically right slanted opinion from someone who is so committed to rule of law and the people's right to know, in the matter of the assassination of JFK. Your deference to the judgment of the executive, especially in these circumstances of an abrupt reversal of Obama's announced position on FOIA reform and on human rights, along with the fact that the issue of the release of the photos was already lost on appeal, is a right tilted political position, no matter how apolitical you think it to be. Your criticism of me, which amounts to defending Obama's awkward and illogical justification to withhold what the court has ordered the government to make public, reversing his earlier decision, gives me the impression that you are deeply conflicted, politically, because this decision flies in the face of the more open and just government you were anticipating. "THOSE Kennedy assassination records WON'T BE WITHHELD FOREVER, Bill, YOU'LL GET TO SEE THEM SOMEDAY. " If the President of the United States can order the photos withheld, despite a court order, then he can also order records released that have been withheld by court order. I agree with his position on the torture photos. Do you really need to see them to know what they are? Do you have to share them with everyone in the world? Do you want to continue to inflame the hatred already directed against Americans because of the photos? What's awkard and illogical about that? I will see the JFK records in 2017, but I think there is a real good shot at getting this president to order the release of the records now. It would be nice if a real fascist got into the White House, invade Iran, put protesters in jail, assassinate opposition and call off elections, and then it would be easy to be a radical revolutionary, but I think there is a real radical in the White House, and he's just getting a handle on what he can and cannot do. And thanks for not posting rheems of other people's writings to support your attempt to portray O'Bama as another Bush. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) Denial is not only a river in Egypt.....weeks before the 2008 election, these were Obama's principled words: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...an_convict.html"I commend the military officers who presided over this trial and served on the hearing panel under difficult and unprecedented circumstances. They and all our Armed Forces continue to serve this country with valor in the fight against terrorism. That the Hamdan trial -- the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 -- took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration's legal framework. It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice. And while it is important to convict anyone who provides material support for terrorism, it is long past time to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who murdered nearly 3000 Americans." (Emphasis added). Now that Obama is the newest imperial president, these are the rationalizations he sends his "officials" out to tell us: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-rights-ac.htmlA White House official (ANONOMOUSLY, OF COURSE !) says that the president has "always envisioned a role for commissions, properly constituted," and that the August statement was not meant to preclude them. The official points to President Obama's 2006 vote in favor of the commissions as proposed by GOP Sens. John Warner or Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his statements during that debate, as well as work since November with Sen. Graham on re-creating the commissions in a way more likely to pass Supreme Court constitutional muster. The reference then-Sen. Obama made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (courts martial) last August, the official recalls, "was around the time of the debate with Sen. McCain that terrorism is not just a law enforcement matter but also a matter that is a question of the laws and rules of war." Yeah, Bill, he's better than Bush, better than Milosevic and Cesar Chavez, too. But, is that the low standard we have sunk to? "Better than Bush" is a pretty lame comparison in the America I want to live in. Change can either come at the point of a pen, or at the point of a gun. I'm using a pen, so why such a mocking, critical, unapologetic tone from you? It is not as if my growing protests are without merit, they seem commensurate with the growth of that which I am objecting to: http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009...bunals-you.html....But Obama has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized. For example: * Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past. * Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations. * Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan. * Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. If the New York Times article is accurate, then the use of military tribunals issue will join the list of policies that Obama has endorsed, despite the loud liberal criticism that Bush received when he did the same things. It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance.... Edited May 15, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now