02-04-2009, 09:32 AM | #91 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Shouldnt the courts ultimately determine when the 4th amendment applies, not a DoJ attorney opinion?
Quote:
Sure other presidents received DoJ opinion memos, but I dont know that they were kept from the public. Last edited by Redux; 02-04-2009 at 09:40 AM. |
|
02-04-2009, 10:17 AM | #92 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
How do you know what may or may not have happened if the memos are secret? Those are best taken care of by people with appropriate authority and oversight. Not by armchair quarterbacks second guessing every move.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-04-2009, 10:30 AM | #93 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
How do you ensure that the rule of law is followed when actions are based on secret memos (including being withheld from Congress) that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law? Congress cant conduct appropriate authority and oversight w/o having access to documents that explain WTF the administration is doing or intending to do based on internal (and unilateral) legal interpretations of the law. These documents have been withheld from Congress..that is a fact! On every request by the Judiciary Committees in both the House and Senate, the previous White House denied the request with dubious claims of executive privilege. Last edited by Redux; 02-04-2009 at 10:35 AM. |
|
02-04-2009, 10:42 AM | #94 |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
I can't and don't defend the action of withholding the information from the Judiciary Committees. I do defend the right of government not to release infromation to the general public.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
02-04-2009, 10:46 AM | #95 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I defend the peoples right to know unless there are clear and unambiguous threats to national security or the invasion of personal privacy by the release of information. |
|
02-04-2009, 10:58 AM | #96 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
No.
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
02-04-2009, 11:00 AM | #97 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I agree that the system will work if FOIA is returned to its original intent as indicated in Obama's memo.
It did not work for the last eight years when Bush, through an executive order rather than by asking Congress to change the law if he thought it needed changing after 9/11, radically and unilaterally altered the intent of FOIA. That is not how the framers of the Constitution envisioned the system of checks and balances working. |
02-04-2009, 11:05 AM | #98 | ||
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
||
02-04-2009, 11:07 AM | #99 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
No more citations for you...you are my citation probation...I already provided this:
The reason Obama issued this Memorandum, Quote:
It seems like common sense to me that it would not have been necessary or need "renewing the commitment" if he believed FOIA was working as envisioned in the law...but perhaps you take it as a controversial opinion. Last edited by Redux; 02-04-2009 at 11:28 AM. |
|
02-04-2009, 11:33 AM | #100 | |
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
|
So you state this:
Quote:
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! |
|
02-04-2009, 11:52 AM | #101 | ||
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Without an objective citation we are forced to do the research ourselves. My research so far: there was no Bush EO changing FOIA to make it more restrictive.
People complain about an October 2001 Ashcroft memo: Quote:
Now notice, this memo did not produce law as an EO would, but was simply a statement about how the DoJ would operate on FOIA issues. Bush's only EO on FOIA was Executive Order 13392, in which Bush set up Chief FOIA Officers at each of 90 federal agencies and asked for FOIA improvement plans from each agency; it was intended to improve FOIA responsiveness. Obama's memo refers to the reports on efficiency generated as a result of EO 13392. Quote:
Bottom line: there was no Bush EO. And if you believe there was, this Memorandum can't override it. Never ignore a citation request. |
||
02-04-2009, 11:58 AM | #102 |
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
Sometimes providing a cite could make your whole argument fall apart. We wouldn't want that now, would we?
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
02-04-2009, 12:03 PM | #103 |
Are you knock-kneed?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Middle Hoosierland
Posts: 3,549
|
Daaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmn.
This guy provides cite after cite and in between he throws in a little conjecture and opinion, but mostly he has been citing his stuff...which in a previous post Merc deliberately ignored. Therefore he says he wont cite for Merc anymore. So when Merc asks for one he didn't get it. I don't blame him. |
02-04-2009, 12:05 PM | #104 |
Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,206
|
Yeah, I couldn't believe that one either, Pico. He pointedly ignores all previous cites, now he's the downtrodden ignored citation request guy?
sheesh
__________________
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby |
02-04-2009, 12:05 PM | #105 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
The Obama memorandum simply affirms the policy direction of the administration that there be a presumption in favor of disclosure. In my opinion and the opinion of many "good government" groups, the Ashcroft memo provided the opposite policy direction... that agencies should first look for any legal justification NOT to provide disclosure. It if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its new or changed duck. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|