Bush suddenly an interesting character again

Shouldnt the courts ultimately determine when the 4th amendment applies, not a DoJ attorney opinion?

One of those secret memos:

This memo, titled Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States, concludes that the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure don't apply to military operations, even when the operations take place on U.S. soil.

How do you ensure the rule of law when actions are based on secret memos that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law?

Sure other presidents received DoJ opinion memos, but I dont know that they were kept from the public.

[TheMercenary]

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

You didnt answer my question.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do defend the right of government not to release infromation to the general public.

I guess that is one NO vote for the Freedom of Information Act

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I guess that is one NO vote for the Freedom of Information Act

No.

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.

That is way to broad. There are many reasons not to release information. So you want to see the information and they you get to tell us whether or not it would be a threat to national security? There are other people who are paid to do that. You just aren't one of them. And special interest groups are not either. There is a system in place for this process. It works.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

....There is a system in place for this process. It works.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

Objective citation please.

That is not how the framers of the Constitution envisioned the system of checks and balances working.

Controversial opinion.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Objective citation please.

No more citations for you...you are my citation probation...I already provided this:

The reason Obama issued this Memorandum,

Freedom of Information Act,

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

was to make it clear that the previous administration's more restrictive FOIA policies would no longer be the policies and practices of the White House.

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.

[TheMercenary]

So you state this:

Originally Posted by Redux
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.

and can't back it up? Ok, I guess we are done.

[Undertoad]

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:

As you know, the Department of Justice and this Administration are committed to full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000). It is only through a well-informed citizenry that the leaders of our nation remain accountable to the governed and the American people can be assured that neither fraud nor government waste is concealed.

The Department of Justice and this Administration are equally committed to protecting other fundamental values that are held by our society. Among them are safeguarding our national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy.

Our citizens have a strong interest as well in a government that is fully functional and efficient. Congress and the courts have long recognized that certain legal privileges ensure candid and complete agency deliberations without fear that they will be made public. Other privileges ensure that lawyers' deliberations and communications are kept private. No leader can operate effectively without confidential advice and counsel. Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), incorporates these privileges and the sound policies underlying them.

I encourage your agency to carefully consider the protection of all such values and interests when making disclosure determinations under the FOIA. Any discretionary decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be implicated by disclosure of the information.

In making these decisions, you should consult with the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy when significant FOIA issues arise, as well as with our Civil Division on FOIA litigation matters. When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.

This memorandum supersedes the Department of Justice's FOIA Memorandum of October 4, 1993, and it likewise creates no substantive or procedural right enforceable at law.

(In short: if your agency denies a FOIA request for national security reasons, DOJ will back you. Ooh scary, radical creeping Fascism!)

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.

The reason Obama issued this Memorandum,

A Memorandum -- and not an EO. An EO would be needed if the Bush administration had issued an EO making the FOIA more restrictive. Takes an EO to reverse an EO, not a Memorandum.

Bottom line: there was no Bush EO. And if you believe there was, this Memorandum can't override it.

Never ignore a citation request.

[lookout123]

Sometimes providing a cite could make your whole argument fall apart. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

[Pico and ME]

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.

[Shawnee123]

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

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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:
(In short: if your agency denies a FOIA request for national security reasons, DOJ will back you. Ooh scary, radical creeping Fascism!)

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.

A Memorandum -- and not an EO. An EO would be needed if the Bush administration had issued an EO making the FOIA more restrictive. Takes an EO to reverse an EO, not a Memorandum.

Bottom line: there was no Bush EO. And if you believe there was, this Memorandum can't override it.

Never ignore a citation request.

Undertoad..I stand corrected on a Bush EO. Thank you!

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.