Judge OKs lawsuits seeking Dubya's lost email A federal judge upheld lawsuits pressing the Bush administration to recover millions of potentially missing emails just two-and-a-half months before it leaves office. US District Judge Henry Kennedy rejected the government's request to throw out lawsuits filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the …
Procrastination rules for the next two and a half months and G Dubya's people do nothing? Is anyone going to have to pay in some way or will it just get swept under the carpet?
It's a sure thing that if there is anything that could possibly be iffy in these emails , they will never see the light of day.
but the chinese and russians do...
Your better off launching legal proceedings over there.
Yup, you got a better chance that the PRC and KGB will anonomously chuck the juicy stuff on a DOD secure server of your choice than the SS under Bush will...
hell they might even fix the security of it properly if you ask them nicely, so it works properly...
(requires a reboot[obviously]) ;p
but there again, the russians are more likely just to leak the lot onto the interwibble for us all to peruse at our leasure...
"The Bush administration had argued that courts lacked the authority to direct the White House to retrieve the missing messages."
Says it all, really. They regard themselves above the mere law of the land (that's just for the little people, along with income tax) and their astounding assertion that the constitution was just a piece of paper (actually, George, its a piece of velum, but I don't expect a fucking pig to be able to draw meaningful distinctions between things that might have writing on).
There was a time, in the United States, when to even suggest that the constitution was "just a piece of paper" was to court complete social and political ostracism — and even possibly death at the hands of "patriots" (a word favoured by the outgoing Administration a great deal as I seem to recall). So how come the Admin not only to gets away with it but actually manages to stay in office after dissing the very basis and fabric of their once-great democracy (drafted by minds infinitely more subtle and educated than their own)?
I for one welcome this news and look forward to possible impeachment proceedings and criminal charges being brought to bear on those responsible. It'll never happen, though. I'm that much of a realist.
No, I am not going AA — I've nothing to hide, after all. Unlike these utterly despicable and repulsive thugs.
"The official also said that until mid-2005, the email system had serious security flaws."
They're using Exchange. Having "security flaws" is a given on that, and if they can't even keep good backups, it seems like they were better off with Notes!
Then again, it does look like those e-mails were deliberately "lost", and MS software makes it easier to claim that it just went missing. It seems to be a long way from the e-mail system used back during the Iran-Contra scandal, where incriminating evidence was found because the DELETE function didn't really delete the e-mail, it just marked it as such.
I hope Obama, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of the US federal government restore honor to the Office of the President of the United States of America.
No foreign power or organization can do it for them. American politicians, judges and citizens are the only ones who can restore their nation's honor.
Part of that means holding to account in a court those who broke the law. Meaning holding those who broke the law originally, and holding to account any who commit the felony of obstruction of justice by destroying or withholding evidence in a federal criminal case.
Restoring honor to the presidency means condemning as dishonorable those who held the office but broke serious laws.
If the US legal system condones the actions of Bush, Cheney, and their accomplices, then the US will not succeed in restoring its national honor.
I really hope the people of the US do what is required on this.
I totally agree with Greg's point.
My question to any legal experts: Could Bush's attempts to topple democracy, and create an imperial presidency could probably be considered sedition?
(To my fellow laymen, "sedition" is a rebellion against the authority of the state. Sedition is up there with high treason in seriousness.)
Did not Bush's Whitehouse openly rebel against the judicial and legislative branches, ignoring the legal authority of the other 2 branches of federal government under the constitution?
Did not members of the Republican Party openly rebel against the authority of voters by conspiring to willfully disenfranchise legitimate voters?
I'd like to see an examination of this issue by the guys at "Top Law" who write here.
Next time it will be a bit harder to drop e-mails.
However, I find it a bit hard to accept that everything in any "house" could or should be compleatly "open".
We accuse the Cowboys for being very good and much to eager to start wars, and absolutly retarded when it comes to building peace and end the wars.
In most European countries the situation in Irak, to day, was clearly predicted in advance.
(I am not sorry for Sadam and his sons).
A total lack of "diplomacy" as an "art" seems to be absent in the USA.
Nothing seems to have changed since "The Uggly American" from 1950, about, I think.
But how the hell can you do "diplomacy" if everything you write or say is "open".
So is the USA a sitting duck due to "democracy" , or are they just sitting ducks because they are to obese to fly.
Sedition isn't a crime here in the US. In fact it's considered protected speech in most cases.
And treason can only be proven with 2 eyewitnesses to the same act of "aiding and providing comfort to the enemy". No, not even attempting to overturn the Constitution qualifies as treason. Otherwise Congress would be lined up and shot every couple of years. Not a bad idea really...
Get your facts correct first people.
I am a real cynic, but mark my words: You heard it here first:
No prosecutions. No sanctions. Waxman and Conyers will be elevated to subcommittees where they can't pursue their investigations, and no one will go after the miscreants "in order to let the controversy die."
Why?
Because no politician wants to set a precedent of politicians being held to account.
Just for Ss and Gs, why don't people look up the charges for which we HANGED Tojo after WWII. Sound familiar?
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same
"Sedition isn't a crime here in the US"
yes its is look below
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc020806
"Sedition isn't a crime here in the US. In fact it's considered protected speech in most cases."
Danny, I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Federal law was complemented by state sedition legislation in 27 states, with a 1918 enactment in Montana for example making it an offence to be "disloyal, profane, violent, scurrilous, contemptuous or abusive" about the government, US soldiers or flag.
The UK 'bad tendency' doctrine was retained in US law, despite adoption of the First Amendment, with the 1798 federal Alien & Sedition Laws — for example: enabling action against "false, scandalous, and malicious writings" against the government, Congress or President intended to defame, excite hatred or "stir up sedition".
Roosevelt sought a treaty that would make advocacy of killing an offence under international law. Congress more modestly provided legislation to exclude entry into the US of anyone "teaching disbelief in opposition to all organised government".
As far as I am aware you can still be deported under any or all of some very old sedition laws still on statute.
You get your facts correct, Dan.
"...an offence to be "disloyal, profane, violent, scurrilous, contemptuous or abusive" about the government, US soldiers or flag...."
Crikey. I thought you were supposed to have free speech over there... Are there any mitigating circumstances in this legislation? Are you allowed to be "disloyal" if the Government is not holding up its end of the bargain? Can you be contemptuous of their actions (personal or official), if not of the person themselves? Is it a crime to say "I think this fucking government sucks," (profane and abusive)?
Is it even legal legislation, since it appears to directly contradict the First Amendment rights of free speech? Has it been challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court?
>The Bush administration had argued that courts lacked the authority to direct the White House to retrieve the missing messages.
So someone remind me what the second amendments is about? Isn't it the right to bear arms to keep government in check?
Off you go boys, let's see you putting you'r beloved rights to the use they were meant for.
even Judge Judy could spot the mad, brainless, egotistical bastard for the compulsive liar that he is, was and always has been.
But why waste money chasing down the edited highlights when the full text can be read here...
www.official-americanski-leaks-from-russia.ccp/thatuselesstwatbush.html
"The Bush administration had argued that courts lacked the authority to direct the White House to retrieve the missing messages."
I think Dubya's administration needs a history lesson... Perhaps he should look up "Magna Carta" in Wikipedia... Its about another interesting chap who thought he was above the law.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
