So who has reported their "casual conversations" to the White House?

Damocles said:
With the White House out there seeking to have you report your friends' "fishy" casual conversation remarks... I was just curious as to who has reported any of their neighbors, or even casual conversations, maybe a post or two?

Did you know that the White House is required to keep a record of all correspondence? Did you also know that it is illegal for any government entity to collect information on anybody using their first amendment rights?

Yeah, those laws are leftover from Nixon, who never once asked the public to report their friends casual conversations about their stance on policy...

Anyway.. Who has done this?
Click to expand...

One of Obama's first actions as president was to roll back bush's "executive privilege" policy so it seems silly to think that info he gets would somehow be hidden. Especially since he's NOT asking people to name names, just forward false or misleading information.

But wait, there's more. Our new chief executive has made open-records advocates very happy today.

As we noted earlier today, President Obama issued an order rolling back the former administration's restrictive FOIA policies. And now, we learn President Obama has signed another order [1] (PDF) reversing President George W. Bush's controversial order [2] that gave ex-presidents and their heirs broad authority to stop release of White House records.

"The order suggests to me that the Obama administration might be much more circumspect in invoking exec privilege, both with respect to public disclosure and sharing information with Congress," top secrecy watchdog Steve Aftergood [3] told us. "Lots of OLC opinions that have not been classified have been withheld from Congress and the public because of claims of privilege and if claims of privilege will be asserted in a more limited fashion, that would imply more increased release of OLC opinions."


http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-reverses-bush-executive-privilege-claim-over-docs-090121
 
Dungheap said:
Let's start here. What do you have to back up the above statement?
Click to expand...
The Presidential Records Act:

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. § 2201–2207, is an Act of Congress of the United States governing the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981 and mandating the preservation of all presidential records. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

There are certain things they can destroy if they prove to be "not evidentiary" and other things, but they must be shown to the archivist and meet certain requirements which this particular information doesn't meet. These records are permanent, all correspondence to the White House is pretty much permanent.


While the Privacy Act of 1974, prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained."
 
christiefan915 said:
One of Obama's first actions as president was to roll back bush's "executive privilege" policy so it seems silly to think that info he gets would somehow be hidden. Especially since he's NOT asking people to name names, just forward false or misleading information.

But wait, there's more. Our new chief executive has made open-records advocates very happy today.

As we noted earlier today, President Obama issued an order rolling back the former administration's restrictive FOIA policies. And now, we learn President Obama has signed another order [1] (PDF) reversing President George W. Bush's controversial order [2] that gave ex-presidents and their heirs broad authority to stop release of White House records.

"The order suggests to me that the Obama administration might be much more circumspect in invoking exec privilege, both with respect to public disclosure and sharing information with Congress," top secrecy watchdog Steve Aftergood [3] told us. "Lots of OLC opinions that have not been classified have been withheld from Congress and the public because of claims of privilege and if claims of privilege will be asserted in a more limited fashion, that would imply more increased release of OLC opinions."


http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-reverses-bush-executive-privilege-claim-over-docs-090121
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with this modern version of the enemies list. In short, this is off topic and kind of sad.

Again, there is no possible way you would have sat silently by had Bush asked his followers to report your "fishy" conversations that were on say Social Security to any database that is legislated to be permanent. The amazing part is the FOIA doesn't even apply until 5 years after he is out of office, and certain records can be hidden for up to 12 years or even longer...
 
Damocles said:
This has nothing to do with this modern version of the enemies list. In short, this is off topic and kind of sad.

Again, there is no possible way you would have sat silently by had Bush asked his followers to report your "fishy" conversations that were on say Social Security to any database that is legislated to be permanent. The amazing part is the FOIA doesn't even apply until 5 years after he is out of office, and certain records can be hidden for up to 12 years or even longer...
Click to expand...



"Modern version of the enemies list." You're such a tool.
 
Dungheap said:
"Modern version of the enemies list." You're such a tool.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. You would have called it much worse. So far I am the only person using those words that I know of. This isn't "tool" behavior, what they are doing is wrong, you would have blown a frigging gasket if Bush had done the same thing on ideological issues and I would have been right there with you.
 
I find it marginally ironic that we are speaking of this on the anniversary of Nixon's resignation.
 
Damocles said:
This has nothing to do with this modern version of the enemies list. In short, this is off topic and kind of sad.

Again, there is no possible way you would have sat silently by had Bush asked his followers to report your "fishy" conversations that were on say Social Security to any database that is legislated to be permanent. The amazing part is the FOIA doesn't even apply until 5 years after he is out of office, and certain records can be hidden for up to 12 years or even longer...
Click to expand...

What's sad is your insistence that people are being asked to snitch on their friends when it's bad info they're looking for, not names. How you extracted this comment "Plus the "report your neighbors" thing does nothing to build bridges." out of the paragraph is a mystery. They're trying to get a handle on and debunk false rumors. It's clear you don't like Obama or health care reform but you're just spinning here.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Why don't you send something and see what happens? Obama had the same program going during the campaign and I sent in a false internet rumor. That was at least a year ago, nobody was exiled to Siberia because of it.

Furthermore, bush did use warrantless wiretapping and got his creep lawyers to justify it in the name of national security, and most of the repubs approved of it with comments like "people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."
 
Last edited:
So...just what is the white house going to do with this "bad info" they get.?

what they can't read about it on the Net, they are so computer savvy or see it on news or read about in the papers.?????

just why do they need people to send them this??????
 
Damocles said:
The Presidential Records Act:

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. § 2201–2207, is an Act of Congress of the United States governing the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981 and mandating the preservation of all presidential records. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

There are certain things they can destroy if they prove to be "not evidentiary" and other things, but they must be shown to the archivist and meet certain requirements which this particular information doesn't meet. These records are permanent, all correspondence to the White House is pretty much permanent.


While the Privacy Act of 1974, prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained."
Click to expand...

I have a feeling legal action will be the course taken to put a stop to this fishy nazi crap.
 
meme said:
So...just what is the white house going to do with this "bad info" they get.?

what they can't read about it on the Net, they are so computer savvy or see it on news or read about in the papers.?????

just why do they need people to send them this??????
Click to expand...

The only thing they cannot get by the means you suggest are names and IP addy's. Sounds pretty fishy eh?
 
christiefan915 said:
What's sad is your insistence that people are being asked to snitch on their friends when it's bad info they're looking for, not names. How you extracted this comment "Plus the "report your neighbors" thing does nothing to build bridges." out of the paragraph is a mystery. They're trying to get a handle on and debunk false rumors. It's clear you don't like Obama or health care reform but you're just spinning here.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Why don't you send something and see what happens? Obama had the same program going during the campaign and I sent in a false internet rumor. That was at least a year ago, nobody was exiled to Siberia because of it.

Furthermore, bush did use warrantless wiretapping and got his creep lawyers to justify it in the name of national security, and most of the repubs approved of it with comments like "people who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."
Click to expand...
During the campaign he was not a branch of the Federal Government.
 
meme said:
I heard Judge Napolitano say it thought this might be illegal...I hope they look into this...where are the Republicans.?
Click to expand...
Cornyn's letters was what got me looking into it, but seriously it didn't take that for me to figure out that this was a bad idea for any administration regardless of legality.
 
Here it is directly in the law:

5 US Code §552a(e)(7)

(e) Agency Requirements.— Each agency that maintains a system of records shall—


“(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;”
Click to expand...

Link to read it... This section (e) deals specifically with how and why they can do it, each number lists a different requirement. Number 7 says exactly what I said the law says, and the previous link that I put forward explained the permanence of these records...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html

This was a horrible idea for the Administration to get into, they aren't a campaign any more, they are the executive branch of the Federal government.

This is absolutely not within the scope of any authorized law enforcement activity, they cannot maintain this database, but they have to because it is WH correspondence.
 
Damocles said:
Here it is directly in the law:



Link to read it... This section (e) deals specifically with how and why they can do it, each number lists a different requirement. Number 7 says exactly what I said the law says, and the previous link that I put forward explained the permanence of these records...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html

This was a horrible idea for the Administration to get into, they aren't a campaign any more, they are the executive branch of the Federal government.

This is absolutely not within the scope of any authorized law enforcement activity, they cannot maintain this database, but they have to because it is WH correspondence.
Click to expand...

Great reponses Damo! This is absurdly outrageous and the fact that libs are defending it seems more than just a tad bit bizzare. Have you heard anything from the ACLU?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top