NationStates Jolt Archive

I would abhor this line when people used it to defend warrantless wiretapping and their willingness to give up their freedom for what they thought would be security. But now I ask them to reconcile those comment with the Presidential Records Act of 2007. Years back GWB passed an executive order halting the release of presidential papers (those not dealing with current national security issues) to historians. This came as paper from Ronnie's administration were about to be declassified and released. This would shed light on his father and the wonderful experience of Iran Contra. So the chosen one decided he was going to issue an executive order barring the release even though they should have been out after 12 years. My question is the same that proponents of domestic spying had, if you have nothing to hide then why keep the papers secret when they should be released? Is it anything more than Omerta and protection for your own? Please respond.

http://www.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1193

Its his choice to do so. I do not agree with it personally but it is his choice to do so.

Bush couldn't be more suspicious if he wrote "I have something to hide" on his chest and wandered around the white house naked.

Bush couldn't be more suspicious if he wrote "I have something to hide" on his chest and wandered around the white house naked.

Doesn't he do that anyway each first Wednesday of the month?

This is because the same proponents who support domestic spying and all that dubious BS are proud supporters of 'do as I say not as I do'.

Doesn't he do that anyway each first Wednesday of the month?

For the sake of everyone employed in the white house I hope not.

Dude.. Don't question authority you freedom hating pervert.

Bush couldn't be more suspicious if he wrote "I have something to hide" on his chest and wandered around the white house naked.

Nah, he'd be even more suspicious if he did that, only instead of wandering, he was hanging upside down from the white house chandeliers making noises like a monkey.

Are you folks just discovering what human nature is?

Are you folks just discovering what human nature is?

but how do we know a human is holding the strings!?

http://www.house.gov/petri/graphics/flatstanley.jpg

Its his choice to do so. I do not agree with it personally but it is his choice to do so.

Actually it's really not his choice. The law was very clear when it was written and he went against the rule of law. Finally he's going to be called out on it. GWB could rip a baby's head off on live television and you would call ti his choice right? No reason to call you a hack again as I'm trying to rule out redundancy in life.

For the sake of everyone employed in the white house I hope not.

we would know about by now

I would personally have no problem with this under conditions that the politicians and spymasters have the exact same thing (with current secret operations being only available after say, 10 years, to the public).

Unfortunately being a politician is for the most part not seen as a simply a job by either politicians or the larger public.

Some ASIO agent is probably reading this right now...... or is it CIA who spies on me and the info is passed to the ASIO?

Actually it's really not his choice. The law was very clear when it was written and he went against the rule of law. Finally he's going to be called out on it.

Things cannot be declassified without his say so. Why? because he is the President of the United States. If Clinton did this, I would say the samething thing. It is his choice.

GWB could rip a baby's head off on live television and you would call ti his choice right?

If Bush did that, I would call for his head on a silver plate.

No reason to call you a hack again as I'm trying to rule out redundancy in life.

Get new material. That is getting boring.

I would personally have no problem with this under conditions that the politicians and spymasters have the exact same thing (with current secret operations being only available after say, 10 years, to the public).

Unfortunately being a politician is for the most part not seen as a simply a job by either politicians or the larger public.

Some ASIO agent is probably reading this right now...... or is it CIA who spies on me and the info is passed to the ASIO?

It's the NSA. And silly you thinking the CIA informs anyone of what its spies are doing.

I certainly hope this is struck down when it's brought before the House. I don't care if it's his "choice" to do so. If he's got nothing to hide, why hide it?

Please forgive my ignorance. I'm not a neocon, and I hate Bush and all his rascally doings as much as anyone. But I don't understand the controversy over wire-tapping/invasion of privacy etc, since I haven't discussed it much.
It appears to me that the issue with invasion of privacy is that it allows the government to monitor and crack down on subversive activities more easily, thus smoothing the transition to an authoritarian and repressive regime. However, wouldn't the transition to that regime be very very illegal anyway? The suspension of rights given by the US constitution (is there a right to privacy amendment?) would be a far greater transgression than simple invasion of privacy, so it seems to me that any government actually considering this wouldn't be too bothered whether wiretapping was illegal or not and would go ahead with it anyway. Could someone enlighten me?

Things cannot be declassified without his say so. Why? because he is the President of the United States. If Clinton did this, I would say the samething thing. It is his choice.



If Bush did that, I would call for his head on a silver plate.



Get new material. That is getting boring.

You stop being a hack and I'll stop calling you and all of your puppets one. We're not talking about classified info, we're talking about Presidential papers. Please read the link I posted for more info. Also, http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s1517.html

notice I don't switch nation names to make it appear as those multiple posters are attacking you. In other words, I'm honest and not a hack.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12667.html

www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/bovard7.html

I certainly hope this is struck down when it's brought before the House. I don't care if it's his "choice" to do so. If he's got nothing to hide, why hide it?

Because Daddy asked him to.

Because Daddy asked him to.

we're talking about "private" presidential papers here

http://gnn.tv/headlines/5539/Bush_all_Presidential_papers_SECRET

He's doing it to protect daddy

You stop being a hack and I'll stop calling you and all of your puppets one. We're not talking about classified info, we're talking about Presidential papers. Please read the link I posted for more info. Also, http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s1517.html

notice I don't switch nation names to make it appear as those multiple posters are attacking you. In other words, I'm honest and not a hack.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12667.html

www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/bovard7.html

Yea well you know what? I'm not a hack. To be a hack, one must support a party 100% of the time and thinks they are right 100% of the time. I do not think like that. I already told you that if Clinton did this, I'd say the samething. I also sat out last election because there was no one worth voting for. So no, I'm not a party hack.

Continue to call me such since I can't stop you from doing so but be advised, continue to do so and I'll just completely ignore it. Now let us start this again.

All I said was that it was his right. I did not say that I supported it. Go on and prove I said I supported it because I know I never said such things.

EDIT: #2
Corneliu

Its his choice to do so. I do not agree with it personally but it is his choice to do so.

I guess this proves that I do not agree with the decision.

we're talking about "private" presidential papers here

http://gnn.tv/headlines/5539/Bush_all_Presidential_papers_SECRET

He's doing it to protect daddy

You know, a presidential condidate could get a lot of good publicity by coming out against this and promising to undo it.

No reason to call you a hack again as I'm trying to rule out redundancy in life.
Well it's already March, so no worries on keeping New Years Resolutions.

Its his choice to do so.
The ability to choose what is known and what is not, and to choose the outcome of all his acts, is exactly what is at debate. It is pointless to discuss whether you 'agree', if you believe the topic should even be up for debate at all. The system of checks and balances, tired as it sounds, was set up to prevent a monarch. It is absolutely un-18th-century-American of you to believe that the President should be all-powerful.

After reading the link, something I guess you did not do, Bush's executive order overturned Reagan's executive order which is perfectly legal to do. This bill has not even been passed yet as it was just introduced yesterday.

Going by your comments that he is doing this to protect daddy, are unfounded unless you have direct proof that he is. So where is your proof that he is witholding things to protect daddy? You accuse me of being a hack (though I debunked that in this thread) but yet you failed to provide evidence he is doing it to protect daddy.

I would like to see this passed. It would be a great boon to have our government even more opened.

How is this giving you a more opened government? You do understand what's happening here right?

It's the NSA. And silly you thinking the CIA informs anyone of what its spies are doing.

Meh, each country spies on the other and many of them end up swapping information.

Damn secrecy not allowing proper democracy to function (that and people not caring about politics).

Yea well you know what? I'm not a hack. To be a hack, one must support a party 100% of the time and thinks they are right 100% of the time. I do not think like that. I already told you that if Clinton did this, I'd say the samething. I also sat out last election because there was no one worth voting for. So no, I'm not a party hack.

Continue to call me such since I can't stop you from doing so but be advised, continue to do so and I'll just completely ignore it. Now let us start this again.

All I said was that it was his right. I did not say that I supported it. Go on and prove I said I supported it because I know I never said such things.

EDIT:

I guess this proves that I do not agree with the decision.

Actually, you yourself said that things can't be declassified without the President's say-so. This is true, and I doubt anyone will argue the point. However, if you had actually READ Liuzzo's most recent post, he/she showed that the papers weren't classified, merely personal papers of Reagen and Bush Sr. Therefore, his say-so isn't required to release them.

Edit: Oh, and you're not a hack because of your stance on this issue, it's for other reasons, Allegheny Country 2.

I would abhor this line when people used it to defend warrantless wiretapping and their willingness to give up their freedom for what they thought would be security. But now I ask them to reconcile those comment with the Presidential Records Act of 2007. Years back GWB passed an executive order halting the release of presidential papers (those not dealing with current national security issues) to historians. This came as paper from Ronnie's administration were about to be declassified and released. This would shed light on his father and the wonderful experience of Iran Contra. So the chosen one decided he was going to issue an executive order barring the release even though they should have been out after 12 years. My question is the same that proponents of domestic spying had, if you have nothing to hide then why keep the papers secret when they should be released? Is it anything more than Omerta and protection for your own? Please respond.

http://www.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1193

After reading the link, something I guess you did not do, Bush's executive order overturned Reagan's executive order which is perfectly legal to do. This bill has not even been passed yet as it was just introduced yesterday.

Going by your comments that he is doing this to protect daddy, are unfounded unless you have direct proof that he is. So where is your proof that he is witholding things to protect daddy? You accuse me of being a hack (though I debunked that in this thread) but yet you failed to provide evidence he is doing it to protect daddy.

I would like to see this passed. It would be a great boon to have our government even more opened.

Actually, you yourself said that things can't be declassified without the President's say-so. This is true, and I doubt anyone will argue the point. However, if you had actually READ Liuzzo's most recent post, he/she showed that the papers weren't classified, merely personal papers of Reagen and Bush Sr. Therefore, his say-so isn't required to release them.

Indeed you are right. But the issue here, as the OP posted, is the executive order done in 2001 that is at issue here as well as the Amendment of 2007 that was introduced yesterday.

Edit: Oh, and you're not a hack because of your stance on this issue, it's for other reasons, Allegheny Country 2.

Oh I'm not hack for whatever reason. I do not support either party. I'm an Independent though I lean republican. Iwill not deny that. However, I am not a straight ticket voter and I condemn republicans when they fuck up.

I would like to see this passed. It would be a great boon to have our government even more opened.
Do you mean that the Bush order opened up government? Or the nullification thereof?

Oh I'm not hack for whatever reason. I do not support either party. I'm an Independent though I lean republican. Iwill not deny that. However, I am not a straight ticket voter and I condemn republicans when they fuck up.

I'm glad to see you're good at dancing around points. You're still a hack, because you make use of puppets to do your dirty work. And I notice you didn't bother to deny it, either.

I would abhor this line when people used it to defend warrantless wiretapping and their willingness to give up their freedom for what they thought would be security. But now I ask them to reconcile those comment with the Presidential Records Act of 2007. Years back GWB passed an executive order halting the release of presidential papers (those not dealing with current national security issues) to historians. This came as paper from Ronnie's administration were about to be declassified and released. This would shed light on his father and the wonderful experience of Iran Contra. So the chosen one decided he was going to issue an executive order barring the release even though they should have been out after 12 years. My question is the same that proponents of domestic spying had, if you have nothing to hide then why keep the papers secret when they should be released? Is it anything more than Omerta and protection for your own? Please respond.

http://www.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1193

I guess that's why Hillary cleaned out Vince Foster's office, after throwing out Park Police and FBI investigators, and why, only after years, the documents they didn't destroy on the spot "magically" turned up at the White House.

Why would she throw the investigators out and clean out the papers if there's nothing to hide?

Apparently, we'll never know what was really taken. Hmm.

Or, we could ask Sandy Berger why he took secret papers out of the National Archives in his pants and threw them under a construction trailer.

Why would he do this if he had nothing to hide about the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism?

How is this giving you a more opened government? You do understand what's happening here right?

I suggest you re-read what I said. I said I support the effort to overturn Bush's executive order. I have read the link and will read the whole bill later tonight.

Upon reading the link, I support the The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 for now. I believe this act will assist in opening past presidencies and government itself up.

I guess that's why Hillary cleaned out Vince Foster's office, after throwing out Park Police and FBI investigators, and why, only after years, the documents they didn't destroy on the spot "magically" turned up at the White House.

Why would she throw the investigators out and clean out the papers if there's nothing to hide?

Apparently, we'll never know what was really taken. Hmm.

Or, we could ask Sandy Berger why he took secret papers out of the National Archives in his pants and threw them under a construction trailer.

Why would he do this if he had nothing to hide about the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism?

True. However, that doesn't excuse the current administration for attempting to do the same thing.

Do you mean that the Bush order opened up government? Or the nullification thereof?

I was talking about the Presidential Records Amendments Act of 2007 will assist in opening up the government some. Granted, it is the past but by understanding the past, we can avoid the same mistakes that are being made today.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

I'm glad to see you're good at dancing around points. You're still a hack, because you make use of puppets to do your dirty work. And I notice you didn't bother to deny it, either.

Sorry but I do not use puppets to do my dirty work for me. I switch nations to keep people guessing on who I am but not to do my dirty work. Nice try though.

True. However, that doesn't excuse the current administration for attempting to do the same thing.

As far as I know, Bush isn't trying to destroy records.

Still waiting for proof that Daddy asked him to do this and that he is doing it to protect daddy.

As far as I know, Bush isn't trying to destroy records.

Still waiting for proof that Daddy asked him to do this and that he is doing it to protect daddy.

The point is, if you think what Bush is doing is remotely acceptable, you have, in order not to incur in doublethink, to agree that wiretapping without a warrant is unacceptable. Simple, really.

The point is, if you think what Bush is doing is remotely acceptable, you have, in order not to incur in doublethink, to agree that wiretapping without a warrant is unacceptable. Simple, really.

I already stated in this thread Heikoku that I do not support what Bush is doing in this case. It was the 2nd post of this thread.

Sorry but I do not use puppets to do my dirty work for me. I switch nations to keep people guessing on who I am but not to do my dirty work. Nice try though.

"Keep people guessing"? Like it's really that hard to figure out.

True. However, that doesn't excuse the current administration for attempting to do the same thing.

Oh, it doesn't excuse anything. Same level of ethics to me, except that Bush is trying to use a more legal method.

Well Bush doesn't want any kind of embarrassment to come down on him or his family, allies, etc., so he bans the papers release. It's not as if it takes some kind of political genius to realize this.

Oh, it doesn't excuse anything. Same level of ethics to me, except that Bush is trying to use a more legal method.

I can agree with you there. I still think it's underhanded, though.

Also: W00t, 500th post.

Well Bush doesn't want any kind of embarrassment to come down on him or his family, allies, etc., so he bans the papers release. It's not as if it takes some kind of political genius to realize this.

I think this is the wave of the future.

After all, Hillary ordered the FBI out of Vince Foster's office - why? Probably something embarassing in there.

Why did Sandy Berger stuff paper in his pants? Probably something embarassing in there.

Why did Bush seal the papers? Probably something embarassing in there. And, since he has the power to make that declaration, it's legal. I don't see how a First Lady has authority to tell FBI investigators anything - and Berger got nailed for throwing papers under a trailer.

Now that everyone knows the rules, they'll do it the way Bush did it from now on - even if they are Democrats.

I already stated in this thread Heikoku that I do not support what Bush is doing in this case. It was the 2nd post of this thread.

"It's his choice" implies it's acceptable.

I think this is the wave of the future.

After all, Hillary ordered the FBI out of Vince Foster's office - why? Probably something embarassing in there.

Why did Sandy Berger stuff paper in his pants? Probably something embarassing in there.

Why did Bush seal the papers? Probably something embarassing in there. And, since he has the power to make that declaration, it's legal. I don't see how a First Lady has authority to tell FBI investigators anything - and Berger got nailed for throwing papers under a trailer.

Now that everyone knows the rules, they'll do it the way Bush did it from now on - even if they are Democrats.

Unless this gets struck down. Then I'm sure Bush's dog is going to have a field day eating all of that "homework".

Unless this gets struck down. Then I'm sure Bush's dog is going to have a field day eating all of that "homework".

Interestingly, I am a Documentum consultant (it's used by the Feds to permanently record electronic documents and forms in every revision of each document from inception to archiving).

I work on designing systems that make it impossible to destroy anything.

If you so much as create any document (Word, Excel, etc) in the department I work for, it goes into the system. You can destroy paper all you like - but it will still be there.

Even if the court rules in your favor saying "don't release this", it will still be there - for when another court overturns it.

I'm just amazed at how many thieves, robbers, murderers and liars you elect in America

Interestingly, I am a Documentum consultant (it's used by the Feds to permanently record electronic documents and forms in every revision of each document from inception to archiving).

I work on designing systems that make it impossible to destroy anything.

If you so much as create any document (Word, Excel, etc) in the department I work for, it goes into the system. You can destroy paper all you like - but it will still be there.

Even if the court rules in your favor saying "don't release this", it will still be there - for when another court overturns it.

Cool. So what's your actual stance on this? Should they be released? Or not?

Now that everyone knows the rules, they'll do it the way Bush did it from now on - even if they are Democrats.

I don't doubt it. Since everyone whines "if Clinton can do it.." when it comes to their sexual habits than when they want to do something unethical and just on the line of illegal than they will whine "if Bush can do it...." as an excuse. Human nature also does not take a genius to figure out. :(

Cool. So what's your actual stance on this? Should they be released? Or not?

I believe that anything produced as a document during government service should be public property - and should be released unless compelling arguments can be made that it would endanger national security. Even then, there should be some people who are allowed to see them.

I also believe that a document retention policy should be in place to keep these things for as long as it is technically possible to do so.

Its his choice to do so. I do not agree with it personally but it is his choice to do so.

Yikes. (http://www.rusthompson.com/sheeple.gif)

If Curious George wants to imprison people for lengthy amounts of time without trial then who am I to disagree?

If G.W. wants to round up all Muslims into containment camps like we did the Japanese then why should I contradict him?

I guess that's why Hillary cleaned out Vince Foster's office, after throwing out Park Police and FBI investigators, and why, only after years, the documents they didn't destroy on the spot "magically" turned up at the White House.

Why would she throw the investigators out and clean out the papers if there's nothing to hide?

Apparently, we'll never know what was really taken. Hmm.

Or, we could ask Sandy Berger why he took secret papers out of the National Archives in his pants and threw them under a construction trailer.

Why would he do this if he had nothing to hide about the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism?

If there was any doubt that you're actually Deep Kimchi, this post seals it. Thanks for the confirmation.

If there was any doubt that you're actually Deep Kimchi, this post seals it. Thanks for the confirmation.

How so? Is there only one person on the planet that thinks both of those actions were illegal outrages?

This is just further proof that the government has contact with aliens and are keeping it secret.

You heard it from me first.

How so? Is there only one person on the planet that thinks both of those actions were illegal outrages?

Nope, but it's yet another way in which you and Deep Kimchi always manage to come up with the exact same arguments, time and again. Same writing style. Same "facts." Same twisting of opponent's statements and then taking umbrage when they call bullshit on you.

Besides, it's not like I was even the first to suggest the connection. I'm just the one who proclaims it the loudest.

Nice sig, by the way. Think anyone's buying it?

Same twisting of opponent's statements and then taking umbrage when they call bullshit on you.



Just like you:

Not what I said at all, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. And no goalpost moving either--either I said that "the only way people get ideas about these bills...is from the NRA" or I didn't. Now bring it, or be exposed as a liar once again.

Either I'm your puppet, or I'm your doppelganger.

Just like you:



Either I'm your puppet, or I'm your doppelganger.
What am I twisting? I fucking quoted you.

What am I twisting? I fucking quoted you.

Love your style.;)

To save The Nazz some typing, the above statement you just read is absolutely untrue, and cannot be believed, even for a second, because I have absolutely no credibility.
Sarcasm is such a great way to make a point.

Love your style.;)

Well, at least your sig is now more accurate than it was when it said you were my puppet. I won't go so far as to say it's fully accurate, but it's more accurate than it was.

If you 2 would just sleep with each other, I'm sure the tension would dissipate

Well, at least your sig is now more accurate than it was when it said you were my puppet. I won't go so far as to say it's fully accurate, but it's more accurate than it was.

See? There you go again, trying to use narrowing as a defense. It doesn't really work.

"It's his choice" implies it's acceptable.

Actually no it does not if you bothered to read the rest of what I wrote after that. I stated in plain english that I did not agree with the decision.

When I was 17, even though the door was closed, my mother walked into my bedroom without knocking. When I gave her my rant about privacy, she said, "what do you have to hide?" I didn't like it then from her, and I don't like it now from the government.

I tried to explain to her then, that it had nothing to do with having anything to hide and everything to do with my being an (nearly) adult human being and having rights as such. I also added a few words about trust. She didn't buy it much as the government isn't buying it now. It pretty much set the tone for my relationship with her for the rest of her life, as I started hiding things from her and distancing myself from her. And the current government attitude pretty much sets the tone for my attitude there - as I distance myself from the government that has destroyed my trust in it while it declares that it doesn't trust me.

That is not quite the same; knocking about coming in is more of a politeness than anything.

This is why self reporting for your (a.k.a anyone) work would not work: Not enough people are going to tell the truth (Unless it is a subjective report).

Would you prefer your government just to say "Well, you didn't allow us time to get everything 'sorted' before you had a look at our national policies so you should never do it. Trust us." ?

nothing to worry about save the homicidal hatered of conscousless economic interests for anything remotely resembling honesty. uh huh.

other then THAT nothing to worry about, maybe.

there are only probabilities, greater and lesser, no such thing as absolute guarantees of anything. there may be a few stray linear principals in physics. maybe. but nothing but statistical ones in socio-economics that i know of.

nor for that matter, in most of the rest of reality either.

=^^=
.../\...

Actually no it does not if you bothered to read the rest of what I wrote after that. I stated in plain english that I did not agree with the decision.

Accepting and agreeing are different things...