News Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Log
AI Thread Summary
The White House and Secret Service have declared visitor logs to the White House complex exempt from public disclosure, a move criticized as a continuation of the Bush administration's secrecy. This decision emerged amidst the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and is being used to address legal challenges regarding Vice President Cheney's visitor logs. The discussion highlights concerns over national security versus transparency, with some arguing that withholding information undermines democratic principles. Critics express disappointment that the Obama administration, which promised transparency, is adopting similar secrecy measures. The debate reflects ongoing tensions between governmental transparency and perceived security needs.
  • #51
Gokul43201 said:
..Not aware of this story. ...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged on Tuesday that some waste is inevitable in the spending of a $787 billion economic stimulus package, in a characteristically blunt assessment.

"We know some of this money is going to be wasted," Biden said...
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5516HE20090602
Which is fine, the trick is on following up on that inevitability.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr0zXsTcfwg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sr0zXsTcfwg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
LowlyPion said:
Actually it's not the same abuse. Your understanding of the issue looks deficient. You are confusing Cheney's hiding his activities, that may apparently well have been an abuse and malfeasance of office, a matter to be determined by the courts, behind the claim of a privilege for the logs that is not per se the prerogative of the Executive Branch to entertain in order to shield abuse of office.

The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.

To suggest now then that Obama is engaging in some abuse of power, that he is seeking to hide by not immediately releasing the Visitor Logs, is at best disingenuous. There is no claim that I am aware of that suggests that Obama has engaged in any abuse at all. And certainly none that any Visitor's Log might enlighten. Retaining the Visitor Logs is not itself an abuse as you may want to project. So if your intent is to seek refuge in a parrot defense, what you have parroted is something that simply does not apply in the way that it was initially directed. Clumsy like Letterman is my take on your claim.
The only issue I referred to was failure to publish the visitors log. That was the only issue mentioned in the OP, and the topic of the thread.

Are you claiming that Ivan violated the forum rules by ambiguously referring to unspecific abuses alleged in other posts instead of the only thing mentioned in the post he responded to, and the topic of the thread?

And that I should assume he wasn't referring to the topic of the post he responded to?

I think most on this forum know exactly what happened here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Al68 said:
Are you claiming that Ivan violated the forum rules by ambiguously referring to unspecific abuses alleged in other posts instead of the only thing mentioned in the post he responded to, and the topic of the thread?
It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!
 
  • #55
Gokul43201 said:
It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!

Are you accusing Ivan of breaking forum rules?
 
  • #56
CRGreathouse said:
Are you accusing Ivan of breaking forum rules?
No. As I said before, I interpreted Ivan's post as a reaction to the refusal to release visitor logs, which inhibits/hinders the investigation of abuses.

I don't see what specific rules this would be breaking.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
LP said:
The abuse at issue then is not the public access to Visitor Logs. What abuse is that? But rather the abuse that was at the heart of what Cheney was seeking to hide, a matter that the court was investigating.
It was very likely a matter of advice from his lawyer. The last thing you want or need while being investigated on criminal charges is for the prosecution to have unlimited access to information on you because it is supposed to be a matter of public record. Anyone being investigated has the right to have only relevant information presented against them which is the point of the subpoena process. Even child molestors have this right. Its a prudent legal move. Making it seem unethical is just rediculous. Those investigating him only wanted to have unfettered access to said information so Cheney's defense would not necessarily be aware of what may or may not be brought up against him and be unsure of what to prepare for. Going through a subpoena process means that hopefully they will only have access to certain relevant information and a defense can be prepared.
Unless it is illegal to make this information private there is no wrong doing.
 
  • #58
Gokul43201 said:
It really doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that Ivan may have been referring to other abuses under investigation that were being blocked access to by refusing to release visitor logs. Duh!
And it doesn't take a brilliant mind to be a master of the obvious, either. Duh!
 
  • #59
LowlyPion said:
...because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log. A dramatically different position than the current administration merely continuing to assert a privilege.
What a pathological double standard.
 
  • #60
Gokul43201 said:
Has the Obama Administration come under investigation for any abuses that would require access to the visitor logs? There is clearly a burden on the claimant to show evidence of the abuse/investigation of abuse to justify the statement that was copy-pasted and found to be so darn hilarious.

I think this is inaccurate. You are treating this like a criminal search warrant, where the defendant is a private citizen whose civil rights are vulnerable, and the prosecutor must show probable cause. But these aren't citizens under scrutiny, but the public offices of the United States. Who Obama meets with in the Oval Office is not a private matter (unless he's screwing interns); it is a duty of public office, and matter of supreme public interest.

Federal courts agree:
The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. ...These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house

In my opinion, elected officials on the job don't have a right to privacy, nor even a presumption of innocence. The moral hazards are extreme, and the record of corruption blatant. Public officials SHOULD have their actions closely scrutinized, so that the public can VERIFY they are not corrupt, instead of relying on blind trust. I don't give them the benefit of doubt, any more than a CEO gives their employees the benefit of doubt - but rather reviews, audits their work, hires accountants to watch for malfeasance - and so I should demand the same oversight on employees of the public.
 
  • #61
signerror said:
I think this is inaccurate. You are treating this like a criminal search warrant, where the defendant is a private citizen whose civil rights are vulnerable, and the prosecutor must show probable cause. But these aren't citizens under scrutiny, but the public offices of the United States. Who Obama meets with in the Oval Office is not a private matter (unless he's screwing interns); it is a duty of public office, and matter of supreme public interest.
You've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that the public has the burden of showing probable cause for subpoenaing the visitor logs (TSA said something like that though). I do not disagree with the federal ruling requiring public access to the visitor logs and I hold Obama as guilty as I held Bush for blocking access (see my posts #12 & #22). But this has nothing to do with the argument I was making above.
 
  • #62
Gokul43201 said:
You've misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that the public has the burden of showing probable cause for subpoenaing the visitor logs (TSA said something like that though).

You should be more precise with your use of the word "subpoenaing". The public can't subpoena anything. Courts do that. What is at issue is the release of the visitor logs as a result of a freedom of information act request. That's very different than a subpoena as Ivan pointed out.

I do not disagree with the federal ruling requiring public access to the visitor logs and I hold Obama as guilty as I held Bush for blocking access (see my posts #12 & #22). But this has nothing to do with the argument I was making above.

You think the judge ruled fairly?
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the government's secrecy arguments and ordered the Secret Service to turn over the records to a liberal watchdog group that sought them through a public records.


The logs being sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington relate to White House visits regarding nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell.

You think idealogues should have the right to know the coming and goings of anyone that visits the White House. And what will be done with that information? Investigate abuses?

Please...
 
  • #63
chemisttree said:
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the government's secrecy arguments and ordered the Secret Service to turn over the records to a liberal watchdog group that sought them through a public records. The logs being sought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington relate to White House visits regarding nine conservative religious commentators, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell.
You think idealogues should have the right to know the coming and goings of anyone that visits the White House. And what will be done with that information? Investigate abuses?

Please...

I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
signerror said:
I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.
The executive has to be able to have private meetings to operate effectively, and I don't just mean for classified national security information.
 
  • #65
Having just recently completed my security awareness training, I can understand the need to screen the visitor log of the POTUS.

I also note the ridiculous double standard.
 
  • #66
LowlyPion said:
because Dick Cheney was arguing that he was entitled to shroud his activities, and escape accountability from any evidence that might arise from a Visitor's log.
Would this be one of those "deliberately false statements? Any evidence that Cheney made that argument?
 
  • #67
signerror said:
I think everyone has the right to know the functioning of public government, including "ideologues". I think it's amusing that you apparently claim the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to people with political affiliations. Or for that matter, suggest that the important issue here isn't the right of citizens to hold their government accountable, but the right of elected officials to defend their political agenda by withholding information from their partisan rivals.

And yet there are http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/412/412.F3d.125.04-5206.04-5205.04-5204.html"

The act itself contains 9 categories of exemptions. None really apply to the CREW case (visitor logs of nine religious conservative commentators) but executive privilege does protect advice and council both from within the White House and from those outside the White House. This district judge weighed executive privilege against the basic goals of the Freedom of Information Act and executive privilege in this case was found wanting. None of the 9 categories of exemptions applied; but, was the judge fair? Will this ruling be overturned on appeal by the Obama administration? I certainly hope so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top