News Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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...

 

[signerror]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[seycyrus]

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.

 

[Al68]

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?

 

[chemisttree]

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.