Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Log
In summary: But, I guess since he's the one in office, it's ok. :uhh:In summary, the Bush administration and the Secret Service have signed an agreement declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House complex are not subject to public disclosure. This was not revealed until last fall, and is being used to deal with a ruling ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to Vice President Dick Cheney's office. Some believe this to be an abuse of power, while others argue it is necessary for national security. However, the use of smilies in online discussions can often lead to confusion and misunderstandings about the intent behind statements. Recently, the Obama administration has also blocked access to names of visitors to the White House
  • #1
edward
62
166
Here we go again. Another layer has been added to the Bush administrations unprecedented record of secrecy.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House complex are not subject to public disclosure.

The Bush administration didn't reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall. The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front, a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6325579,00.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yeah, I saw this the other day. How long can they hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.
 
  • #3
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
 
  • #4
What makes them think that they have any right to hide information from the people they serve?

As far as I'm concerned, this should be an impeachable offense.
 
  • #5
Rach3 said:
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists.

Why is that? Do the terrorists check the logs before attacking?

It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

Democracy is not based on trust. Also, most journalists are not terrorists.
 
  • #6
Ivan, you've done it again.
 
  • #7
Rach3 said:
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!

Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure :rolleyes:. Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis :uhh:! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log :eek:? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers :devil:

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts o:)
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Rach3 said:
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
:rolleyes: Honestly, I never know when u are being sarcastic or not...

Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure . Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis ! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log ? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts
lol
 
  • #9
... lol rach.. for the record I think your intent is blatantly obvious :rofl: some of these folks are being a bit ridiculous
 
  • #10
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
 
  • #11
demospec said:
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
Interesting! I hadn't heard about this. Got a reference?
 
  • #12
signerror said:
There's no other reference apparently.
Here's the story:
MSNBC said:
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.
...

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

Disappointing!
 
  • #13
demospec said:
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
demospec said:
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.

Ivan, I can't tell. Are you being serious here?
 
  • #15
The second sentence was a joke. Otherwise what I said is true: As yet I have no concerns.
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.

So, it's not the act but the party? I find it very odd especially since Obama is the one that ran on transparency.
 
  • #17
Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!
Do you not see this as a mistake to learn from? While I respect our President, I'd rather avoid having to trust politicians as much as possible.
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking said:
Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.

Unfortunatly your follow up post was posted while I was reading and replying so I didn't see your comment that it was a joke. I appologize.
 
  • #21
No problem. I shouldn't joke around like that without providing a qualifier.
 
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence.
I would say that each incident constitutes a betrayal of confidence. And each act of betrayal deserves condemnation.

And you can condemn an action without condemning the person in general.
 
  • #23
The intent of the Bush administrations blocking the list was to support Dick Cheney's blocking of his list. Unfortunately the original link no longer works.

We don't know what Obama's intent is. I would imagine that it is to prevent the media from starting a feeding frenzy of rumors and innuendo that would only tend to obfuscate our more urgent problems.

Obama is a busy person, much more so than reclusive Bush/Cheney.

Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.

This administration has also had very diverse groups visit.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2009/05/13/obama-to-host-poetry-party-at-white-house/

http://www.rushmoredrive.com/LatestNews/Obama_to_host_Pakistani_Afghan_leaders_at_White_House.aspx?ArticleId=11456899440268625518

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090606/pl_afp/usitalyg8obamaberlusconi [Broken]

The list includes among many others includes, everything from a poetry group to the leaders of mid eastern countries.

Not all of them may want to see their names in print or on Fox news for security reasons, nor would it be wise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
The conspiracy theorist would say that he's trying to cover up his associations with Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros. All that nonsense about him being a Muslim or black extremist is just smoke and mirrors sent out by Obama himself to confuse people. In reality, Obama is the pawn of the Trilateral Commission, international bankers, and the Bilderberg group.

Here's some conclusive proof:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852818/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You can also check out the video "The Men behind Barack Obama" on Youtube.


In reality though, it's not uncommon for people going into office to realize that there's a reason things are done a certain way and change their minds about many of their campaign promises. One gets a different perspective on the desirability of transparency when one sees what secrets are being kept and why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
edward said:
Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.

I think the issue is under litigation appeal, and to open the records at this point certainly forecloses any opportunity for the Government to maintain any position but to abandon defense against the appeal.

To a certain extent it seems a matter of balance. Would we want for instance to publicly log the visit from an Ambassador at the height of an international crisis? Would divulging Kennedy meeting with the Soviet Ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis have served any purpose for the benefit of the Nation?

On the other hand, if there are meetings that might have been illegal such as influence peddling and there is some light to be shed about the timing and activity by the Executive Branch ...

When people are acting in good faith, and they don't just classify meetings as Secret or Proprietary lightly, they don't label every e-mail, and every office document as Top Secret, just to hide their embarrassment or malfeasance or untoward partisan business ... then I'd say there is a public benefit to knowing.

These days though it seems there are beau coup ways around this, like remote conferencing, or meeting off the White House campus, where no records would be kept, that it does seem that worrying about a visitor log is a little silly. Potentially embarrassing meetings or unethical activities don't have to be held at the White House, but if there is a desire to that, the log would be no real deterrence, given alternatives. But then again neither should anyone with business at the White House, whether seeing the President, or coming to give Robert Gibbs a hair cut, automatically have their privacy interrupted. There are after all 2 parties involved in a Visitor Log, the White House and the Visitor.
 
  • #26
When Cheny's logs were at issue, government attorneys gave the following as a reason not to disclose:

"Disclosure of the records at issue could reveal an ever-expanding mosaic that would allow observers to chart the course of Vice Presidential contacts and deliberations in unprecedented fashion," government attorneys wrote during the legal maneuvering last fall. "Such an unwarranted intrusion into the most sensitive deliberations of the Vice Presidency cannot be countenanced."

I still agree with that reasoning... even as it applies to Obama. Some things (legal of course) should be kept private.

For example as LP has stated:
On the other hand, if there are meetings that might have been illegal such as influence peddling and there is some light to be shed about the timing and activity by the Executive Branch ...

This information should be available via subpoena during the criminal trial. In the Abramoff case, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474.html" [Broken]

The White House http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001553.html" [Broken] But, the question still remains, "Toward what end?" Why disclose more visitor logs regarding Abramoff's visits when Abramoff was cooperating in the ongoing investigation?

Of course many will justify vilifying the Bush administration's position on witholding the logs based on the criminal activity of Abramoff even though the logs didn't turn out to be that important. But how does one justify CREW's request to turn over logs that show http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/17/national/w100931S95.DTL" [Broken] Again, "Toward what end?" Was the Freedom of Information Act enacted so that partisan groups could use the information (innuendo in this case) as political ammunition during an election?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
I don't think there is any question that it is an issue that cuts both ways.

Shareholders in a company don't expect to get a copy of the company visitor's log at HQ. Similarly we don't judge the taste of a pudding by how it was made in the kitchen.

Though, if a company engages in fraudulent practices, or food is made in an unsanitary way ... there should be recourse.

In many respects it seems a matter of trust. Cheney's paranoid secrecy and what we know now was his readiness to skirt the Law, as evidenced by his statements about Guantanamo and water boarding shenanigans, doesn't instill a lot of trust that what he would call Top Secret, or Privileged, was not made so because of less than savory reasons.
 
  • #28
MSNBC said:
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-
How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.
 
  • #29
Al68 said:
How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

What abuses of power?

Or are you just trolling?
 
  • #30
Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.
 
  • #31
LowlyPion said:
What abuses of power?
Blocking visitors' lists. The same thing Ivan referred to as an abuse of power.

Private joke.:biggrin:
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.
Yes, I deliberately assumed false premises. The obvious point was that false premises are rampant on this forum, and ridiculously so. I assumed anyone reading would get the point and know my claim was false.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Yeah, I saw this the other day. How long can they hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

Al68 said:
How long can can the Obama administration hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.

Ivan Seeking said:
Yes, we have a troll. Either retract the statement or show evidence for the subpoenas.

Each deliberate posting of false information will get you 1/3 of the way to being banned.
:rofl::rofl:
 
  • #34
chemisttree said:
:rofl::rofl:
Yep, I'm a plagiarist and a troll. :blushing:
 
  • #35
Oh my, that was positively brilliant! Epic troll!

Poor Ivan, I'll mail you some cortisone for that BURN. :tongue2:
 
<h2>1. Why is the Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to the public?</h2><p>The Whitehouse visitor log is now unavailable to the public due to a decision made by the Trump administration in 2017. They cited privacy and national security concerns as the reason for this change.</p><h2>2. Can anyone access the Whitehouse visitor log?</h2><p>No, the Whitehouse visitor log is now only accessible to authorized government officials and certain approved individuals. The public no longer has access to this information.</p><h2>3. How were visitors to the Whitehouse logged before this change?</h2><p>Before the change in 2017, the Whitehouse visitor log was publicly available and could be accessed through the Whitehouse website. It was updated regularly and included the names of visitors, the date and time of their visit, and who they were visiting.</p><h2>4. Is there any way to find out who is visiting the Whitehouse now?</h2><p>There are still some ways to find out who is visiting the Whitehouse, but it is not as easily accessible as before. Some news outlets and organizations have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain this information, but it is not guaranteed that they will receive it.</p><h2>5. Will the Whitehouse visitor log ever be available to the public again?</h2><p>It is uncertain if the Whitehouse visitor log will ever be available to the public again. It would require a change in policy from the current administration or a future administration. It is important to stay informed and advocate for government transparency if you believe this information should be accessible to the public.</p>

1. Why is the Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to the public?

The Whitehouse visitor log is now unavailable to the public due to a decision made by the Trump administration in 2017. They cited privacy and national security concerns as the reason for this change.

2. Can anyone access the Whitehouse visitor log?

No, the Whitehouse visitor log is now only accessible to authorized government officials and certain approved individuals. The public no longer has access to this information.

3. How were visitors to the Whitehouse logged before this change?

Before the change in 2017, the Whitehouse visitor log was publicly available and could be accessed through the Whitehouse website. It was updated regularly and included the names of visitors, the date and time of their visit, and who they were visiting.

4. Is there any way to find out who is visiting the Whitehouse now?

There are still some ways to find out who is visiting the Whitehouse, but it is not as easily accessible as before. Some news outlets and organizations have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain this information, but it is not guaranteed that they will receive it.

5. Will the Whitehouse visitor log ever be available to the public again?

It is uncertain if the Whitehouse visitor log will ever be available to the public again. It would require a change in policy from the current administration or a future administration. It is important to stay informed and advocate for government transparency if you believe this information should be accessible to the public.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
Back
Top