No, they did NOT "go green" - they've clearly broken the law
and that's what the law tells us to presume
For background see http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30775
From the AP:
The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages — including those pertaining to the CIA leak case — have been taped over and are gone forever.The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.
Among the e-mails that could be lost are messages swapped by any White House officials involved in discussions about leaking a CIA officer's identity to reporters.
Before October 2003, the White House recycled its backup tapes "consistent with industry best practices," according to a sworn statement by a White House aide.
Backup tapes are the last line of defense for saving electronic records.
FLASH!: The United States government's property belongs to the people, not to Bush and his advisors or staff.
The White House documentation of its activities is mandated by the US Constitution.
Heeeeeeeeeeel loooooooooo! Can't anyone remember that? Not Congress? Aren't they supposed to provide a little program called checks and balances? Some serious accusations are "on the table" and being investigated!! Do they know nothing about contemporary data storage and can't see the evidence right under their noses??
Pardon me! I was not aware that anything had changed, but apparently it has, as Pelosi&Co aren't screaming in outrage at the announcement. They've just been HAD.
Instead of cooing at their public (and in the confines of the rooms with their groomers), the Congress should get serious and use their voices to scream loud and long about this most recent obstruction of justice and wrench the media's blinders off so The People can see for themselves this latest affront. Congress does get paid to perform that duty for us. Nice large sums, too, compared to what we make.
People have known since Fitzgerald's review of Rove's computer that there was problems with the White House archiving.
Perhaps now would be the time review what problems were known; which software specifications were discussed; and which software products were identified that would meet the problems identified during the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame-Name Outing. Never before has a US Intel agent been publically outted; and in light of the fact that it seriously endangered the investigation of nuclear proliferation (the Dr. AQ Khan case), surely this warrants some serious investigation.
THE WORLD IS WAITING. If the American people are not aware that things are rotted to the core at the White House, the world surely knows. What's it gonna take to get a proper investigation?
What's happened since Plamegate
What needs to be looked at now
Quite obviously the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence is not the final chapter in the ongoing saga of investigation. Every story has a beginning, a middle and an end, and we, with Congressional help, are no further in finding out The Answers than we were many months ago; a good, solid middle of the story, I'd say.
What problems with White House procedures are still to be looked at??
Can we please take a look at which US government personnel knew of the problems with the software in the White house - but did not ensure the "new contract" included technical solutions to address the "archiving problems" the Grand Jury discovered.
[Ah, pardon me, but it is a streeeeeeeeeeeetch to believe that this was never taken up on behalf of the American people without someone colluding about it! Who purchases these contracts? Who reviews the purchases? What do they know about data collection - what do they know about archival responsibilities in government? Even if we hold them to their standard of conduct, why are things SO screwed up??]
Why is this problem with White House e-mail archiving, regardless the software issues, not getting addressed using some sort of "backup to the failed backup";
In light of the serious charges that come to light in JUST the outting of an intel community -- not taking into account other criminal irregularities --- why would some one responsible NOT look into a more permanent system of backup? An indestructable, fail safe system? With the cozy relationship between the White House and the Telecoms, surely someone from an ISP could have given them some "industry standard" advice as to what the companies to ensure that nothing gets lost? Okay, follow that logic!! Can you see my point?? But I guess that simple idea got lost on the White House staffers. Call Ma Bell, ask for a remedy to your backup problems!! SIMPLE, neat, easy -- but beyond the capabilities of the morons and criminals operating the White House computers? Even someone from a business college course could figure out that one. Ah, guess so. Any morons in any industry who couldn't figure this out, ask the experts or the name brand would be swiftly "downsized" and given a few weeks unemployment benefit. But the White House sure knows how to pick 'em!! The common variety of employee who would just "ask Bell" doesn't seem to be available to our CEO decider-in-chief. Try it yourself, put a query into google about it; you'll get DOZENS of answers. The destruction of perhaps as many as 10 million emails is rather a lot; something worth taking a bit of time to find out how to store at least SOME of them. Industry standards must be met - not just your idea of industry standards, eh Mr. President??
What was the plan Office of Personnel Management used to hire contractors and IT experts to transition the "bad" WH archiving system to a "better" one that did meet the legal requirements that were foreseeable, given the JAG-identified concerns in 2001 going forward that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could adjudicate alleged war crimes;
Or was its more convenient and less revealing to not have a plan? Again, war crimes complicity is implied in White House actions since the issue arose so long before the email g-- and other unknown data -- got "recycled". Now, if I was criminal and I wanted to ensure that I could continue doing my crimes, the one thing I would do is to ensure I left no traces. So, when anyone gets up to ignoring obvious calls to be accountable, I get more than just a bit suspicious. Why, did White House do this when indeed legal experts were raising this issue so early in the Bush administration, was nothing done to ensure that nothing would disappear from security archives?? And where is the mandated official scepticism on one would assume that Congress would have after the Judge Advocate Generals had already expressed their concerns? Congress kept funding the war, didn't it care if things were legal??
What summary can WH provide showing, after Fitzgerald's findings:
[a] there was an understanding of the problems;
[b] there was a review of the existing technical solutions;
[c] there was a program manager assigned to identify a solution and implement a solution that met the legal requirements; and
[d] there was a planned review to ensure the proposed plan, and implemented solution did address the foreseeable risks identified by Fitzgerald, and met the foreseeable legal interest of the ICC which the JAGs identified to DOJ OLC in 2001;
Thinking of the corporate standards that the White House says it has, where are the documents showing that they had an ACTION PLAN?? In the offices where I have worked when problems cropped up we put down the action steps, met as circumstacnces presented themselves, set target targets for resolutions of difficulties and expected people to meet imposed deadlines. Of course various strategies for resolutions would be proposed. Regular reviews of progress were expected. Any legal problems were expected to be addressed. And we didn't have legal eagles standing over our shoulders either. This is standard corporate/business procedures (SOP). Yet the White House doesn't seem to hold themselves accountable for even good business practices, let alone serving as a competent federal agency on what had been shown to be a potential legal problem!! What does the Chief of Staff not know about this usual procedure in any office that functions in today's world?? In light of the severity of the potential problems that were identified by JAGs -- WAR CRIMES -- surely this is not an accidental policy, and under the law (which they more than know, they contend) then wouldn't it be wise to ensure that the American people's interests were protected by good practices rather than letting them get tossed to the winds? There is also a transparency of government issue here, and a question of "historical record" that might have been addressed in such a plan. This is beyond gross incompetent as their discussion of "events" suggests. Pretty shabby "biz" practices, I'd say.Was here no consideration for the JAG-related concerns at the POW working group meetings to _modernize_ the archiving system in the WH to meet the foreseeable risk ICC or other international tribunals would want information about the "foreseeable torture" (court words, civil case, former Guantanamo Prisoners of War) at the hands of US personnel;
Many people in federal government have brought up these issues during the "CEO of government's" "regime". Since the US is a signatory to Geneva (like it or no), it must have "heard" the concerns of the Judge Advocate Generals at some point during the past six years, particularly when meetings were held to foresee the problems that are apparent today. I smell obstruction! I can only assume the worst and that's the way the law sees it.
What program reviews included, or should have included, the JAG Memoranda to Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel outlining the foreseeable risk that the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals could prosecute US persons for alleged war crimes;
Can you show me those program reviews? Can you show me what they included? Here is a "for instance: Your kid is now on probation and he takes a part time job .. you just ASSUME that conditions of his time, the legal conditions, are taken into account. You ask him as time goes along - "have you met your probation conditions? I need to know before I sign on to you doing more part time work." But spoiled brats that they, are the White House couldn't be bothered to look at the conditions of their probation when it came to review their "conditions" - which were to comply with international LAW. When it came time for someone to sit down and look at the progress, they shrug and say, "What probation conditions?" They just never included them. Bad business practice, bad relations with the citizens, bad submitting to good and proper legal advice. They think they are 'above' the law, but there are not - legal considerations given to them by federal officers should have been followed at each performance review.
Why was there funding set aside with the Military Commissions Act to _defend_ US persons before international tribunals for war crimes; but there was allegedly no technical system in place to [a] meet that foreseeable risk the JAG identified; [b] fully preserve documents that legal counsel knew or should have known would substantially be likely subject to subpoena; and [c] there was no backup system to protect that "valuable" information needed to _defend_ those the MCA foresaw as being subject to war crimes prosecutions;
The JAG's performed their duties. The War Crimes act was rewritten. Express and grave reservations about documenting decisions taken by the Unitary Executive were expressed. The likehood of US personnel being subjected to TORTURE equal to the treatment that the US hands out to others was a very huge risk. Yet, by failing to keep records it became VERY HARD indeed to show just how the US does comply with international covenants and to protect its citizens serving in the military or in intelligence agencies. Not too bright!! You'dda thunk that the White House would seriously attempt to comply with the JAG's recommendations as they consistently pointed how one thing could lead to another and DRASTIC consequences for AMERICAN citizens ensue. With the alteration of the Military Commissions Act George Bush, CEO deluxe, must still publish his royal interpretations of the law in the Federal Register. Assuming that the president takes this obligation seriously – and issues detailed interpretations – this will provide much-needed transparency regarding how the U.S. interprets and plans to implement its international treaty obligations. This provides a "cushion" for Americans as to whether they want to take the risk of signing up to take on military "obligations" Is signing up to be waterboarded or tortured in other ways or is one not?? The possibility is always there that the very worse could happen.
But with the destruction of the White House emails and other data now "recycled" - we are left to conclude that White House legal counsel's interpretations of the US Government/business responsibilities and has been interpreted to mean - he decides all things, wants to cover up all things -- and we can assume that crimes have indeed been committed.
and
Was it the intent of the DoJ OLC and other legal counsel who wrote the MCA language granting funds for defendants before the international tribunals to have _no evidence_ and _no records_ from the White House; and how does this "foreseeable outcome" -- that of having a requirement to defend, but not evidence to defend -- reflect on the legal counsel who had a foreseeable duty to provide a full defense to their clients and ensure the "needed evidence to provide a full defense" was available?
Where DOES the buck stop? The War Crimes Act was very specific. CONgress must take every step it possibly can to ensure that American lives are protected from torture and other conditions involving “cruel and inhuman treatment,” which is defined as conduct that causes serious or physical mental pain or suffering. Obviously the JAGS had that in mind - but does the Department of Justice, both under Alberto Gonzales and now under Michael Mukasey (who's expressed no legal opinion on waterboarding! and Congress let him get away with it!!) have any grave concerns as to where all this will lead - just exactly what does it see the consequences of NOT keeping records as being? What does this SAY about the Office of Legal Counsel itself?
We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. The American public has been cruelly "hoaxed" this assertion of power in the Military Commissions Act - and now it faces further abuse by those violating the Geneva Conventions who destroy the evidence. A new low.
We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.
What happens NEXT???
Stayed tuned .. as the next installment in Bush Dynasty plays out on primetime .. As always, after the shock wears off, the inevitable finger pointing will start, the projections and rationalizes will fly, people will run from their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution as they have for so many years . and yet .. somehow we can all work to ensure that JUSTICE prevails and let the Bush Adminstration and its ridiculous "office boys" know .. we are watching you!! We see what you're up to!! and we know that every legal remedy to your "mismanagement" will be undertaken by those who KNOW ..
You didn't fool us at all. The White House security office is responsible for the tapes and that is
Director of the White House Security Office, James Knodell.
As CREW says:
It is perfectly clear why the White House has used every strategic maneuver it can think of to avoid answering any questions about the missing email: its answers are likely to raise more questions than they answer. That, years after the problem was discovered, the White House is still questioning whether or not there is even a problem is deeply disturbing.Your pal,
Rosemary Woods
No comments:
Post a Comment