FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Openness and Transparency in the Obama White House (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Openness and Transparency in the Obama White House
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
google Obama Meter to get a sense of how many promises are being broken vs kept (I have no idea what the "normal" presidential ratio of broken to kept promises is so I don't know if he's doing good or bad. Then again, I disliked most of Bush's "promises" so I'd have rather seen him not keep them in the first place).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Or are you implying that every person who was asking a question was a plant asking a planted question?
I'm not implying it, I am stating it. The poeple in the audience who asked questions were preselected by the White House to ask specific questions, or in Ms. Smith's case to cry on cue.
Bold statement. The proof?

[ July 07, 2009, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bold statement. The proof?
I posted about Deb Smith earlier in this thread.
quote:
Some of Obama's questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
A politician "breaking" his "promises" is nothing new. I'm not defending this behavior, but I'm not shocked by it.

As for Parliamentry Question Period, as useful as it is, it is a tremendously uncivilized time in which members of parliament act like pre-schoolers. It's not question-answer, it's yelling and booing over people as they give their answers. I doubt that very much productive work is accomplished and theoretically you can watch it on tv or the internet if you feel like you can get through it without stabbing out your eyes and ears in embarrassment.

For example. It's easier to hear the background noise when they're speaking in English.

I do think American presidents-- all American presidents-- have it pretty easy. They never face this kind of uncontrolled pre-schoolerishness.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is ignoring the part where I can ask you to tell me where Obama promised "no lobbyists, no earmarks" and you would most likely be unable to find them.
CNN
quote:
"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.

CNN again
quote:
CNN: Obama Appoints Goldman Sachs Lobbyist to Top Treasury Post

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
the only promise that the administration has explicitly broken was the five-day public review for bills.
What I like about this statement is that because you used the absolute "only," I only need to provide one example to show that what you are saying is false. Prisoner Photos
quote:
President Obama said Wednesday he told government lawyers to object to a court-ordered release of additional images showing alleged abuse of detainees because the release could affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion."
I already posted about the lobbyists
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
the only promise that the administration has explicitly broken was the five-day public review for bills.
What I like about this statement is that because you used the absolute "only," I only need to provide one example to show that what you are saying is false. Prisoner Photos
quote:
President Obama said Wednesday he told government lawyers to object to a court-ordered release of additional images showing alleged abuse of detainees because the release could affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion."
I already posted about the lobbyists

There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs. You're engineering a trap for yourself by providing a counterpoint which doesn't actually involve nor contradict what I said. He didn't promise to release these photographs. If you want help with understanding my point, such as the usage of the word 'explicit,' you could ask.

There's also the part you cut off of the front of my sentence, which was to state that in terms of transparency issues, there was only one promise broken so far. You omitted that so you could talk about lobbyists instead.

So yes, if you could find one example, you could prove me wrong, as I proved you wrong.

This isn't it.

Keep digging, if you wish.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Bold statement. The proof?
I posted about Deb Smith earlier in this thread.
quote:
Some of Obama's questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

That simply proves that Smith was invited, and that the audience was made of supporters.

I don't think anyone has denied either, and according to what others have said in this thread, these kind of town hall meetings with an audience made of only supporters, are fairly normal in American politics.

What I specifically asked you to prove was your comment that all the questions were planted questions by planted people, who would even "cry on cue", according to a carefully orchestrated plan by the Obama administration.

So, what's your proof?

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs.
Ah, so in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue?
To quote the ACLU:
quote:
Obama's decision "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability, ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

"Essentially, by withholding these photographs from public view, the Obama administration is making itself complicit in the Bush administration's torture policies," Singh said.

"The release of these photos is absolutely essential for ensuring that justice [is] done, for ensuring that the public [can] hold its government accountable, and for ensuring that torture is not conducted in the future in the name of the American people."

I am sure you are simply going defend Obama by saying making a mockery of a promise isn't breaking it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
As for Parliamentry Question Period, as useful as it is, it is a tremendously uncivilized time in which members of parliament act like pre-schoolers. It's not question-answer, it's yelling and booing over people as they give their answers. I doubt that very much productive work is accomplished and theoretically you can watch it on tv or the internet if you feel like you can get through it without stabbing out your eyes and ears in embarrassment.

For example. It's easier to hear the background noise when they're speaking in English.

Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.

(Of course this whole thing is a tangent. I think Lyrhawn translated my call for "town-halls" to be truly open to members of the public into this form of Q&A session which is kind of a separate issue)

Anyways, I see that as a pretty standard ebb and flow in a political debate and if anything I think the whole thing is *too* ritualized and too controlled rather than not enough.

True democratic struggle is strengthened, not weakened, by having the legislators bring their true feelings and venom into play directly against each other rather than voice them through non-critical media mouth-pieces.

And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If you really think that's the case, I don't see how we can go any further in this discussion. Obama isn't even in the same neighborhood as Bush's stonewalling.

Depends on your definition of "neighbourhood." Looking at the column posted by Noemon from what I thought was a fairly sympathetic-to-Obama writer before the inauguration, he lists by my rough count 14 incidents where Obama sided with pretty controversial Bush-era policies and 3 where he deviated.

In addition they note:
quote:
"Finally, it's worth emphasizing that the above excerpts pertain only to transparency issues. None of this has anything to do with what The New York Times in May -- referring to Obama's Bush-replicating policies on detention, rendition, denial of habeas rights, military commission and the like -- described as "how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office." No matter how you look at it, this is quite a record."
So I think there is certainly room for a rational person to conclude that Obama is definitely in the same neighbourhood as Bush.

quote:
Second, if we can agree that Bush was far worse, are you really more upset with the guy who promised 100% openness and only delivered maybe half, than with the guy who promised nothing, and then met his low bar?
More upset? Again, it depends.

See, Bush was a known quantity and a laughing stock around the world. Everyone knew he and his government was usually lying which in an odd way limits the damage.

But Obama was elected on a promise of real change while in practise only delivering minimal change. This I fear is even more dangerous in some aspects by causing people to lower their guard. Thats why I feel exercises like that column are very important.

On a personal level, it could feel more like a betrayal rather than in the case of Bush, simply moves by an adversary. So again, the level of "upset" depends.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
I went to a townhall meeting fairly recently that my local congressman held. It wasn't filled with only supporters. In fact, I'd say that over half the audience was filled with the opposing party. To the congressman's credit, he fielded questions from anyone, though he did request they go with topics of his choosing. The way he chose his topics was by doing a similar process described earlier where he had all of the attendees write their question on a card and turn them in to start with. The staffers then tallied the questions and figured out which were the most asked questions and used that as the topic list.

All of that being said, I don't mind if a townhall is pre-screened. In the townhall I attended, audience members started arguing with each other over the premise of some of the questions. There were a few times staffers had to come in and try to cool down folks before things got too heated. While this resulted in a highly entertaining environment to be a part of, it wasn't conducive to learning. People separated into their sides on an issue and asked repetitive questions to simply egg on the opposition in the audience. Pre-screening the questions allows you to make sure you cover many issues that people are wondering about because you make sure that different questions are asked. From what I saw of the President's townhall, they were doing a pretty good job asking questions I wondered about. (I would have watched all of it, but it was competing with a show I wanted to check out. I figured I could just watch the rest later. [Smile] )

I'm in the camp of folks who think that the reporters were just whining about a non-issue that does not reflect upon this administration's promises of transparency and accountability.

With that, however, I am disappointed with quite a few of the decisions this administration has made with regard to transparency and accountability. I really did want that five-day waiting period. But I will say that in spite of my grievances, I'm still very satisfied with this administration on the whole.

ETA: With the photos, I'd prefer if they were released, but I actually buy the administration's arguments that releasing the photos would just create a security risk for the folks serving overseas. It's no secret that we abused prisoners. We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.

[ July 07, 2009, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]

Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that "town hall" is a silly name for the type of events we are discussing. The type of meeting that would be doable and potentially useful for a town is not useful for something as large as the whole US.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
kmbboots:
This is true. Unfortunately, it is the term that the administration has used and the reporters have agreed to use. We could call them "highly orchestrated Q&A sessions designed to give the impression of being in touch with the common man" but that would seem to be harder to promote.

quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
... We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.

I think The Rabbit put it best in a different thread.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit: The value of Nuremberg to Germany was that it made public all the secrets of the Nazi regime. By putting all the "classified" crimes on public trial, Nuremberg made possible German introspection about the war and about the culpability of individuals. The data presented at Nuremberg laid the foundation for public discussion that continues today and has resulted in a major cultural and ethical shift in Germany.

Hitler was able to do what he did in part because he controlled the flow of information. Nuremberg opened all those secrets to public scrutiny.

A trial would be an opportunity for public discourse about what really happened and whether it was justified or unjustified. That discourse is a necessary part of ethical progress.

The converse is also true. If the US never opens up the data on these crimes and gives the impression that they're just sweeping the crimes under the carpet while punishing a few scapegoats, it will happen again.

The public aspect is essential. Americans wouldn't have been satisfied if Germans claimed to have handled it on their own behind closed doors, and neither should we now.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs.
Ah, so in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue?
To quote the ACLU:
quote:
Obama's decision "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability, ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

"Essentially, by withholding these photographs from public view, the Obama administration is making itself complicit in the Bush administration's torture policies," Singh said.

"The release of these photos is absolutely essential for ensuring that justice [is] done, for ensuring that the public [can] hold its government accountable, and for ensuring that torture is not conducted in the future in the name of the American people."

I am sure you are simply going defend Obama by saying making a mockery of a promise isn't breaking it.

Just because Singh says that the Obama administration is "making a mockery", it doesn't make it factual that they are in fact making a mockery. That was just one man's opinion, but you are using it as some universal, undeniable fact.

If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration, it still doesn't mean that he has promised that the goverment would never again hold any secrets from the public. Of course any government is going to have some secrets. For example they often can't give information concerning on-going military projects, because giving that information to the American public would also mean giving the same information to the potential enemies of the American public.

Anyway, you can't claim that Obama broke a promise, if he never made that promise in the first place.

This is not to say that Obama hasn't broken any promises (he has), but so far you haven't given any proof that he broke any promises with this issue.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I am torn on the photo issue. From what I have heard about the photos not shown, if I were the victim, I would not want them public. I would want a trial to be held, but I would want the pictures limited to judge, jury, prosecutor and defender. Americans often have trials were not all evidence is open to the public. In rape trials, the media routinely does not disclose the victim's name. Many crime scene photos are also withheld. The problem is, people are not being tried for these crimes. Justice is not being done. And showing those pictures may be what it takes to outrage America enough to ensure justice is done.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue?

I love it when people preface a complete strawman with "In other words,"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
kmbboots:
This is true. Unfortunately, it is the term that the administration has used and the reporters have agreed to use. We could call them "highly orchestrated Q&A sessions designed to give the impression of being in touch with the common man" but that would seem to be harder to promote.

quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
... We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.

I think The Rabbit put it best in a different thread.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit: The value of Nuremberg to Germany was that it made public all the secrets of the Nazi regime. By putting all the "classified" crimes on public trial, Nuremberg made possible German introspection about the war and about the culpability of individuals. The data presented at Nuremberg laid the foundation for public discussion that continues today and has resulted in a major cultural and ethical shift in Germany.

Hitler was able to do what he did in part because he controlled the flow of information. Nuremberg opened all those secrets to public scrutiny.

A trial would be an opportunity for public discourse about what really happened and whether it was justified or unjustified. That discourse is a necessary part of ethical progress.

The converse is also true. If the US never opens up the data on these crimes and gives the impression that they're just sweeping the crimes under the carpet while punishing a few scapegoats, it will happen again.

The public aspect is essential. Americans wouldn't have been satisfied if Germans claimed to have handled it on their own behind closed doors, and neither should we now.

Generally I agree with what you are saying here, but a question:

In my understanding the official stand of the Obama administration is that they want to keep the material secret because it might help Al Qaida in its recruiting efforts?

It does sound like a fairly logical reason to me, even if it might not be the actual reason, or the primary reason.

Has there been any talk about releasing the material later, maybe 5-10 years from now? I would imagine that the effectiveness of the photos & video footage as a recruiting material could be lesser then, but arguably Americans would still have the same benefit of introspection, a la Nuremberg.

To me that would sound like a good compromise.

Also, the actual trials and punishments could be done behind closed doors, so I don't think the release of the material to the public has to necessarily happen at the same time.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration,
Has he? or has he continued the same policies?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
The problem is, people are not being tried for these crimes. Justice is not being done. And showing those pictures may be what it takes to outrage America enough to ensure justice is done.

Exactly. And that is why I would prefer they be released. My point is that as long as justice is carried out, I'd be all right with keeping the photos from the public because I buy the argument of their dangerous nature. I think that would hold the administration accountable, but the problem is that they aren't doing that.

I do also think that the Nuremburg comparison is fairly applicable, but not completely. Nuremburg was done in retrospect, we're talking about an operation that is ongoing. I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate environment to release those photos when you consider that we are still operating overseas. I want us to change the course and never perpetuate abuses like that again. I want the people who committed the crimes to receive their punishment. But I don't think we should endanger people didn't commit the crime by releasing the photos while they're overseas.

ETA: In looking over my post, it becomes clear to me how torn I am on the issue. I want justice to be taken, yet there hasn't been justice so I want the photos released so we're forced to take action. At the same time, releasing them could very well hurt people who aren't responsible for the photos' content. And that doesn't bode well with me. It's a difficult issue that I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on.

Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration,
Has he? or has he continued the same policies?
I have to admit I don't know. Some in this thread have said that he has established a different policy, but I don't know if there is any actual proof to back up a noticeable change.

The Salon link mentioned the following:

"Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."

Samprimary also mentioned:

"On his first day in office, Obama fulfilled a promise to roll back some Bush administration restrictions on presidential records."

I admit that to my ears those don't exactly sound impressive, although I admit I have no idea what the FOIA order means in practice. I'm sure someone else in this thread is better capable of providing examples of transparency change, if there are any.

Now, if Obama indeed has failed to change the transparency in any meaningful way when compared to the previous administration, then it can be said that he has broken his promise.

Does anyone know whether one can find an all-inclusive list about the transparency decisions of the Obama administration somewhere? I did some googling, but didn't really find one.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.
That's the first one I picked and listened a bit to wait to see if there was any jeering. It's not the worst I've heard by far. You're a Canadian, right? You must have listened to worse ones yourself.

quote:
And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.
No, the idea is airing ideas and issues to the public, not actually accomplishing anything.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:
Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.
That's the first one I picked and listened a bit to wait to see if there was any jeering. It's not the worst I've heard by far. You're a Canadian, right? You must have listened to worse ones yourself.

quote:
And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.
No, the idea is airing ideas and issues to the public, not actually accomplishing anything.

Parliament is like Congress but with a 2 drink minimum.

Seriously Ild swear half of the mp's were stonned drunk from what they pull at times.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."
Obama released four memos. Cheney asked for more memos showing the results to be released which Obama refused to do.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
"Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."
Obama released four memos. Cheney asked for more memos showing the results to be released which Obama refused to do.
And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian J. Hill
Member
Member # 5346

 - posted      Profile for Brian J. Hill   Email Brian J. Hill         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
However, when a President only releases selected memos, which cast the previous administration in a VERY bad light, while refusing to release any memos which may indicate there were mitigating circumstances influencing the previous administration's decisions, is that actually being "open and transparent"? Or is it politics as usual?

quote:
Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
And Obama is? Incidentally, the Obama Administration has done nothing to cast any doubt on the existence of potentially vindicating memos; only that they won't release any further memos on the subject.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote:
And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
However, when a President only releases selected memos, which cast the previous administration in a VERY bad light, while refusing to release any memos which may indicate there were mitigating circumstances influencing the previous administration's decisions, is that actually being "open and transparent"? Or is it politics as usual?

quote:
Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
And Obama is? Incidentally, the Obama Administration has done nothing to cast any doubt on the existence of potentially vindicating memos; only that they won't release any further memos on the subject.

Sen. Levin says that Cheney is wrong. I'm willing to trust Levin, if for no other reason, but because he looks trustworthy. Come on, how can you not trust a friendly looking man like that? [Wink]
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
On the subject of transparency in general, I thought this might be a good place to put a couple of links for folks who want to see what's been goin' down lately.

USASpending.gov - I'm not going to falsely attribute this to President Obama. The creation of this website was demanded by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. (Though both Senator Obama and Senator McCain were sponsors of this legislation.) It has, however, been retooled since the Obama administration so that it is far more user-friendly than their older website FedSpending.gov. My biggest complaint is that the Department of Treasury Assistance spending hasn't been accounted for. I'm hoping I can throw a 'yet' to the end of the previous sentence, though.


Data.gov - This one has been created by the acts of the current administration. That being said, it's a lot less intuitive and (for me, anyway) useful than the spending website. Maybe it's because it's new and they're still building it. Either way, this website provides access to datasets of federal documents. So if you want to read federal papers or reports, eventually as this site grows it's the place to look.

I think that both of these websites are pretty nice steps toward accountability and transparency of government. I thought it might be nice to give some credit where credit is due.

P.S. Although I'm pretty sure it's been linked before a couple times, I think it'd be nice to link it again. Recovery.gov is still being updated and shows what has been happening with the stimulus package that was passed.

Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
90% of people are stupid so if you let a proper sample of the people into a townhall to ask questions 90% of them are pillocks and 90% of the questions asked will be retarded questions like "why are you a secret Muslem communist who pals around with terrorists?"

Blayne you are right on the money with this one, although it would make the town hall meeting a lot more interesting. I might actually watch!

I believe the media played a huge part in getting Obama elected, and as such I believe a lot of them expected some sort of special treatment in return. It is inevitable that you cannot please everyone, so some branches of the media will begin to play the whole "He got more than me" game. If they do not get what they want, they will simply start to report that there is "broken campaign promises."

It is an issue that every president is faced with. That being said, the person chosen to be Press Secretary should be someone that can answer questions effectively and quickly. Robert Gibbs, in my opinion, was a horrible choice. I have seen quite a few of the press conferences, and Mr. Gibbs just seems lost during every single one. It is a problem when the only thing I remember from a press conference is the number of times Robert Gibbs says "Uhhhhh." This gives the impression that he does not know what he is talking about. It gives the press reps such as the two in the transcript an easy target.

I don't believe that Gibbs will last long. I am sure he is a great guy, he is just not cut out for the job.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
PROMISES, PROMISES: Exceptions to federal open records law flourish under Obama administration
quote:
One year into its promise of greater government transparency, the Obama administration is more often citing exceptions to the nation's open records law to withhold federal records even as the number of requests for information declines, according to a review by The Associated Press of agency audits about the Freedom of Information Act.

Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes.

quote:
The administration has stalled even over records about its own efforts to be more transparent. The AP is still waiting — after nearly three months — for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.

The White House on Tuesday described the directive as "historic," but the Office of Management and Budget still has not responded to AP's request under the Freedom of Information Act to review internal e-mails and other documents related to that effort.

quote:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was so concerned about what he called "exemption creep" that last year he successfully pressed for a new law that requires exemptions to be "clear and unambiguous."

The federal government cited Exemption 3 protections to withhold information at least 14,442 times in the last budget year, compared with at least 13,599 in the previous one.

While not refuting AP's findings on the government's use of exemptions to withhold information, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration has made progress toward becoming more transparent.

"The majority of agencies — 12 out of the 17, or 70 percent of those surveyed — increased FOIA requests granted in full, in part or both," LaBolt said late Tuesday.

Much of the Obama administration's early effort seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still waiting past deadlines spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year. There is no way to tell whether people whose cases were closed ultimately received the information they sought.


Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Oooo, past blast.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2