White House call to 'flag' dissent loathsome

Damocles said:
Not from an official website it isn't. There are specific ways you could collect personal information, but even that has to go through much scrutiny before destruction when you are the President, specifically his and the VP's records cannot be destroyed except under very specific circumstances which this does not follow.

And I linked to the law later, it may be in a different thread. I think you can find it.
Click to expand...

For the last time, this is not an attempt to collect personal information.
 
Watermark said:
For the last time, this is not an attempt to collect personal information.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the intent is, the law does not speak to intent it speaks to reality.

5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7)

"maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity."
Click to expand...

The law makes no provision based on intent to gather the information, it simply makes it illegal to maintain a record of that information, while another law makes it illegal for them to destroy the information. This is the quandary.

522a(e) specifically deals with Federal Agencies and their requirements on this type of data, number seven is listed above wholly uncut, and this places it in context.
 
Watermark said:
THE REALITY IS THAT NO PERSONAL INFORMATION IS COLLECTED.
Click to expand...
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7)

"maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity."
Click to expand...

The law makes no provision based on intent to gather the information, it simply makes it illegal to maintain a record of that information, while another law makes it illegal for them to destroy the information. This is the quandary.

522a(e) specifically deals with Federal Agencies and their requirements on this type of data, number seven is listed above wholly uncut, and this places it in context.
 
Damocles said:
I linked to it earlier. Oh wait. I'll see if I can find a good site about the Privacy Act.

If I send the WH a letter they have to archive it, but keeping a specific database about people who are practicing their first amendment rights is illegal. Calling for people to report it causes a legal quandary if you call for that kind of information specifically from a branch of the government.
Click to expand...


The law makes no distinction between letters or emails received because you called on people to send them versus unsolicited emails or letters. The requirement remains the same.

That's why Congress and the Executive Office of the President do not fall within the definition of "agency" under the Privacy Act.

Here is some actual legal analysis of the Act and its applicability to the White House as opposed to your armchair layman's lawyering:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/privacyact2.htm
 
Dungheap said:
The law makes no distinction between letters or emails received because you called on people to send them versus unsolicited emails or letters. The requirement remains the same.

That's why Congress and the Executive Office of the President do not fall within the definition of "agency" under the Privacy Act.

Here is some actual legal analysis of the Act and its applicability to the White House as opposed to your armchair layman's lawyering:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/privacyact2.htm
Click to expand...

But at least you're down with the spirit of the law!:rolleyes:

Lawyers always misdefine words to create loopholes. Only in a liar's world is the presidency not a agency of government.

This is why the only way to deal with you libs is to shoot you in the face. <-- just a joke.
 
Dungheap said:
The law makes no distinction between letters or emails received because you called on people to send them versus unsolicited emails or letters. The requirement remains the same.

That's why Congress and the Executive Office of the President do not fall within the definition of "agency" under the Privacy Act.

Here is some actual legal analysis of the Act and its applicability to the White House as opposed to your armchair layman's lawyering:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/privacyact2.htm
Click to expand...
lol...

It's simply a legal opinion.

The District Court's decision in Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 971 F. Supp. 603 (D.D.C. 1997), which rejected this analysis, is in our opinion incorrectly decided. In that case, Judge Royce Lamberth took the view that the FOIA definition does not govern whether the Privacy Act applies to the "immediate staff of the President." Id. at 606. In his view, "agency" means one thing for the Privacy Act and another for the FOIA because the purposes of the two statutes are different. Congress precluded this interpretative move, however, when it affirmatively stated that the term should have the same meaning in both statutes. The text of the Privacy Act is straight-forward. Section 552a(a)(1) provides that, for purposes of the Privacy Act, "the term 'agency' means agency as defined in section 552(e)" of Title 5 of the United States Code - the FOIA definition of agency. (6)
Click to expand...

Courts even disagree and in the opinion of the analysis was "incorrectly decided." If I state anything of the sort you reject it out of hand. Courts will wind up deciding this one, not an analysis by the DOJ that disagrees with some of the court decisions.
 
Damocles said:
lol...

It's simply a legal opinion.



Courts even disagree and in the opinion of the analysis was "incorrectly decided." If I state anything of the sort you reject it out of hand. Courts will wind up deciding this one, not an analysis by the DOJ that disagrees with some of the court decisions.
Click to expand...


Here's another link for you:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/1974definitions.htm#agency

Now, as to who to believe, you or the Department of Justice I think I'm going to lean towards the Department of Justice on this one. Edit: I think it's hilarious that you "lol" a DOJ legal opinion but expect your personal legal opinion to be taken seriously.

And it's not that I reject anything you say out of hand. It's just that when you say something that doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense (the White House is required by law to keep all its mail and email but can't because it is prohibited from doing so by law, lol) I'm not simply willing to take your word for it. And you haven't really backed up what you are saying at all.

I also think it funny that you criticize me for rejecting anything you say out of hand while you reject pretty much anything I say out of hand even after I provide you with the legal analysis that supports my position (something you rarely provide).

My guess is that this will be resolved by the Courts. If the birther nonsense has taught us anything it's that there is no shortage of lunatic right-wingers willing to spend money on frivolous lawsuits.
 
Dungheap said:
Here's another link for you:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/1974definitions.htm#agency

Now, as to who to believe, you or the Department of Justice I think I'm going to lean towards the Department of Justice on this one. Edit: I think it's hilarious that you "lol" a DOJ legal opinion but expect your personal legal opinion to be taken seriously.

And it's not that I reject anything you say out of hand. It's just that when you say something that doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense (the White House is required by law to keep all its mail and email but can't because it is prohibited from doing so by law, lol) I'm not simply willing to take your word for it. And you haven't really backed up what you are saying at all.

I also think it funny that you criticize me for rejecting anything you say out of hand while you reject pretty much anything I say out of hand even after I provide you with the legal analysis that supports my position (something you rarely provide).

My guess is that this will be resolved by the Courts. If the birther nonsense has taught us anything it's that there is no shortage of lunatic right-wingers willing to spend money on frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
No. I LOL that you posted a legal opinion, where even they admit that courts have disagreed.

Any DOJ has an opinion, but they are not the ones that get to make those decisions. As I said, this will be decided by the courts. And again, you attempt to use the reduction fallacy to what I said, they cannot keep a specific form of database where they are keeping information on how individuals express their first amendment rights, the laws were created to protect groups like Earth First from the Feds, and they just are. If you send in your own correspondence (rather than getting reported by another) there is an implication of PERMISSION, even if it does show how one expresses their first Amendment rights.

In this case this agency is specifically requesting information on how they express those rights, the database is not gained with permission, and it doesn't follow this particular law.
 
Damocles said:
No. I LOL that you posted a legal opinion, where even they admit that courts have disagreed.

Any DOJ has an opinion, but they are not the ones that get to make those decisions. As I said, this will be decided by the courts.
Click to expand...


Yes, you LOL a DOJ OLC opinion (which, by the way, isn't just a measly legal opinion but has the effect of being the official position of the government of the United States and all federal agencies are to act in accordance with such opinions) while holding out your own "legal opinion" as equally valid.

By the way, where did you come out on the torture issue? Legal? Not legal? If not legal, should anyone be prosecuted? If not, why not?
 
Dungheap said:
Yes, you LOL a DOJ OLC opinion (which, by the way, isn't just a measly legal opinion but has the effect of being the official position of the government of the United States and all federal agencies are to act in accordance with such opinions) while holding out your own "legal opinion" as equally valid.

By the way, where did you come out on the torture issue? Legal? Not legal? If not legal, should anyone be prosecuted? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
And you rejected those opinions when it was the Bush DOJ.

This is going round in circles, and you continue to use the reduction fallacy.

Why don't you tell me where I came out on the torture issue? You were here.
 
Damocles said:
Again, legal opinions are not binding arbiters of the law, if such were the case we'd never need courts. And you agree, this will be decided by the courts.

Also again, you attempt the reduction fallacy on what I said.

The law states that without permission no agency of the government may keep a database on how individuals express their first amendment rights. If you send in correspondence of your own there is implicated permission.

In this case this agency is specifically requesting information on how they express those rights, the database is not gained with permission, and it doesn't follow this particular law.
Click to expand...


1) The law makes no distinction between information that is requested and information that is unsolicited. You're making that up out of thin air. Anything the White House receives, solicited or unsolicited, must be preserved pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.

2) "Implicated permission?" I'm sure you have legal analysis to back that up or are you making that up our of thin air too?

3) What database?

4) Again, you presume the Privacy Act applies based on your armchair analysis.


The bullshit is getting pretty thick here, Damo.
 
Dungheap said:
1) The law makes no distinction between information that is requested and information that is unsolicited. You're making that up out of thin air. Anything the White House receives, solicited or unsolicited, must be preserved pursuant to the Presidential Records Act.

2) "Implicated permission?" I'm sure you have legal analysis to back that up or are you making that up our of thin air too?

3) What database?

4) Again, you presume the Privacy Act applies based on your armchair analysis.


The bullshit is getting pretty thick here, Damo.
Click to expand...
1. It does specifically state that if kept it must be with permission.

2. Inane. If you send me a letter and know I must keep it, you are giving permission.

3. The one that the WH must keep of their correspondence.

4. Again, I presume what courts have stated, even the DOJ noted that courts disagreed with their analysis.

And yes, the BS is getting thick.
 
Damocles said:
And you rejected those opinions when it was the Bush DOJ.

This is going round in circles, and you continue to use the reduction fallacy.

Why don't you tell me where I came out on the torture issue? You were here.
Click to expand...


1) I rejected Bush DoJ opinions that are contrary to the vast weight of authority, like the torture memos. With the Privacy Act, the Bush DoJ, Clinton DoJ and virtually all courts (with the exception of one district court in D.C.) have resolved the question in the same way.

2) I really don't remember. I thought it not too much to ask for you to simply respond to the questions. What's the big deal?
 
Dungheap said:
1) I rejected Bush DoJ opinions that are contrary to the vast weight of authority, like the torture memos. With the Privacy Act, the Bush DoJ, Clinton DoJ and virtually all courts (with the exception of one district court in D.C.) have resolved the question in the same way.

2) I really don't remember. I thought it not too much to ask for you to simply respond to the questions. What's the big deal?
Click to expand...
We've spent years learning the opinions of others on this and other sites, you've known me for many of them yet still are suddenly surprised at many of my opinions and the ones that you assume are unerringly incorrect. I want to know what you think my opinion is out of an intellectual curiosity. Keep in mind that every opinion of mine you have assumed has been wrong and I bet you can guess what I thought of torture memos.
 
Damocles said:
1. It does, specifically state that if kept it must be with permission.

2. Inane. If you send me a letter and know I must keep it, you are giving permission.

3. The one that the WH must keep of their correspondence.

4. Again, I presume what courts have stated, even the DOJ noted that courts disagreed with their analysis.
Click to expand...


1) You're answering the wrong question. Where is the distinction between solicited and unsolicited information?

2) Bullshit. Prove it.

3) OK.

4) No, you presume your analysis is correct. You take solace in the DoJ opinion because one court in one case reached a conclusion that *might* support your position whereas every other court that addressed the question concluded that you are wrong.

I'm not inclined to continue this charade. Care to make a signature and avatar wager about it and we'll see what happens? If a court determines that the EOP does not fall within the meaning of the term "agency" under the Privacy Act I get to write your signature and pick your avatar for a month. If a court finds that the EOP is an "agency" under the Privacy Act you get to write and pick mine. Deal?
 
Damocles said:
We've spent years learning the opinions of others on this and other sites, you've known me for many of them yet still are suddenly surprised at many of my opinions and the ones that you assume are unerringly incorrect. I want to know what you think my opinion is out of an intellectual curiosity. Keep in mind that every opinion of mine you have assumed has been wrong and I bet you can guess what I thought of torture memos.
Click to expand...


I really don't recall. My sense is that you thought the torture memos were wrong but that you didn't think anyone ought to be prosecuted.

Truth be told I often conflate the opinions of you, Superfreak and Socrates. I was hoping you could help me out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top