April 25, 2008

Visitor Logs Watch

Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press:
"A federal appeals court sought compromise Monday between a liberal group demanding the names of White House visitors and the Bush administration, which says releasing the names would erode the president's power. . . .

"On appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, government attorneys said the president has a well-established right to seek advice privately.

"Releasing lists of visitors would trample on that right, said Justice Department lawyer Jonathan F. Cohn, and the logs should be treated like other White House documents.

"The judges were skeptical. They said they wanted to find a way to protect the president's rights without broadly prohibiting access to information that should be public.

"'What in the documents are so quintessentially presidential?' asked Judge David S. Tatel.

"'The name of the person going in to visit,' Cohn replied.
This sounds, to me,like the Nazi regime when the point was not to protect the country but to protect the Fuhrer.


Randal Graves said...

Hey, if they've got nothing to hide, and everything is on the up and up, they should let us take a peek, right?

two crows said...

exactly, randal--
not only that, ANYONE can legally stand near the portico and write down the names of anyone they recognize going in the door.

so, what's the problem here?
oh, yeah, lessening the 'power of the presidency' that Cheney has done so much to make into a dictatorship over the last 7 years.

an average patriot said...

Bush is the friggen decider and doesn't have to do anything the law says. Laws are for us. With the record of AG's post Bush they should be barred from talking at all. There is no reason the log should be private. They want to see who's visiting not what they're saying. bush can not be trusted with any privileges.

two crows said...

hey, AAP---
right on!
remember all those rethugs bleating about 'unfairness' when the Dems took over Congress and didn't immediately give the minority party back the powers they had taken away from it?

won't Cheney be surprised if the next [democratic] Prez doesn't hand back all the powers he bestowed upon the office over the last 8 years!!!

while I hope s/he does restore the Constitution -- I won't mind too much if they make the rethugs sweat a while first. . . . like Congress did. :)

still, I am a little scared that the Dem president will want to keep all that lovely power for him/herself.

and there goes the democratic republic down the drain. . . .

an average patriot said...

two crows
I love you, you are right to be concerned. I do not see any president giving up the abusive powers gained. I am afraid they will be needed to survive as a country.
Difference is, using them or abusing them as Bush does and Cheney will do. i have been forecasting a total breakdown for the thirty years. With what is happening around the country and with the two economies what you are seeing in Chicago is just the beginning.
There will be a new role for towns and public domains, a going back, regrouping. I have started the process of a search and inquiry at CBS Radio and Television to let them know there is talent out here that they do not have and it will be needed to communicate in the trenches and to organize ground roots society.
They keep advertising well i am going to contact them and see if they are the ones smart enough to listen!

two crows said...

hi, AAP--
my concern is that those powers cannot be maintained and NOT be abused.

the office of president wasn't given the powers that Cheney has stolen for the very reason that they WOULD be abused if they were available.
the checks and balances built into the system were put there for a reason. and now they're gone.

heaven help us.