Should the White House be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
What happened to a more transparent presidency??
The White House should not be exempt from a damn thing.
I don't want to know more than I don't want everyone to know.
As of this post, nearly 1/5th of democrats say yes. How would they have voted if George W. Bush was in office?
That's really not that many. Only 40 more votes than (R)s.
Do what you tell your followers to do.
I'm certain that there are lots of things that the general populace should not be aware of - things that would scare us to death if we were privy to them. OTOH, when Bush was in office I was scared to death every day.
Rules for them and rules for us.
On military information, yes.
On anything else, hell no.
Seems contrary to the point of the legislation.
"This administration will run on a platform of transparency!*" - Obama
* - terms and conditions do not apply to obama or his office. Or anyone else that obama deems it shouldn't apply to
Third paragraph, first sentence: "The ruling stems from a lawsuit that began before the obama administration took office..."
Now logicman81 you have 2 options: (1) Claim a conspiracy by evil muslim commie Obama, or (2) Claim satan wrote that part.
I'm aware. The problem with that is obama said he was going to make his administration transparent. Instead, he fell back on what bush started and decided to be a hypocrite.
Surely you understand this as a neocon troll, no?
"This administration will run on a platform of transparency!" Every other president to ever hold office
We can't just keep blaming Obama for everything it's the party system that makes us hate the president Obama has come up short of some promises, every president in history has come up short in promises because winning is impossible without lying
""This administration will run on a platform of transparency!" Every other president to ever hold office"
Yeah, that's not true.
"Winning is impossible without lying
Please don't vote
Lol! Who have you ever voted for that didn't get caught in a lie?? (Unless you're like me and vote third party and independent)
I do. They aren't perfect either but certainly better than the dem/repub disasters
I vote third party because of all the bullshit, but I also rather enjoy having the high ground of never having voted for the guy everyone is complaining about!
Remember when Obama promised the most open and transparent administration in history, and then proceeded immediately to actually enact the least open and transparent administration in history?
Third paragraph, first sentence: "The ruling stems from a lawsuit that began before the obama administration took office..."
Remember when republicans followed orders from judges and didn't claim states rights? I didn't think so.
Rotavele, proving every day that hindsight is not always 20/20.
I can remember those times. I can also remember criticizing Bush for being a supporter of big government.
The fact remains that Obama has kept the opposite of his promise.
This arrogant, naive, ideological administration needs to do things in secret "for our own good" even though they couldn't successfully run a lemonade stand at the equator.
Democrats, really? Imagine president George W. Bush and vote again!
18% of democrats...
You know 23% of republicans think Obama was a 9/11 hijacker right?
About 40 more vote than (R)s, but those guys don't bother you, just the liberal yes votes...
Statement: "USA is a democracy."
Corrected: "USA is an oligarchy."
Founded to be a republic, until liberals took power.
It isn't just liberals, m8. Bush brought us the Patriot Act and NSA spying, after all. It is simple government corruption, and... well, oligarchialism (is that a word?). A matter of authoritarian policy as opposed to left vs right.
Though I do not disagree with your statement, a great deal of moder-day liberal politicians are idiots. (But then again, a vast majority of american politicians are spineless mouthpieces for banks and corporations, sadly.)
^^^ and we have a winner
Depends on what it is.
It's not like they represent the people or anything...
Yes but only for certain classified information, like Bill and Monica's "meetings," BO's Allah prayer sessions, or GW's etch-a-sketch drawings.
Transparency has it limits but strongly believe in a need to know basis. We don't need to know when it comes to National Security. Tell us and you tell the world, that's not smart diplomacy.
...Can we restart our government yet?
It'll take 6 years or tremendous amounts of bloodshed, but yes.
what's the point of even having it then ?
No, no part of the government should be. Any and all activities involving the people's business, from back room conversations to publications should be recorded and made available to the public, with a very few exceptions based on national security.
1% of "Libertarians" on this app read it as "Librarian".
On every issue here weeds out the people who don't know what it means to be libertarian
So long as the presidency is an elected office the people who vote have a right to information to oversee their delegate.
Freedom of information act requests are reviewed and classified information is not released because it can harm National Security, but you can still submit the request and the Whitehouse still has to review and respond to the request.
Absolutely, positively, NOT... unless it is unmitigated National Security, not *everything* "classied" like this Admin has done. Sneaky 12-yr-old style.
I'm reminded of one o' the great irony's of my life: President Obama awarded the Transparency Award at the Freedom of Information Day Conference, while all media was locked out. This was never placed on Obama's calendar, there are no pictures, video,
...or even a transcript of this event. This award is not even mentioned on the White House website dedicated to its own transparency! My answer here is "No", but IMHO, the White House exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act long ago...
Someone's been jacking with your photo. I see my dad in it.
I always knew you were a princess!
I didn't expect him in that suit. Now I wanna watch Ghostbusters.
Hey Oke, check this out...
House should get what it needs and Hilly Should wear prison stripes. 😇
Information is Classified for a reason. It's called National Security.
It's not all national security.
Slick, and you believe that justification? Keep the blinders on, my friend, your government has your best interest in mind, don't worry, keep moving on, nothing to question...
Freedom of Information requests for classified data are reviewed and returned "denied, reason:material is classified".
Woah woah woah. Classified information that remains classified after a FOIA request is ALWAYS exempt from release. Not talking about classified.
You should review the FOIA. What you said has nothing to do with the issue.
Why 18% of democrats?
That's a misunderstanding. See the various replies to above.
24% of republicans thought Obama flew a plane into the twin towers. (I guess God revived him? Idk)
Don't confuse the majority for the Minorities ideas.
Rota, if you're going to make up stats, the trick is to make them remotely believable.
No one is above the law. Not even the White House.
Absolutely not. With the exception of documents and info that are vital to national security against imminent and great threats to the country, everything done in public office as a public official should be available for public information and view.
Given the Administration's vociferous war on whistleblowers and investigative journalism, this is totally unsurprising. GWB was terrible when it came to transparency, but Obama is even worse. Don't expect the next administration to be any better.
Black = white
Up = down
0bama = smart
Transparent = opaque
They're transparent alright! You see nothing except smoke and mirrors.
OK, 21% of Democrats, please defend your position that the white house should be exempt (remembering a Democrat may not be occupying said house in the future).
There is a democrat in the White House is their reasoning or lack there of.
No exemptions should exist, except for national security of course. We have a right to know what our government is up to.
What? Of course not. That's exactly the sort of thing for which the FOI act exists.
"Most transparent admin. in history"
One more lie.
There needs to be a balance between transparency and executive privilege. FOIA seems to strike that balance quite well by giving the public a right to know subject to some government redaction of important information related to defense or privacy.
Presidents, not kings
"Most transparent administration."
It's transparent alright. Transparently racist, Marxist, anti-American, pro-radical Islam, and anti-Israel.
Then name a more transparent administration.
You only wanted one, right?
Now can you name an administration that hasn't kept any secrets?
In other words, you were beat in round one. Now, you want to change the rules of the fight into something I'm not even fighting for.
I know, man.
This administration couldn't be any more transparent.
SF ... there are miles between no secret and transparent. Has MrO kept his promise to have a transparent administration -- in the context of the Bush administration -- which was MrO's promise?
What happened to bills being on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote? Oops...
SF ... Wrong, MrO has failed to keep his promise of a transparent administration.
you're a joke.
Deflect blame from Obama ALWAYS.
I don't care if you disagree. Are you able to act like an adult and not attack someone for having an opinion you don't share?
Tex ... has MrO kept his promise to be the most transparent administration?
How does the Supreme Court excuse MrO's lie?
@think - I'm laughing because you told me your perspective before you heard mine.
I think mr o as you call him, The President of the USA, has to think about the office. I don't think it's transparent. That's not good. Scotus gave him the option.
Tex ... why would I have thought you'd answer the question honestly ... silly me!
What part was not honest. I do think part of the struggle all presidents have is they have to think about the office. I do think this change is not good.
Scotus' ruling gave him the option... It happened.
Tex ... you see, it's really very simple. He lied. You excuse his lies, hiding behind the Supreme Court.
He didn't lie. I knew that's what you wanted me to say. He didn't.
It's funny that if you don't like my answer, you think I'm not answering the question.
Tex ... the problem that you Obama Lemmings have is that MrO's lies are on tape ... listen and weep ...
Tex ... in your desperation, you overlooked the fact that you haven't asked a question.
At the same time, it's curious that you -- the one who hasn't answered my questions would attempt to assign your failing to me.
Hint: a question ends with a "?"
@think - don't assume I'm not aware. I pay attention. I know that this is not lying. Every candidate says things that don't match up to action bc they don't know what's really happening and what the laws really are. Life's not simplistic.
I also don't hate Obama so I don't jump to an extreme position. I've seen many presidents and he's better than the last and most.
Tex ... I don't assume anything -- especially not with uber leftists like you. MrO lied. The video I just shared shows several commitments that he made that he's totally failed to deliver. He railed against Mr Bush and has done FAR worse!
He's still president. Maybe your question may be more relevant in 2 years...
Tex ... so you now admit what you denied earlier, that you lied about answering my question. That's progress!
Nancy Pelosi would be so proud of you with your ... we have to have a full 8years before we know what's in MrO's presidency! Pathetic!
Yes. The prezidency is a political office and so there's politics interwoven into every discussion. They have a right to discuss their politics privately. We don't have a right to staffers' email about whether the prez should attend netanyahu's speec
Their internal discussions really shouldn't be open to inspection. The fruit of their work, however, including policy, regulations, proposal for law, are and should continue to be the focus of scrutiny and debate.
Clearly not everything needs to be available to the public immediately, but anything that does not jeopardize national security should, and old thing should as soon as they no longer jeopardize it.
So much for transparency.
I say no, but everyone knows what administration started this precedent, correct?
Yes, but that's irrelevant as it doesn't excuse this guy.
Your guy did promise to be more transparent than was Bush's administration, BTW. This makes him a liar too.
Did Bush promise to be transparent?
My guy? Gary Johnson did no such thing!
They want to be excluded because of course they have something to hide
No, they should not be.