Transparency and the Rule of Law...

[MobBoss]

Lets open with a quote from President Obama from a speech on 21 January 2009:

I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

Emphasis mine. That being said, how do we reconcile these comments with this:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

The vote ended an extraordinary daylong hearing that took place after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the panel investigating Fast and Furious. The White House move means the Department of Justice can withhold some of the documents.

Emphasis mine once more. Is this a broken promise per se? A direct reversal of his earlier comments about transparancy where he says 'information will not be withheld just because he says so' because that is precisely what is occurring right now.

How do you feel about the use of executive privilege in this case? Necessary or wasted attempt at damage control?

Discuss.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Depends on what it is.

 

[emzie]

Obama is a politician. More at 11.

 

[Ajidica]

What contre said. While not desirable, it is understandable that the President will use their executive privilage if needed.

 

[MobBoss]

What contre said. While not desirable, it is understandable that the President will use their executive privilage if needed.

Even if said President said he would never do such a thing?

 

[timtofly]

Even if said President said he would never do such a thing?

Especially if he said he would.

 

[MobBoss]

Especially if he said he would.

I cant help but think if this had been a republican president that did this negative comments would be flying all over the place.

 

[Ajidica]

I would like to point out what Obama said was "we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel". From the CNN article you linked to "Voting on strictly partisan lines, a House committee recommended Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the botched Fast and Furious weapons sting operation."

From what I can gather from the article (because I haven't been following this issue at all) this is not a case of Obama insisting on executive privilage for the sake of executive privilage on his whim alone. Rather, he is working with the AG in his exercise of executive privilage.
While I feel he should not be using executive privilage unless the information is critical to national security, I'm not seeing anything particularly at odds with his earlier statement outside of Obama acting more pragmatic than idealistic.

 

[DinoDoc]

Speculation time. Since the privilege applies to the President alone, how involved do you think the White House was in the Vin Diesel homage?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Even if said President said he would never do such a thing?

He didn't state that at all by your own use of bold above:

Information will not be withheld just because I say so.

Do you have any proof that he was the only one who wanted to withhold it?

From what I can gather from the article (because I haven't been following this issue at all) this is not a case of Obama insisting on executive privilage for the sake of executive privilage on his whim alone. Rather, he is working with the AG in his exercise of executive privilage.
While I feel he should not be using executive privilage unless the information is critical to national security, I'm not seeing anything particularly at odds with his earlier statement outside of Obama acting more pragmatic than idealistic.

Indeed. This is just more partisan nonsense which is appearing on various websites which spout the Republican line.

 

[Berzerker]

Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

presidents dont know whats up, they do as told - and apparently the exec branch doesn't wanna jeopardize connections and/or ongoing plans

 

[History_Buff]

In fairness to the guy, this does look like a law and order, criminal investigation type of thing. While it certainly appears bungled at this point, are parts of it perhaps still ongoing?


If all this wrapped up a while ago, then that's very messed up. Though if it makes you feel any better, we're having a much worse time of it up here with our Prime Minister.

 

[MobBoss]

I would like to point out what Obama said was "we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel". From the CNN article you linked to "Voting on strictly partisan lines, a House committee recommended Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the botched Fast and Furious weapons sting operation."

From what I can gather from the article (because I haven't been following this issue at all) this is not a case of Obama insisting on executive privilage for the sake of executive privilage on his whim alone. Rather, he is working with the AG in his exercise of executive privilage.
While I feel he should not be using executive privilage unless the information is critical to national security, I'm not seeing anything particularly at odds with his earlier statement outside of Obama acting more pragmatic than idealistic.

Except that the White House has previously denied any knowledge or involvement of this issue ongoing in the AGs office. Prior to this they have been trying to distance themselves from all the fallout ongoing in this fiasco.

Dont you think it a bit disengenuous of the AG to request Obama exert executive privilage on an issue he is being personally held accountable for? Seems a conflict in ethics to me.

Do you have any proof that he was the only one who wanted to withhold it?

Its HIS to invoke. Not anyone elses. How can it be invoked without his 'say so'?

Answer: it cant.

 

[Ajidica]

As I said, I haven't been following the issue at all so take my comments with a grain of salt if I get some facts wrong.
That out of the way, to answer your question I don't find it to be a conflict in ethics. If the files Obama has used executive privilage on at the request of Holder contain information that could be life threatening to operatives then it certiantly is not a conflict of interest. When it comes to executive privilage on files about ongoing/very recent operations that do not immediately show signs of illegal activity or reasonable suspicion that those files contain illegal activities, I tend to give the president then benefit of the doubt.
Honestly, from my point of view it seems like you are trying to make a mountain out of a half finished mole-hill the mole gave up on because there wasn't enough dirt there.

 

[MobBoss]

Ajidica, that information was being requested by a select panel of congress....i.e. politicians of the highest security in the nation. If you cant trust them with such information, then you cant trust anyone.

This isnt an issue about turning over sensitive information - its about turning over information thats damning of the AGs office and in turn the administration.

And if you havent been paying attention to the american press lately, this has definitely gotten larger than simple mole-hill status. I'm merely re-iterating the part of the issue revolving around Obamas promise to be transparent, which is has obviously broken.

What I really dont get is why people on the left arent more upset over it. Are they so partisan as they really will turn a blind eye in deference to the 'hopey changy' President?

 

[Berzerker]

abolish the atf and end the drug war, problems solved

 

[emzie]

I always liked the, "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a store, not a government agency" t-shirts.

 

[El_Machinae]

The exceptionally worrying bit is

Voting on strictly partisan lines, a House committee recommended Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress

Whether or not there should be a criminal investigation and charges was decided entirely on partisan lines? Entirely?

 

[JollyRoger]

One of the bolded items in the OP gives the answer. "Just because I say so" creates a fairly easy loophole.

 

[Ajidica]

Ajidica, that information was being requested by a select panel of congress....i.e. politicians of the highest security in the nation. If you cant trust them with such information, then you cant trust anyone.

This isnt an issue about turning over sensitive information - its about turning over information thats damning of the AGs office and in turn the administration.

And if you havent been paying attention to the american press lately, this has definitely gotten larger than simple mole-hill status. I'm merely re-iterating the part of the issue revolving around Obamas promise to be transparent, which is has obviously broken.

What I really dont get is why people on the left arent more upset over it. Are they so partisan as they really will turn a blind eye in deference to the 'hopey changy' President?

If that is the issue, why did you start a thread that looked like a rather pissy political snipe-fest?