Centerfield

You know, I have sympathy for Bush on this one. The problem with recording all emails and making them subpoena-able is that it allows no scope for getting broad advice on many ideas.

Me too. It's (arguably) a direct assault on the executive privilege doctrine, and manufactures a target for abuse. So use the phone instead.

I sort of have sympathy for Bush here...

however, I lose all of that sympathy if in fact most of the Bush administration are using off-site email systems to conduct official business, as the linked post seems to imply. The reason for that is that off-site email systems are probably less secure than government email systems, meaning that a hacker in China (or anywhere for that matter) may be able to more easily access official email transcripts...hypothetically of course, and the subsequent release to the public of such email records may not be as well proteceted legally as official white house emails.

Again, I have no problem with not using email at all....phones, letters, etc work just fine. I do have a problem if they are using email, but just not official white house email.

Yup. there's clearly a catch-22 built in. Ideally, we'd think the public has every right to all the details of government actions conducted, but in reality, it's pretty obvious that it can quite easily be gum in the gears.

Without some protection for executive privilege, it's hard to execute.

US & Ga. Constitutional Right to Dredess Greivance's to Govt. Offic/r'(s): USA.gov "everyone for 15 min's a day?!" Georgiaspeaks.com Comments@WhiteHouse.gov & Fax #,
Snail Mail, zip+4 at USPS.gov "20050-0001"

Not to mention, as Pat points out at Stubborn Facts, how would you like to be held responsible for having seen, read, and so forth absolutely everything that hits your email account?

I have good screening software, but (very) unwanted stuff still slips through in fair volume. Would you like to have anything everyone ever sent you in email subject to being tagged to YOU? Including the spam?

That would suck. We would be assumed to have pen1ses in need of enlargement.

Both bre@sts AND pen1ses, with a few prescriptions to ease the surgery pain! Which could only be paid for with those really really low home loans, or the funds from that nice Nigerian oil minister....

"You know, I have sympathy for Bush on this one. The problem with recording all emails and making them subpoena-able is that it allows no scope for getting broad advice on many ideas."

Untrue. The subpoenas in no way infringe on the Executive Branch's ability get broad advice on many ideas. The subpoenas should, however, impede the Executive Branch's ability to take bad advice on bad ideas, run with them, and then attempt to conceal their actions.

Untrue. The subpoenas in no way infringe on the Executive Branch's
ability get broad advice on many ideas.

OK, let's suppose Bush woke up one day and thought maybe imprisoning schoolkids getting bad grades would be a good idea. Rove isn't in, so he sends an email to the Cabinet secretaries. The Dept of Education chief replies explaining to him why it's a really bad idea.

A week later, a Democratic staffer hears a rumor about his idea, and Congress ends up holding an investigation. The subpoena comes back, and the papers are full of this idea that he knew might be dumb. And yet, the idea wasn't implemented. Politicians have to live in fear of that sort of thing.

The subpoenas should, however, impede the Executive Branch's ability to take bad advice on bad ideas, run with them, and then attempt to conceal their actions.

True. I feel that the harm from subpoenoeing emails probably exceeds the benefit. It only takes one partially thought idea (like imprisoning illegal immigrants arbitrarily) to quickly overbalance the balance from the subpoenas.

In the Bush II Administration, so far, the take from White House investigation has been to show that Bush allowed one CIA employee to be hung out to dry. That was a gain, but if the hundreds of people could've been kept out of jail, IMHO that'd overbalance that gain.

Yeah, there was Watergate, but do note that came to light because many civil servants are decent people and will rat out truly evil behavior to the press. I believe that Nixon could've been held to account even without his tapes - there would've been offers to testify. It just would've taken longer.

Will phone messages be next and security cameras? I think email is fair target in the scope of an ongoing criminal investigation, not to see if one should be started. At this point it seems Democrats think that a suspected terrorist's email is more protected than Bush's.