Comments on: It's nice to share. Cheney sued over not releasing VP documents to the public.

It's nice to share. Cheney sued over not releasing VP documents to the public.

rokabiri — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:39:38 -0800

The Society of American Archivists, American Historical Association, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are suing Vice President Dick Cheney for not transferring the vast majority of his records to the National Archives and Record Administration for eventual release to the public.

Cheney argues that he does not need to make his records public since he is not part of the executive branch but rather a 'barnacle on the legislative branch'. CREW's chief counsel, Anne Wiseman, cites the Presidential Records Act in the case against him.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:51:51 -0800

NO AUTHOR FOUND NO BACKLINK FOUND "Cheney argues that he does not need to make his records public since he is not part of the executive branch but rather a 'barnacle on the legislative branch'." s/barnacle/cancer/

By: beelzbubba

beelzbubba — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:54:50 -0800

Heh. I read the first link as "Society of American Anarchists," and wondered what their connection was to Darth Cheney.

By: rokabiri

rokabiri — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:55:24 -0800

Doh! I was too hasty.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:58:27 -0800

Wikipedia: Barnacles are of economic consequence as they often attach themselves to man-made structures, sometimes to the structure's detriment. Particularly in the case of ships, they are classified as fouling organisms. Go Steve. I hope my former district votes to keep you around.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:03:29 -0800

Barnacles increase fuel usage, have a crusty shell, are hermaphroditic (can f*ck neighbors), are regarded as a pest, and are spineless.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:11:01 -0800

Interestingly, there was a fire in Cheney's ceremonial office late last year.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:11:59 -0800

You need to scrape barnacles off your ship more than once every eight years. Drag that thing into drydock and get to work. No wonder we're listing so badly.

By: Chuffy

Chuffy — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:17:17 -0800

Good luck with that. Neocon breaks law. Progressive blusters and demands investigation. Neocon eats breakfast. Nothing happens. Group sues. Neocon calls up buddy judge. Case dismissed, nothing to see here. Progressive blusters and demands change in Washington. Neocon has beer with dinner. Lather, rinse, repeat.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:24:14 -0800

Barnacles they are anthropods That affix themselves to man-mades facades; They belong to the infraclass Cirripedia -- Or such are the claims of the liberal media; They are in the subphylum Crustacea And excrete amonia and urea; They are sessile suspension feeders -- It's the sort of thing we want from all our leaders; Each has an impermeable calcite shell For in desiccated zones barnacles dwell; Their sessile lives make reproduction hard But Marjorie and Richard Herbert produced Richard; He rose to preside in the White House halls Making him a legend among barnacles; Of fouling organisms, there are many But there is only one Richard Cheney.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:31:41 -0800

A 'barnacle on the legislative branch'? I'm looking forward to him to become a fly, splattered on the windshield of justice.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:38:49 -0800

Chuffy writes "Lather, rinse, repeat." No, keep going! We're almost there. More lathering, rinsing, repeating. A few decades pass. Country arrives at Brazil-style income gap between enormous mobs of poor and hungry and tiny group of fabulously wealthy. Neocons are shocked to find themselves first against wall when revolution comes.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:39:28 -0800

mullingitover writes "NO AUTHOR FOUND NO BACKLINK FOUND" sorry about that

By: Lacking Subtlety

Lacking Subtlety — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:42:09 -0800

Maybe he's just fond of those records

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:03:40 -0800

You don't fuck with archivists.

By: Slap Factory

Slap Factory — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:03:45 -0800

Cheney argues that he does not need to make his records public since he is not part of the executive branch but rather a 'barnacle on the legislative branch'. The linked article doesn't say that Vice President Cheney is arguing that.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:12:34 -0800

From the first article: Vice President Cheney has said he does not have to make his papers public after leaving office because he is not part of the executive branch. In fairness, Cheney himself has never claimed to be a barnacle.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:28:21 -0800

Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. Dick Cheney is the most influential and powerful man ever to hold the office of vice president. This special report examines Cheney's largely hidden and little-understood role in crafting policies on national security, the economy and the environment.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:03:34 -0800

None of these groups have standing to sue. And they know it. This is a stunt.

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:17:31 -0800

The fire in Cheney's office closet? That was the shredder burning out. He's since got a weekly on-site contract with Iron Mountain through (who else) Halliburton.

By: Inkoate

Inkoate — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:53:05 -0800

None of these groups have standing to sue. If none of those groups can come up with a reason that's at least as good as Massachusetts' in Mass v. EPA, they don't have very imaginative lawyers...

By: Bathtub Bobsled

Bathtub Bobsled — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:33:43 -0800

Why don't we just shoot him?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:48:36 -0800

Palin's Stonewalling Of Troopergate Previews A Third Cheney Term Of Secrecy And Loyalty

By: LarryC

LarryC — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:54:35 -0800

Do not mess with historians nor archivists because we will kick your ass.

By: IvoShandor

IvoShandor — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:03:14 -0800

None of these groups have standing to sue. And they know it. This is a stunt. Seems to me they do. The law enforcers they (we) hired have decided that a number of laws (including this one) doesn't apply to them. Congress sits on its hands. Some people decide to do something, maybe force a branch of the government to actually perform some of the checks and balances they should be doing anyway and obviously it must be a stunt? No one is allowed to care about America or the Constitution or open government, that would be un-American. The terrorists will have won one, and not for the Gipper. My outrage meter used to go off at stuff like this, but now I realize that this is what people really want. Well fuck it then, everything is a stunt, everyone is a liar, and we're all doomed.

By: Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

Marisa Stole the Precious Thing — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:17:28 -0800

None of these groups have standing to sue. And they know it. This is a stunt. Yes, it's viral marketting to promote those crafty archivists.

By: aldus_manutius

aldus_manutius — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:49:12 -0800

Do not mess with historians nor archivists because we will kick your ass. ...and then we will quietly hide the evidence of our involvement in said ass-kicking so that only we know where the records are ... Yes, it's viral marketting to promote those crafty archivists. Yep. That's it ... the Archivist Strike Force has been activated, as per the General Alarum sounded at the recent SAA meeting last month, and is now going on the offensive. GIVE US YOUR RECORDS! OR ELSE! WE ARE THE ANARCHIVISTS!

By: box

box — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:38:25 -0800

Anarchivists.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:44:32 -0800

Seems to me they do. Let me explain. For a party to initiate a lawsuit, they must have standing to sue. This means that a party must have a link to the action and must show that they personally will be harmed by the law or action in question. These types of suits have been shot down so many times that counsel for the organizations in question damn well know they are initiating an action that will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I hate Cheney, disagree with his policy on this and many other matters, but these organizations have no standing and thus should not be bringing this matter to the courts.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:49:34 -0800

If none of those groups can come up with a reason that's at least as good as Massachusetts' in Mass v. EPA, they don't have very imaginative lawyers... In that case there was a cognizable harm--the loss of land to the state due to rising sea levels. What do you see here as the cogzniable harm or the link to the action?

By: IvoShandor

IvoShandor — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:43:09 -0800

Let me explain. So then, what option is one left with when the law enforcers refuse to abide by the law they are supposed to enforce? Should we just call the police? I wish that would work.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:02:52 -0800

Judge Rules Cheney Must Preserve Records