It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney doesn't have to disclose the advice his energy task force got from the industry

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
What a suprise in the news today... Cheney doesn't have to disclose anything about his energy policy meeting, you know, the one where they had maps of Iraq layed out on a table long before the invasion of Iraq began. Hmmmm, right about the same time PNAC siad we needed another Pearl harbor wasn't it? Well, it's probably a good thing Cheney doesn't ahve to tell us anything about his war driven energy policy, because it would be grounds for impeachment, which would leave George in charge and he's busy anyway. Anyway, this where I put my little two cents in before linking to a story that makes me sick frankly, that's my take on this one.

Makes me sick...


www.charter.net...
Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't have to disclose the advice his energy task force got from the industry, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in what probably was a final blow to a politically charged lawsuit over public access to White House decision making.

The task force met in 2001 and produced pro-industry recommendations for sweeping energy legislation now before Congress. The Bush administration fought hard to keep the panel's workings secret, arguing that public disclosure would make it difficult for any White House to solicit candid advice on important policy issues.


In other words, your three trillion dollars a year doesn't have to tell you shatola about how it gets spent or what it gets spent on, just keep sending in those tax forms and get back to work, because "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Hmmm... now here's a real conspiracy and yet so few replies, not surprising. In these murky times the silent majority prefers opacity in government where dark designs can germinate out of sight - out of mind. Who wants to entertain the thought that Kenneth Lay was at the helm navigating the national currents of energy policy? Certainly would be a fatal hole in his lifeboat (& jolly roger) as the raider goes down. Here's the response from Judicial Watch who together with Sierra Club brought the suit.


A U.S. District Court ordered the Vice President and the NEPDG to respond to Judicial Watch’s discovery requests for records and information about the Energy Task Force meetings, including the names of participants. The Bush administration refused to comply. After the Appellate Court refused to intervene, the administration appealed the U.S. Supreme Court, which last April refused to dismiss the case, but sent it back to the Appellate Court for further review.

The Appellate Court today ruled against any discovery related to the make up of the Energy Task Force or its committees and dismissed the suit. According to the court, the open meetings law does not apply even if an outsider participates in or influences an advisory committee, but only if the outsider actually “votes” as a member of the committee or “vetoes” the committee’s recommendations. The court further ruled that statements provided by administration officials were sufficient evidence, by themselves, to conclude that no outsiders voted on or vetoed the task force’s recommendation on energy policy.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “The court’s ruling is without any basis in the text of the open meetings law and is contrary to the intent of the law, which is to allow broad public participation in certain types of meetings between government officials and private lobbyists. Further, it means that, going forward, the public will simply have to take the word of the government that no outsiders are improperly influencing the decisions of their government.

“The American people have a right to know whether lobbyists became de facto members of the Energy Task Force, which helped to write our nation’s energy policies. Today’s decision means that now the public may never know the truth about how these policies were formulated.”


www.judicialwatch.org...

The motley crew of Renquist,Scalia & Thomas diverted our Bon Homme Richard down the perilous straits of the appellate to meet it's fiery demise.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Unfortunately this is exactly the type of decisions that will be forthcoming as the both approved and proposed federal bench appointees come on line in the weeks ahead.
The lack of posts in reply, I think really reflects the exsasperation felt by everyone in the nation that isn't hoodwinked by this administration and their tricks and slight of hand.
Virtually all of the top posts from President on down are held by executives of the energy industry. Likewise a review of appointees to the federal benches of the last ten years will reveal that they are former attorneys to that industry.
Don't act like this is a new thing. It has been going on for years. It will continue because the control of energy and information is the true key to power. These are two things that all other industries can not do without and must cowtow to those that control it.
This is simply a consolidation of that power.
What would you have people do? Armed revolt? I don't think anyone has the balls for that as long as the economic outlook is as good as is "appears" to be. It isn't as good as it seems, but guess who controls the information?
This type of thing shouldn't come as a blind sided blow to any student of politics or economic design.
As un-patriotic as it sounds, the terrorists missed their chance to make a real difference on the last inaugural eve. The whole crew, both politicos and industrial biggies were in one place. Of course I mean that toungue in cheek. I don't really advocate that type of thing.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This is all a bunch of bull. It's nothing but flames being fanned by liberals. One of the rights of the President and the Vice President that MUST be protected at all costs, is their right to seek advice off the record. How can we expect anyone to give their honest opinions and advice to our President and Vice President when they have to worry about it being documented and released to the public?

Although there may be wrongdoing here, we can't burn the house down just to kill a roach. Regardless of the party in office, the right of the Executive Branch to seek counsel without impunity or disclosure must be protected at all costs. And can someone please remind me why it is that we care what advice Cheney got from the industry for this energy policy that hasn't even come to vote to begin with???



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
This is all a bunch of bull. It's nothing but flames being fanned by liberals. One of the rights of the President and the Vice President that MUST be protected at all costs, is their right to seek advice off the record. How can we expect anyone to give their honest opinions and advice to our President and Vice President when they have to worry about it being documented and released to the public?

Although there may be wrongdoing here, we can't burn the house down just to kill a roach. Regardless of the party in office, the right of the Executive Branch to seek counsel without impunity or disclosure must be protected at all costs. And can someone please remind me why it is that we care what advice Cheney got from the industry for this energy policy that hasn't even come to vote to begin with???

I agree with the point you make Rasputin.
The administration and anyone it designates should have the right to seek counsel and advice frome anyone it chooses without that advice, having to be part of the public record.
However I don't think that the seeking of advice is what bothers people here, be they liberals or conservatives, if we have to resort to that type of labeling.
I didn't agree with the previous' administration and Hillary's little foray in a behind closed doors, attempt to develop a national healthcare agenda. For the same reason.
I think what bothers people the most is the attempt to make this look like a Vice-President that was simply looking for advice. The American people are easily lead and duped but not so naive to think that this Vice President was in anyway out of the loop with regards to the energy industry. These guys, including the top folks in this administration are intimately connected to that industry. The energy industry now has as major players in American political offices, some of it's most influential executives and lobbyists. I'm not saying that's a terrible thing. Everyone has to work in some kind of industry. But to pretend that this vice president needed to be brought up to speed is simply a fabrication.
This was not just a fact finding probe. This was a gathering of industry executives that were meeting to map policy. And even if it wasn't that. The look of impropriety was there and that is what really made people upset. Just like it did with little Hillary.
To say that this was just a fact finding excursion is like saying that the civil war was just about states rights and slavery wasn't part of the equation Saying something is something, doesn't make it so.
All of our politicians on both sides of the aisle need to have more due diligence toward the way the things they do, are percieved. That would go along way toward increasing public confidence. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I find it interesting that nobody is screaming about "activist judges" on this decision. hmmm?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Gools,
This sentence is just to make the post long enough for me to say....
TOUCHE'



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
But Gools, the courts always make the right decison.

Mwahahahaha!!!! Anyways, no republicans care, it's their god doing what he wants to do.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Only an activist judge would rule that the White House would have to disclose private conversations just getting off-the-record advice... :shk:



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Maybe everyone should know a little something something about the judge

Judge A. Raymond Randolph - eh?
Let's look him up. Appointed by shrub in 1990. Pal of Microsoft in the celebrated anti-trust case of 2001.
Judges poised to rule on Microsoft 31 May, 2001, 22:10 GMT 23:10 UK --Microsoft's fate hangs in the balance as a Court of Appeal considers whether to overturn the break-up order. A ruling is thought to be imminent and BBC News Online's Kevin Anderson in Washington takes a look at the judges making the decision...
In 1998, two judges on the appeals court ruled that Microsoft did not violate a consent decree when it bundled its Internet Explorer web browser with Windows. In that case, Judge Stephen Williams, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, and Judge Raymond Randolph, appointed by George Bush in 1990, ruled that Microsoft did not illegally "tie" the browser to its market-dominant operating system.

...And SAY! what do you know?

He is with the George Mason University
Law and Economics Center - funded by Exxon!

George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Say Hey! Its good being a judge!

Additional source: Antitrust Law & Economics Review Vol. 25, No. 2, Judicial Seminars: Economics, Academia, and Corporate Money In America --by Nan Aron, Barbara Moulton, and Chris Owens '6 Mornings Per Week' "Although closely affiliated with GMU [George Mason University], the Law and Economics Center is run independently and is supported entirely by private donations. Corporate interests provide a significant share of the Center's funding.

In 1991, for example, when the Center spent $380,000 in 'direct' expenses for federal judges' seminars, 31% of the Center's total income of $967,917 came from corporate contributors. These donors included corporate giants Exxon, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, ITT, and Pfizer, Inc., the General Electric and Mobil Foundations, and the Monsanto Fund.

Most of the remainder of the Center's 1991 budget (65%) came from independent foundations, including Olin, Bradley, and Scaife, which have been key players in efforts to mold a jurisprudence more favorable to business interests. The Center's basic 'economics institute' for federal judges is held once a year, spans a two-week period and is designed to familiarize participants with the fundamental tools of microeconomic theory." [Note: See original article for footnotes/references within '6 Mornings Per Week.']

A. Raymond Randolph serves on the Advisory Board of George Mason University Law and Economics Center.



Cheney won't tell us what he talked about with his energy buddies because the conversation went something like

"well how do we get the Iraqi oil wells?"

"oh don't worry we have something planned in september that will guarantee a profitable future for everyone in the room"



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Rasputin13, seeking advice is one thing, planning a war is another entirely. This was no ordinary energy policy meeting, and, ncie try, but this wasn't some advice gathering rap session with industry, this was a meeting to determine our energy policies, at which there were maps of Iraq laid out indicating oil fields and toehr points of interest. This was no energy policy meeting, this was a conspiracy to lead us to war in the interests of private coporations. they lied to congress, mandated and in many cases fabricated, faulty intelligence, and lied to congress in order to appropriate it. Which makes the details of this meeting evidence in a growing case against the Bush Administration.




top topics



 
0

log in

join