The Enemies List

A whole lot of Righty bloggers are having a whole lot of fun with the White House's new enemies list, which is also being called the snitch program. Many of them have gleefully turned themselves in and posted their submissions online.

I'm not feeling so cavalier about it. I have not done so (though I'm certain it's just a matter of time until a disgruntled Obot reader does it for me), and I don't plan to. While I have absolutely no problem declaring my opposition to Obamacare (obviously), I think that this list is a big warning sign of underhandedness down the road. Remember when the Obama campaign publicized a big announcement -- I think it was who his VP selection was, but I don't recall for certain -- and said that anyone who signed up their e-mail address would get the announcement first? Guess how that turned out? The e-mail list didn't, in fact, get the big news first...but from then on those e-mail addresses have been bombarded with campaign commercials, requests for donations, and rah-rah rally-the-troops messages. I know - I'm on that list, and I get those messages all the time.

So, I'm pretty damned sure Obama's doing this for a reason, though we don't necessarily know what the reason is yet. I'm not alone:

The White House request that members of the public report anyone who is spreading "disinformation" about the proposed national health care makeover could lead to a White House database of political opponents that will be both secret and permanent, according to Republican lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are examining the plan's possible implementation.

Senate Judiciary Committee lawyers studying the proposal say that although there is no absolutely settled law on the matter, the White House plan is likely not covered by the Privacy Act, which prohibits government agencies from keeping any records "describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained." Therefore, it appears the White House can legally keep records of the emails and other communications it receives in response to Phillips' request.

Those lawyers also point out that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means it would not have to release any information on the plan to members of the public who make a request.

In addition, the lawyers say the collected emails likely will be covered by the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve and maintain its records for permanent storage in a government database. Phillips' request suggests that whatever information the White House receives on health-care reform "disinformation" will be used to further the goal of passing a national health-care makeover, which is, of course, one of the president's main policy initiatives. Such material, and whatever the White House does with it, would qualify as presidential records. Only after more than a decade would such records be publicly available.

"So the White House, whether by design or accident, has requested information from the public that will become 'records' under the Presidential Records Act, yet would be impermissible for any government to otherwise collect under the Privacy Act," writes one Judiciary Committee source. "Where were the lawyers in all of this? What is their legal basis for authorizing the collection of these records?"

Well, they probably helped craft the program! We know Obama doesn't feel any particular obligation to follow the law when it becomes inconvenient, so why would he worry about an instance where there is no settled law at all? In fact, I suspect the White House lawyers worked hard to put him in exactly this legal position.

Here's a clip from a press conference in which Gibbs is asked some very good questions, and fumbles the answers:

I particularly liked Major Garrett asking why the White House wants this information if they're also saying they're not going to do anything with it. Did you notice that of the three or four really good questions in there that Gibbs didn't fully and openly answer any of them?

Why not? What are they hiding? I suspect we'll find out in time, and that we won't like the answer.

There's my two cents.