Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne what an extraordinaraly weak argument. The use of Source Watch here is indeed instructive. And that site you linked to was like a bad version of wikipedia. You toss out a bad site and expect to be taken seriously?
No more seriously than your source, which was the point. I believe you are presenting a double standard or a hypocritical position at best.
SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.
Your source is from the polar opposite end of the presented spectrum, yet we are supposed to take it at face value for what reason? I know the FOIA attack often used by the conservative groups all too well. The deniers use it to attack the climate scientists by tying up resources and time. In fact, this organization shares funding sources for those denier groups.
The EPA is hiding its activities from the public. This is not the first time they have tried to do so. Landmark Legal is completely within its rights to file in any court in the land regarding this issue. This fact is indisputable. Refusing to comply with the law is refusing to comply with the law regardless of who is doing it. Hiding your activities from public view does not foster public trust. That is the main Achilles heal of the environmentalist movement. This fact is true here in the United States or in East Anglia. If you want to continue to support a big mistake please feel free. You understand that defending an organization who is not complying with the law is not in your best interest. The instant you attempt to defend lawlessness you are treading on a path that most don't wish to follow and you expose yourself for who and what you are. The Freedom of Information Act was passed by Congress, signed by the President and is the law of this land. So if you don't like that and wish to support the ability of government to conceal dealings from the American people step out into the light and change the law. Stand up and be counted for allowing the government conduct business in secret. Stand up for government acting in the best interest of the people or not because who knows the people can't tell what's going on. Stand up for allowing the government to conduct back room deals instead of the transparency we were promised. So as a classic leftist you argue to evade the law. To step around its bindings. To chip away at the Constitution. Nothing in written law binds you. Ideas from 200 years ago are irrelevant. We are the new modern thinkers. Really? How wonderful for you.
The law is often misused by those with an agenda and money to hire teams of attorneys to find ways to do so. To try to cloak such actions in patriotism is an affront to the term.
But until that happens the EPA is breaking the law described in the Freedom Of Information Act. And there is no legal or moral high ground from which to argue the contrary.
Of course there is. Opposing a misuse of the law has a moral high ground all of its own. Unless you believe Rosa Parks had no such moral high ground.