Johnny Coli Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 From today's Boston Globe... Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement (The Globe web edition lets you read the first page of an article, then makes you log in sometimes, so I'll post the first few paragraphs. The whole thing is worth a read, if only to chuckle at while your civil liberties go into the toilet) (emphasis added by me) When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates. Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " Laughable. He doesn't "feel obliged" to even bother with following the freaking law. With a flick of the pen (behind closed doors, in secret, after everyone left the room, no less) Dubya get's to do whatever he wants, because he's the president, and under his interpretation he doesn't have to bother telling Congress what he's doing. Hey, but if you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't care, right? Open criticism just gives comfort to the enemy...who hates us for our freedoms...some of which we don't have anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 From today's Boston Globe...Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement (The Globe web edition lets you read the first page of an article, then makes you log in sometimes, so I'll post the first few paragraphs. The whole thing is worth a read, if only to chuckle at while your civil liberties go into the toilet) Laughable. He doesn't "feel obliged" to even bother with following the freaking law. With a flick of the pen (behind closed doors, in secret, after everyone left the room, no less) Dubya get's to do whatever he wants, because he's the president, and under his interpretation he doesn't have to bother telling Congress what he's doing. Hey, but if you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't care, right? Open criticism just gives comfort to the enemy...who hates us for our freedoms...some of which we don't have anymore. 641002[/snapback] I'm always surprised when a government that already has too much power seizes even more at their own behest. I'm even more surprised when liberals, who are eager to turn virtually everything over to a faceless bureaucracy, whine about same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 From today's Boston Globe...Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement (The Globe web edition lets you read the first page of an article, then makes you log in sometimes, so I'll post the first few paragraphs. The whole thing is worth a read, if only to chuckle at while your civil liberties go into the toilet) Laughable. He doesn't "feel obliged" to even bother with following the freaking law. With a flick of the pen (behind closed doors, in secret, after everyone left the room, no less) Dubya get's to do whatever he wants, because he's the president, and under his interpretation he doesn't have to bother telling Congress what he's doing. Hey, but if you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't care, right? Open criticism just gives comfort to the enemy...who hates us for our freedoms...some of which we don't have anymore. 641002[/snapback] There are terrorists and evil doers out there who want to kill Americans and take away our freedom. Wouldn't you rather have your President take away your freedom instead of some evil doer terrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 There are terrorists and evil doers out there who want to kill Americans and take away our freedom. Wouldn't you rather have your President take away your freedom instead of some evil doer terrorist? 641039[/snapback] That's quite the conundrum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 There are terrorists and evil doers out there who want to kill Americans and take away our freedom. Wouldn't you rather have your President take away your freedom instead of some evil doer terrorist? 641039[/snapback] No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 I'll tack this bit of irony on to this thread. Chief Justice Roberts appointed a new FISC judge. This is a replacement for the judge who resigned in protest over the NSA spying scandal...yes, the one where the Adminisation says it didn't need to notify the FISC to spy on, well, anyone. [u.S. District Judge John D.] Bates, a former Whitewater prosecutor, was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts in February to replace U.S. District Judge James Robertson, who quit shortly after news reports about the Bush administration going around the court to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens suspected of communicating with terrorists. My question is, what the hell's the point of even filling this vacancy? It's not like the FISC will ever get used by this administration. In fact, they've gone on record saying they don't have to use the FISC. Of course, it says he worked for Ken Starr on the Whitewater "investigation," so at least he's got experience getting paid for doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 I don't want to get another thread going about Bush abusing executive power, so I'll tack it onto this thread about Bush blowing off the new Patriot Act oversight requirement. (I actually would like to start another thread, but I've been kind of an a-hole lately and I'm about to leave for Maine for the weekend and I'm in a good mood). If anyone knows what abuse of presidential power is, it's former Nixon White House counsel and ex-con John Dean. He testified today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee looking into Russ Feingold's censure thingy. From the Boston Globe...(sorry fellas, nothing on Drudge or FOXNews to link to yet...) Testifying to a Senate committee on Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold's resolution to censure Bush, Dean said the president "needs to be told he cannot simply ignore a law with no consequences."[...] "To me, this is not really and should not be a partisan question," Dean told the panel. "I think it's a question of institutional pride of this body, of the Congress of the United States." Ah yes, "Institutional Pride." Wasn't Bush going to restore that at some point to the office of the President? Maybe he'll do that after the mid-term elections. On the other hand, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) doesn't think we ought to be bothering the president with trivial things like breaking the law during "wartime." But Hatch, R-Utah, said that passing a censure resolution would do more harm than good. "Wartime is not a time to weaken the commander-in-chief," he said. Nope. We should be giving him more power! Anyway, Rawstory has the transcript.... My qualifications for addressing the committee are more expertise than anyone might wish to have based on personal experience in how presidents can get themselves on the wrong side of the law. Obviously, I refer to my experiences at the Nixon White House during Watergate. That, as it happens, was the last time I testified before the Senate. As with my testimony today, that testimony was voluntarily given. I appear today because I believe, with good reason, that the situation is even more serious. In addition to my first-hand witnessing a president push his powers beyond the limits of the Constitution during my years as White House counsel from, 1970 to 1973, I have spent the past three plus decades studying presidents past and present. No presidency that I can find in history has adopted a policy of expanding presidential powers merely for the sake of expanding presidential powers. Presidents in the past who have expanded their powers have done so when pursuing policy objectives. It has been the announced policy of the Bush/Cheney presidency, however, from its outset, to expand presidential power for its own sake, and it continually searched for avenues to do just that, while constantly testing to see how far it can push the limits. I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self- righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'll tack this bit of irony on to this thread. Chief Justice Roberts appointed a new FISC judge. This is a replacement for the judge who resigned in protest over the NSA spying scandal...yes, the one where the Adminisation says it didn't need to notify the FISC to spy on, well, anyone. 641441[/snapback] As long as you like to present one side of the argument today, let's remind people that the administration had kept Colleen Kollar Kotelly (the head FISA judge) and Jay Rockefeller, head of Senate Intel Committee, informed of its actions throughout the wiretapping procedures. If this issue is so cut and dry illegal, why did these Democrat protectors of civil liberties sit quietly for two years, until NY Times saved the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 As long as you like to present one side of the argument today, let's remind people that the administration had kept Colleen Kollar Kotelly (the head FISA judge) and Jay Rockefeller, head of Senate Intel Committee, informed of its actions throughout the wiretapping procedures. If this issue is so cut and dry illegal, why did these Democrat protectors of civil liberties sit quietly for two years, until NY Times saved the world? 648811[/snapback] Perhaps because they are barred from bringing this issue to public light? My guess is that FISA judges are sworn not to discuss any intelligence matters they know, as is Sen. Rockefeller. We don't really know what official channels were open to them to speak up and whether they availed themselves to that - if they did it didn't get much traction. Funny how when the free press gets hold of this story and brings it to light (after sitting on it for a few years in the interests of national security) people start hopping - my guess is that may have been the only way to get any traction on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Perhaps because they are barred from bringing this issue to public light? My guess is that FISA judges are sworn not to discuss any intelligence matters they know, as is Sen. Rockefeller. We don't really know what official channels were open to them to speak up and whether they availed themselves to that - if they did it didn't get much traction. Funny how when the free press gets hold of this story and brings it to light (after sitting on it for a few years in the interests of national security) people start hopping - my guess is that may have been the only way to get any traction on it. 648964[/snapback] Well that's a mighty standard you hold one of the top US judges and an elected US senator to. My guess is that FISA judges are sworn not to discuss any intelligence matters they know, as is Sen. Rockefeller. Let's try this on for size " I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' Am I to surmise that there was an amendment to that oath that specified a proviso that " I shall take action against illegal acitivity only after New York Times has published the story?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Well that's a mighty standard you hold one of the top US judges and an elected US senator to. My guess is that FISA judges are sworn not to discuss any intelligence matters they know, as is Sen. Rockefeller. Let's try this on for size Am I to surmise that there was an amendment to that oath that specified a proviso that " I shall take action against illegal acitivity only after New York Times has published the story?" 649751[/snapback] That or the Washington Times, either way it makes it easier, nice high horse there though, how many hands, can't see that high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 That or the Washington Times, either way it makes it easier, nice high horse there though, how many hands, can't see that high? 649759[/snapback] Well, this certainly is precious. I take it someone is on a high horse in referencing the oath of office, but not on a high horse when referencing pundit reports about aleged illegal activity. Can someone please stick to a consistent argument? Did Bush admin do something illegal, or did the admin hide the illegal activity from everyone? Or was it both? Or did Cheney threaten to take Kollar Kotelly & Rockefeller hunting, so they were afraid to come forward? I'll get on my high horse soapbox again. If this activity is so clearcut & nefariously illegal, why did the top judge & high ranking senator sit on the activity for 2 years? If either FISA or 4th Amendment were clearly violated, didn't they have a duty, to which they swore upon taking office, to do whatever it takes to bring the wrongdoers to justice? If this activity is illegal, aren't Kollar Kotelly & Rockefeller complicit in abetting a clear violation of the Consitution? Or could this be a bit more complicated than it seems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Well, this certainly is precious. I take it someone is on a high horse in referencing the oath of office, but not on a high horse when referencing pundit reports about aleged illegal activity. Can someone please stick to a consistent argument? Did Bush admin do something illegal, or did the admin hide the illegal activity from everyone? Or was it both? Or did Cheney threaten to take Kollar Kotelly & Rockefeller hunting, so they were afraid to come forward? I'll get on my high horse soapbox again. If this activity is so clearcut & nefariously illegal, why did the top judge & high ranking senator sit on the activity for 2 years? If either FISA or 4th Amendment were clearly violated, didn't they have a duty, to which they swore upon taking office, to do whatever it takes to bring the wrongdoers to justice? If this activity is illegal, aren't Kollar Kotelly & Rockefeller complicit in abetting a clear violation of the Consitution? Or could this be a bit more complicated than it seems? 649771[/snapback] When there are no political checks on the one party in charge and little info coming out except leaks it leaves us to assuming and hypothesizing, given this admins track record, hard not to trust the hypotheticals, rumors, innuendos etc. They don't give us any reason to think otherwise and the rest of the deceit speaks for itself. You think that we should trust the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 When there are no political checks on the one party in charge and little info coming out except leaks it leaves us to assuming and hypothesizing, given this admins track record, hard not to trust the hypotheticals, rumors, innuendos etc. They don't give us any reason to think otherwise and the rest of the deceit speaks for itself. You think that we should trust the system? 649777[/snapback] The balance of power allows the Administration free reign to conduct illegal activity? What about past Administration who had serious funny business going on? How did Bill and Hillary get away with all of their misgivings back in the day? Surely their party didnt hold sway over everything when they were in the WH. As usual...always back to "Bush bad"...the one trick pony. Everything was peechy keen and "done right" until the terrible Bush got in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The balance of power allows the Administration free reign to conduct illegal activity? What about past Administration who had serious funny business going on? How did Bill and Hillary get away with all of their misgivings back in the day? Surely their party didnt hold sway over everything when they were in the WH. As usual...always back to "Bush bad"...the one trick pony. Everything was peechy keen and "done right" until the terrible Bush got in office. 649847[/snapback] Oh common, really you think Bush has been investigated anywhere near as much for legitimate law breaking, not some tittilation about sex and some phony trumped up charges called Whitewater? The GOP beat Clinton to death with all their investigations, so until that happens there is no comparison. Sure I am partisan, won't deny it, but in this case civil liberties and rule of law, you right wingers so much like to hold as a standard for issues such as illegal aliens, should be applied. You guys even managed to get a censure resolution passed over the sex issue because the President lied about ....sex...., well this is a lot more serious, so why the double standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Oh common, really you think Bush has been investigated anywhere near as much for legitimate law breaking, not some tittilation about sex and some phony trumped up charges called Whitewater? The GOP beat Clinton to death with all their investigations, so until that happens there is no comparison. Sure I am partisan, won't deny it, but in this case civil liberties and rule of law, you right wingers so much like to hold as a standard for issues such as illegal aliens, should be applied. You guys even managed to get a censure resolution passed over the sex issue because the President lied about ....sex...., well this is a lot more serious, so why the double standard? 649917[/snapback] I always thought Clinton's strategy was brilliant. "Sex" will always garner the headlines, and provided fantastic distraction from anything else that "might" have been going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 I always thought Clinton's strategy was brilliant. "Sex" will always garner the headlines, and provided fantastic distraction from anything else that "might" have been going on. 649923[/snapback] LOL, if that was a planned strategy, I don't know what to say, but you never know with him. He did give my blond girlfriend, during his first campaign at a fundraiser, the old Clinton eye. She was trying to avoid him and he ignored 5 or 6 well wishers to say hello. We still bug her about it. Guess being unable to pronounce words or read smoothly from a script doesn't work as well as a foil for Bush. Did win him the election, but doesn't do much for press conferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Oh common, really you think Bush has been investigated anywhere near as much for legitimate law breaking, not some tittilation about sex and some phony trumped up charges called Whitewater? The GOP beat Clinton to death with all their investigations, so until that happens there is no comparison. Sure I am partisan, won't deny it, but in this case civil liberties and rule of law, you right wingers so much like to hold as a standard for issues such as illegal aliens, should be applied. You guys even managed to get a censure resolution passed over the sex issue because the President lied about ....sex...., well this is a lot more serious, so why the double standard? 649917[/snapback] When was a censure resolution passed? I recall him getting impeached due to perjury and efforts by some (in both parties) to have him censured rather than impeached, but do not recall him actually being censured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 When was a censure resolution passed? I recall him getting impeached due to perjury and efforts by some (in both parties) to have him censured rather than impeached, but do not recall him actually being censured. 649938[/snapback] Sorry you are right, they voted on articles of impeachment which passed, censure is a more mild slap on the wrist for a more serious crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Sorry you are right, they voted on articles of impeachment which passed, censure is a more mild slap on the wrist for a more serious crime. 649950[/snapback] Not certain I follow your meaning here. Care to clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts