Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

[zimv20]

link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/)


Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding

WASHINGTON -- 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 . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

(more)

[Thomas Veil]

WHAT?!?!?:eek:

Could there be a more blatant, arrogant "F--- you" than this? Bush is telling Congress clearly that he doesn't feel obligated to obey the law they passed? And he thinks a memo will suffice to "allow" him to do this?

For crying out loud, somebody impeach this bastard already! :mad:

[zimv20]

bush holds himself above the law, plain and simple. i'm just waiting for those who enforce the laws to do something about it.

[Thomas Veil]

bush holds himself above the law, plain and simple. i'm just waiting for those who enforce the laws to do something about it.You'll be waiting a looooooooooooong time.

[scem0]

holy ****.

http://www.kein-plan.de/bitte-ziehen-sie-durch/pics/Bush_-_HitlerFake.jpg

e

[atszyman]

Where the %%$#%##%%$#% is the @#$@#ing press in this country anymore?

This (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/POLITICS/603240436/1022) story has been on my Google news page all day and yet the president signs a law and decides it doesn't apply to him and I only find it via these forums? un-@#$!@#!-believable!

[scem0]

Where the %%$#%##%%$#% is the @#$@#ing press in this country anymore?

I know! It's totally insane! What has happened to our media fitting into the whole 'checks and balances' idea? This seems to be more of a check and more checks scenario. That doesn't bode well for our rights or for the future of our http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/2633/democracy9hc.gif theocracy :rolleyes:.

e

[blackfox]

Interesting.

I would think it will be pretty hard to avoid accountability when you have it arranged to increasingly consolidate power into one office.

I am not sure of the tactical gamble something like this presents for Bush. He is not currently popular with the populace, he is alienating the Congress and his actions ultimately have consequences that will likely bring self-interest (from the Congress and the people) to a point higher than ideological agreement. And these groups are far from powerless.

Bush just may be given just enough rope to hang himself.

[Sayhey]

This is more of his "unitary executive" nonsense (otherwise known as Führerprinzip* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip).) He will get away with it as long as there is no oversight by a congress which see their primary role as protecting Bush from any criticism, or courts that are increasingly stacked with far right judges.

*For those keeping track of Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) violators, note this is not the first Nazi reference in the thread. Unless pictures don't count. ;)

[pseudobrit]

This is more of his "unitary executive" nonsense (otherwise known as Führerprinzip* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip).) He will get away with it as long as there is no oversight by a congress which see their primary role as protecting Bush from any criticism, or courts that are increasingly stacked with far right judges.

*For those keeping track of Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) violators, note this is not the first Nazi reference in the thread. Unless pictures don't count. ;)

I wonder if there was a cute rule that was analogous to Godwin's law that shamed anyone who would talk about Hitler as he became Hitler.

I also wonder if in 50 years there will be yet another cute internet "law" that will forbid anyone to talk about Bush and the American descent into fascism in such a fashion.

[leekohler]

WHAT?!?!?:eek:
For crying out loud, somebody impeach this bastard already! :mad:

Finally! Somebody else says it besides me! I don't care about this playing politics garbage about how he'll look like a martyr. He's most likely broken the law several times. IMPEACH. THAT"S WHAT IT'S FOR.

[Thomas Veil]

*For those keeping track of Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) violators, note this is not the first Nazi reference in the thread. Unless pictures don't count. ;)
Well it's certainly not going to be the last, either.

I don't care if anyone believes this or not, but I came up with a design for my e-store this morning, before I'd read this thread. At the time, I was really waffling over whether it was too over-the-top, too much like those hyperbolic Bush-Nazi references that litter all kinds of liberal websites.

http://images.cafepress.com/image/11729987_400x400.jpg?1304804118

I don't think that anymore. :mad:

[blackfox]

For all those making or tempted to make Bush/Hitler comparisons, may I remind you that Hitler, despite considerable and glaring faults, was actually pretty competent at acheiving his goals.

Hitler took a country in pretty crappy shape and made it momentarily great (in some senses), while Bush took a country in pretty excellent shape and ran it into the ground.

I would think Mugabe of Zimbabwe might be a more apt comparison...

[pseudobrit]

For all those making or tempted to make Bush/Hitler comparisons, may I remind you that Hitler, despite considerable and glaring faults, was actually pretty competent at acheiving his goals.

Hitler took a country in pretty crappy shape and made it momentarily great (in some senses), while Bush took a country in pretty excellent shape and ran it into the ground.

But Bush made the trains run on t... no, no, wait. He's trying to stop the trains altogether.

[Thomas Veil]

More interesting stuff:

Here's John Dean (of Watergate fame), discussing presidential "signing statements" as used by Bush:

Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed (even though these statements are published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents) until recently, when President Bush's used a signing statement to attempt to nullify the recent, controversial McCain amendment regarding torture, which drew some media attention.

Generally, Bush's signing statements tend to be brief and very broad, and they seldom cite the authority on which the president is relying for his reading of the law. None has yet been tested in court. But they do appear to be bulking up the powers of the presidency. Here are a few examples:

Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.

Link. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html) My bold.

Note that paragraph in bold, BTW. It was a hypothetical concept, written on January 13th of this year...and in March it's come true.

Man, this had better be The Next Big News Story, or we should all start beseiging the media with angry letters asking why.

[solvs]

At the time, I was really waffling over whether it was too over-the-top, too much like those hyperbolic Bush-Nazi references that litter all kinds of liberal websites.
I used to feel that way too, but then stuff like this happens, and I begin to think they may have a point. Although, as BF put it, Hitler was popular with his own people because of all the "good" he seemed to do for Germany that they overlooked some of the beginnings of the atrocities. Bush doesn't have that luxury. And though we aren't putting Muslims and homosexuals in concentration camps (yet), the administration sure makes life tough for them and we sure have killed or injured a lot of innocent people in the "war on terror". Of course, by the time the Germans really started to realize what was going on, those that cared really couldn't do anything because they were too afraid and probably felt helpless to stop it. Something we seem to have in common with them.

By the time Hitler did away with the oversights, which Bush is dangerously close to also doing, it was already too late.

[Sayhey]

I wonder if there was a cute rule that was analogous to Godwin's law that shamed anyone who would talk about Hitler as he became Hitler.

I also wonder if in 50 years there will be yet another cute internet "law" that will forbid anyone to talk about Bush and the American descent into fascism in such a fashion.

Hey, pseudo, a humorous aside doesn't mean I'm not taking Bush and his attempts to crown himself King seriously. We really need no Nazi comparisons to be alarmed by what he is doing. The idea that he can use signing statements to opt out of laws should be outrageous enough for anybody.

[pseudobrit]

Hey, pseudo, a humorous aside doesn't mean I'm not taking Bush and his attempts to crown himself King seriously. We really need no Nazi comparisons to be alarmed by what he is doing. The idea that he can use signing statements to opt out of laws should be outrageous enough for anybody.

I wasn't blaming you for anything, rather I was lamenting the asininity of such a thing as Godwin's law and its frequent invocation.

[Thomas Veil]

I wasn't blaming you for anything, rather I was lamenting the asininity of such a thing as Godwin's law and its frequent invocation.I don't know how asinine it is in and of itself. But Bush has certainly pushed the envelope and made fascism references more acceptable.

Back to the topic:

I didn't want to wait until my anger (and motivation) had subsided, so I've sent this e-mail out to my two Republican senators:

Dear Senator,

It's come to my attention via The Boston Globe that President Bush is using "signing statements" to negate the intentions of Congress.

In other words, when Congress passes a law, such as the recent Patriot Act renewal or the torture ban, Mr. Bush has issued such "signing statements" indicating his intentions of following those laws ONLY WHEN HE FEELS LIKE IT.

I thank God that someone in the media is still doing their job, because this abominable behavior of the president's might otherwise have never come to the public's attention. We pride ourselves on being a "nation of laws", and yet we find that the president feels free to break laws when he deems it necessary.

This is George Bush putting himself above the law, and it angers me enough to write you about it. The more I read of Mr. Bush, the more it seems he is setting himself up with near-dictatorial powers. He already feels he can ignore Congress when he claims it is "necessary".

This is highly alarming, and goes way beyond even the disdain for the law that Richard Nixon exhibited. I therefore am reminding you that it is CONGRESS' DUTY to impeach and try any president carrying out such actions. It is not an option, it is a duty.

We here in the voting public are watching what you do next. I for one have decided I will support any candidate who takes a tough stance against President Bush, and I will be particularly supportive of anyone from any party who speaks and votes for impeachment.

Similarly, if your party should choose NOT to institute impeachment proceedings against this president, you PERSONALLY can count on NOT having my support in upcoming elections.

That is how strongly I feel about it, and how greatly I resent this president's arrogance.

Respectfully,I sent a similar one to my representative, Sherrod Brown, though the last few paragraphs were not nearly as threatening. Sherrod's a good guy and one of the more liberal members of Congress. Instead I told him (in more polite words) that the Democrats should stop being such pussies and start pushing for an impeachment investigation, and that the Dems would be surprised at how much public support would be behind them.

[IJ Reilly]

I wasn't blaming you for anything, rather I was lamenting the asininity of such a thing as Godwin's law and its frequent invocation.

We need a new law: "The first person to invoke Godwin's Law, loses the debate."

May I call it "IJ Reilly's Law"?

[Sayhey]

I wasn't blaming you for anything, rather I was lamenting the asininity of such a thing as Godwin's law and its frequent invocation.

no offense meant, no offense taken. ;)

[solvs]

May I call it "IJ Reilly's Law"?
So as another person who argued that we weren't fascist (though I believe I added the caveat "yet") are you also almost ready to concede that we are, in fact, headed quickly down that road? Or at least close? If this isn't as close as you can be to fascism without actually being it, I don't know what is.

Though I'm sure BushCo will find some way to surprise me without actually surprising me.

[Thomas Veil]

If you're keeping track, a couple of days ago it was almost impossible to find this story. Today, ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1764906&page=1) has picked it up.

Now will people react to it, or will they just shrug and surf on to whogivesas#it.com?

[leekohler]

If you're keeping track, a couple of days ago it was almost impossible to find this story. Today, ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1764906&page=1) has picked it up.

Now will people react to it, or will they just shrug and surf on to whogivesas#it.com?

Let's hope they react.

[solvs]

Now will people react to it, or will they just shrug and surf on to whogivesas#it.com?
The people I've talked to, it's not that they don't care, because they do. They just feel powerless to stop it. Come Nov. '06, that will change. Even some Republicans I've talked to are voting Dem. They don't even care who it is. One of them even said "I hope it's somebody good, because I'm voting for them". Think about that for a sec.

[leekohler]

The people I've talked to, it's not that they don't care, because they do. They just feel powerless to stop it. Come Nov. '06, that will change. Even some Republicans I've talked to are voting Dem. They don't even care who it is. One of them even said "I hope it's somebody good, because I'm voting for them". Think about that for a sec.

That IS true. A lot of folks are fed up.

[solvs]

That IS true. A lot of folks are fed up.
And yet, the alternative isn't exactly there. "At least he's not that guy" doesn't always work because you have to really hate that guy. People didn't enough in 2004. Hopefully they will in 2006. Or, I don't know, the Dems could actually stop sucking.

Yeah, we all know that with a few exception, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

[Thomas Veil]

Really. If you're going to get traditional non-voters to vote, or Republicans to cross the line to your candidates, you really should give them someone to vote for, not someone to vote against.

[IJ Reilly]

So as another person who argued that we weren't fascist (though I believe I added the caveat "yet") are you also almost ready to concede that we are, in fact, headed quickly down that road? Or at least close? If this isn't as close as you can be to fascism without actually being it, I don't know what is.

Though I'm sure BushCo will find some way to surprise me without actually surprising me.

I'm not sure I get the connection, but I believe that my caveat in that debate was they we hadn't gotten to the point of, or anywhere near to, the suspension of democracy. Fascism is after all a form of totalitarianism. The place where we are, and quite possibly the place towards which we are headed, is hardly good, but I think it clouds the real issues to dredge up emotionally-loaded and only marginally appropriate terms to describe it.

But let's not restart that debate, okay?

[pseudobrit]

And yet, the alternative isn't exactly there. "At least he's not that guy" doesn't always work because you have to really hate that guy.

I think it's a sad commentary on our democracy when the deciding factor in a vote is the lowest common denominator.

[Sayhey]

I think it's a sad commentary on our democracy when the deciding factor in a vote is the lowest common denominator.

It's a easily solvable problem. All we would have to do is have a run-off if no candidate received 50% of the vote. Dare I say it? Yes, just like the French do. Of course, this presumes we get rid of the insane and anti-democratic Electoral College system.

[atszyman]

...Of course, this presumes we get rid of the insane and anti-democratic Electoral College system.

I've long advocated this, however I have been recently tossing around the idea of actually using the EC as intended. When a presidential election year comes about we don't choose candidates for president. Instead anyone who wants to and can collect 5000 signatures can run as an elector in their home state. The electors are voted on individually and the ones with the most votes go to D.C. to select a president.

Rule 1: The president cannot be one of the electors.
Rule 2: No bargaining with electors from other states can be done prior to the meeting/elections.
Rule 3: The selection meeting must be televised.
Rule 4: Candidates for the EC can campaign only on public finances.

Since the electors would be campaigning locally people would have more of a chance to see where they stand on the issues. Every state would matter since there would be no specific candidates and electors would be free to vote their conscience to try to find a candidate that best suits their views. Compromise on Candidates should lead to more moderate presidents, and hopefully a system in which the political parties would play less of a role.

[skunk]

It's a easily solvable problem. All we would have to do is have a run-off if no candidate received 50% of the vote. Dare I say it? Yes, just like the French doAnd look what they ended up with...

[zap2]

I've long advocated this, however I have been recently tossing around the idea of actually using the EC as intended. When a presidential election year comes about we don't choose candidates for president. Instead anyone who wants to and can collect 5000 signatures can run as an elector in their home state. The electors are voted on individually and the ones with the most votes go to D.C. to select a president.

Rule 1: The president cannot be one of the electors.
Rule 2: No bargaining with electors from other states can be done prior to the meeting/elections.
Rule 3: The selection meeting must be televised.
Rule 4: Candidates for the EC can campaign only on public finances.

Since the electors would be campaigning locally people would have more of a chance to see where they stand on the issues. Every state would matter since there would be no specific candidates and electors would be free to vote their conscience to try to find a candidate that best suits their views. Compromise on Candidates should lead to more moderate presidents, and hopefully a system in which the political parties would play less of a role.



Why not get rid of the EC, and who ever gets the most votes win!:eek:

[skunk]

Why not get rid of the EC, and who ever gets the most votes win!:eek:Because you might end up with the wrong result.

[solvs]

But let's not restart that debate, okay?
K, but you know a lot of us are thinking it. ;)

[skunk]

But let's not restart that debate, okay?Perhaps there should be a sub-clause in Godwin's Law to deal with this....

[Sayhey]

And look what they ended up with...

The French have many problems, skunk, but a Presidential run-off system isn't among them. I'd love to have a system where I can cast my ballot for whom I want without worrying so much who it might help elect of the least desirable candidates.

[skunk]

The French have many problems, skunk, but a Presidential run-off system isn't among them. I'd love to have a system where I can cast my ballot for whom I want without worrying so much who it might help elect of the least desirable candidates.All I'm saying is that, whatever system you have, it's the quality of the candidates that makes the difference.

[blackfox]

All I'm saying is that, whatever system you have, it's the quality of the candidates that makes the difference.
True enough. Still, I believe Sayhey's point was that the nature of the political system also necessarily effects the quality of the candidates.

While an overhauled system here stateside does not guarantee decent candidates, a well-designed system could do much to increase the liklihood of such an outcome.

If that wasn't Sayhey's point, I apologize to him - but it will remain mine.

[Sayhey]

All I'm saying is that, whatever system you have, it's the quality of the candidates that makes the difference.

While I agree with the point blackfox makes, my specific point was that a Presidential run-off system, such as the one in France, would give more of an opportunity to voters to cast their ballots for candidates they wanted rather than the "lesser of two evils." It is not perfect, but it would be a damn sight better than what we have now.

To your point, there is never a guarantee of quality of candidates, but the present system inhibits the possibility of that quality rather than enhances it. Which is just the flip side of blackfox's excellent point.