President weakens espionage oversight?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Motley, Mar 14, 2008.

  1. Motley macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    #1
    Basically Bush just reversed a lot of post-watergate reforms to prevent illegal spying by the intelligence community, coincidentally almost 32 years to the day they were enacted.
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/14/president_weakens_espionage_oversight/

    Call me unsurprised, Bush just doesn't seem to like accountability.


     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
  3. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #3
    What Bush's suporters really need to ask themselves is, "Do you really want Clinton or Obama to have all the powers that Bush and his administration have consolidated in the presidency?"

    Checks and balances serve a good purpose for both parties. Remember that everything rule you change to make things easier in a governmental branch for your party when it's in control (eliminate the filibuster), will transfer to the other party when they get control. If you're comfortable with the other guys having the same power, fine, but don't complain when they use the power that was handed to them.
     
  4. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #4
    Just what is the problem?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080229-5.html
     
  5. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #5
    There has been a few million words written about this over the past few months. If this does not make sense to you, you might consider reading some of the other sources, which are easier to understand.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    So in other words, the President answers to no one? And we sit here and do nothing. Impeachment is useless, right?
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    Apparently. Either that, or you're on ignore like the rest of us. For those of us in the reality based community, it should be obvious why this is bad. Wasn't this done to help prevent another Watergate? Why would someone want to get rid of this, unless they had something to hide? But I guess he can just claim national security and executive privilege and people like the above accept it. Since it's not a sex scandal, it doesn't get much play in that nasty liberal media either.

    Of course, had Clinton or another Dem tried to do it, it would be a high crime and impeachable defense in and of itself.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Impeachment is only acceptable if a Democrat is the subject. See for instance, how quickly the NY republics moved to threaten impeachment against Spitzer. Yet any move to impeach Vitter or Craig would have been decried as a "partisan stunt" done only "for political gain".

    See how it works?
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    With the revocation of Executive Order 12863 without a restatement of (Section 10 of the new executive order), Section 2.2. (b), the IOB answers only directly to the President, and not to the President and the Attorney General. Scheduled reports and required disclosure has also be diminished. This could be problematic because the PFIAB is made up of individuals outside the government.

    Which, upon further investigation, was in the linked article in the first post of this thread.
     
  10. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #10
    I actually read the primary documents, rather than relied on the biased opinions and interpretations of them.
    I guess some prefer to have their opinions on an issue dictated to them by others.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    I prefer not to accept on their face orders issued by a habitual liar, without any context or justifiable rationale.

    But that's just me.
     
  12. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #12
    Actually, the way it now works, is that the duties of the IOB are now split with National Intelligence Director M. McConnell. The agencies in question report directly to M. McConnell. The IOB then makes sure M. McConnell is doing his job. The Board has a little less power while the NID a little more.

    Seems fine to me, but I trust the government, rather than believe in crazy conspiracy theories, or shadowy elements within the government, as in 24 or Jericho. I would never live in a country where I feared the government, or thought they did not have the best interests of the citizens in mind.
     
  13. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    You trust the government. Well, I think that explains pretty well. So, please explain the corruption which has embroiled virtually every federal agency. Ask the people of the golf coast how they feel about the government.

    "I would never live in a country where I feared the government, or thought they did not have the best interests of the citizens in mind."

    Is this the reason you refuse to abandon your Pollyanna view of what is going on - do not want to move?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Only because they're Republican. Once the Dems get back into power, they'll no longer trustworthy. Do try to keep up. :p

    In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't believe anyone would still trust the gov entirely either. The only thing I can think of is that he is actually part of said corrupt and incompetent gov. Even ignoring the fact that it's completely against what this country stands for, that gov is meant to be watched by it's citizens to keep it honest, I can only wonder what possible reason they would have to do this other than to protect themselves from something real oversight might have caught. Given what we already know they've done and tried to do, pretty obvious.

    Unless you're a partisan hack like our resident troll, of course.
     
  15. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #15
    There's corruption in virtually every bureaucracy. There's a difference between financial corruption or waste, and having secret ulterior motives.
    The people of Mississippi are pretty happy, but they have H. Barbour as Governor, not R. Nagin.
    I would have no problem leaving, if America was the way some describe it as, or if the government were as evil as some have been led to believe it is. I have lived overseas.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    So then why did Bush bother doing this if he has nothing to hide, he asked knowing he'll never get a real answer.
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    Things like this are why we don't trust him and his appointed cronies:
    Get ready to pack up steve. The rest of us would rather stay and fight back. Metaphorically, of course. Well at least we don't just accept it.
     
  18. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #18
    I agree with you about trusting the government, but to a point. I happily pay my taxes, I write my local representative and I trust him (or her, as the case has been) to represent me as best they can.

    However, I recognize that the government is made up of people, and people have a habit of being human, having human judgment, making human errors, and being as (if not more) susceptible to corruption as everyone else.

    This is why I support transparency and checks and balances, and why I am reticent to accept that reducing the number of people any government or non-government body answers to down to only one person is a reasonable idea. Especially in the intelligence community, which recent history dictates is extremely susceptible to internal and external pressure to reach favourable conclusions.
     
  19. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #19
    I didn't realize that President Nixon was a democrat. ;)
     
  20. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    If a Democrat wins the election, it's going to be very interesting to see all those Fox News analysts trip over themselves as they simultaneously change their tune on things like executive privilege and governmental transparency.
     
  21. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #21
    But the unspoken rule is that hypocricy, like family values, is exclusively the domain of the GOP. The Fox news analysts won't even blink as their talking points change 180°. They know that their blindly loyal followers won't question them.
     
  22. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #22

    Impeachment is only acceptable if getting a BJ is involved.....so does anyone here want to take one for the team and go try to seduce Dubya? :D

    I'd say impeachment is off the table for 2 reasons:
    1. By the time anything gets done with impeachment hearings, it will be January.
    2. Do you really want Darth Cheney running the country any more than he already is?

    We should've impeached them both a long time ago. But now, it's just too late sadly.
     
  23. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Very true. And when a Democrat does it, even if there is a completely new piece of information that must be taken into account, they're flip-floppers.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Was he impeached recently? ;)
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    Was he impeached at all? (answer: no.)
     

Share This Page