Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's official, we're a dictatorship

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's official, we're a dictatorship



    Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement

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


    By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006

    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.


    After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

    And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

    Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

    Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

  • #2
    if the congress really wants to go to the mat over this they can defund the appropriate programs.

    Comment


    • #3
      It's all Lincoln's fault, y'know. He's the one who cleared the road for "strong presidencies," after all. Poor Bush. He's just following precedent! He's innocent and pure and the driven snow!

      BULL****.

      Between him and Cheney, they're re-writing the executive branch, and it's clearly veering in an authoritarian direction. If Congress — regardless of its political makeup — doesn't really put its foot down soon, it, like the judicial branch, is going to be relegated to second fiddle.

      *shrug* I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Every time I see stories like the one above, it strengthens my conviction that the terrorists who struck America on Sept. 11, 2001, killing thousands of people in a matter of hours, really did win. They provided the coup de grace to the old way of doing things. Now we're seeing the erosion and, sometimes, the outright loss of the freedoms most of us hold dear, replaced by a security-focused authoritarian state led by a powerful executive branch.

      The U.S. public just doesn't realize it, yet. It's still bread and circuses for a lot of us — read: distracting fights over social issues no government in its right mind should try to get involved with — while the real issues go mostly unseen in presidential "signing statements." No, maybe it won't affect you, per se, but it might be a different story for your kid when s/he's all grown up.

      Security. Ah, a nice thing. Really is. But at what price? Freedom is something that can be lost if folks aren't responsible about watering its roots, and it's all too easy to enclose the tree in a "protective" cage of thorny "security" hedges.

      But, hey, why should I care? I've got a circus to go to and bread to eat.

      Gatekeeper
      "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

      "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gatekeeper
        It's all Lincoln's fault, y'know. He's the one who cleared the road for "strong presidencies," after all. Poor Bush. He's just following precedent! He's innocent and pure and the driven snow!

        BULL****.

        Between him and Cheney, they're re-writing the executive branch, and it's clearly veering in an authoritarian direction. If Congress — regardless of its political makeup — doesn't really put its foot down soon, it, like the judicial branch, is going to be relegated to second fiddle.
        "The Supreme Court has made it's decision...now let it enforce it!"


        We've been down this road before.
        Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's so sad that this monkey is breaking the law every day and lying about it, and he'll never come close to sharing Clinton's fate (which, unlike Clinton, he totally deserves).

          CGN | a bunch of incoherent nonsense
          Chris Jericho: First-Ever Undisputed Champion of Professional Wrestling & God Incarnate
          Mystique & Aura: Appearing Nightly @ Yankee Stadium! | Red & Pewter Pride
          Head Coach/General Manager, Kyrandia Dragonhawks (2004 Apolyton Fantasy Football League Champions)

          Comment


          • #6
            Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.
            The Constitution gives Congress the power to act as CinC too? No, that power goes to the Prez and I assume that means he gets to run the war as he sees fit until removed from office by the voters, impeached and convicted by Congress, or funding for the war is cut off. The reason he's getting away with it is because the country is either divided or supportive of spying within the gray area created by the nature of war. I dont like the way these guys lie about it even though we should expect aspects of the military operations to be kept secret, given their behavior I can only believe they're lying to cover their asses because we've seen just the tip of the iceberg.

            As long as ME/AQ connections can be established with US wiretaps, I dont see much of an issue here...

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks to all the conseravtive voters who were foolish enough to vote for Bush both times, thinking that the Republican party of today still represents a position for a less intrusive, and less powerful central government.
              A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

              Comment


              • #8


                just a reminder of a real dictatorship....in America, cheerleaders get ****ed....in PRNK, cheerleaders get ****ED (caps)...
                "Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
                "...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
                "sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is a quote I believe from when Bush was running for office, when he said, jokingly, "this would be alot easier if this was a dicatatorship."

                  I don't think he was actually joking.
                  We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X