You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S.
- Thread starter Mercor
- Start date
The republic will fall because of partisan buffoons like you...
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.
Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.
Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.
Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language" that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required."
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.
But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.
''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.
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.
Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.
Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.
Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."
The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language" that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required."
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.
But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.
''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.
Quote from Mercor:
Bush's executive orders were legally vetted more throughly then Obama's.
This is where Congress should look.
Obama and his Congress are ramming health care even though the Courts will end up throwing most of it out of court.
as far as lies go zzz
on this thread your post implictly supports obama's move to allow foreign police in.
Do you support Obama move on this subject or not?
Yes or no?
As far as condemning terrorist acts on the other thread I saw that you stop posting instead of condemning terrorist acts like the plane bombers?
Post a clear condemnation and I will rescind my comment . However, as of now you have not basis for call me a liar.
I am telling the facts - you refused to condemn a terrorists acts.
on this thread your post implictly supports obama's move to allow foreign police in.
Do you support Obama move on this subject or not?
Yes or no?
As far as condemning terrorist acts on the other thread I saw that you stop posting instead of condemning terrorist acts like the plane bombers?
Post a clear condemnation and I will rescind my comment . However, as of now you have not basis for call me a liar.
I am telling the facts - you refused to condemn a terrorists acts.
What an idiotic response.
Black and white thinking from jemology, bloody primitive...
"Post a clear condemnation and I will rescind my comment."
Go play your stupid games with someone who gives a damn what your insipid comments are...
Black and white thinking from jemology, bloody primitive...
"Post a clear condemnation and I will rescind my comment."
Go play your stupid games with someone who gives a damn what your insipid comments are...
Quote from jem:
as far as lies go zzz
on this thread your post implictly supports obama's move to allow foreign police in.
Do you support Obama move on this subject or not?
Yes or no?
As far as condemning terrorist acts on the other thread I saw that you stop posting instead of condemning terrorist acts like the plane bombers?
Post a clear condemnation and I will rescind my comment . However, as of now you have not basis for call me a liar.
I am telling the facts - you refused to condemn a terrorists acts.
If this administration uses Bush's playbook, they can argue that the precedent Bush established does indeed give them an end-run around the constitution.
Quote from wjk:
Not that it matters to the current admin, but doesn't this organization now have an end-run around the constitution?
I am also against executive orders. I am not a big fan of unconfirmed and unaccountable czars, either.
End-run end-run around the constitution.
I don't recall Bush giving such an end-run to a foreign body.
That is your opinion only, right? This would ultimately be decided in the courts, right?
Bush/Cheney established the precedent of abuse of the executive privilege which now gives Obama almost unlimited power via executive orders.
Look, Obama could sign an executive order to lock up any right wing talk show host, claiming some nonsense about best interest of the country.
It would then take time to get the executive order rescinded were they thrown out in court. In the time it takes to get these executive orders rescinded (how often have you seen that happen during a president's tenure?) great damage can happen. It is absurd that one man can have so much power.
The bottom line is that every president who abuses the executive order just opens the door for further abuse by subsequent presidents.
This should have been stopped long ago, but it becomes partisan rather than principled, so the when the right wing was in full power for 6 years, they just rubber stamped nearly everything Bush did.
The right just don't get it, because they are not genuinely principled...they said nothing about Bush abusing power, and now they talk about Obama? No credibility on this issue from the right, they just look like sore losers rather than genuine patriots and defenders of the Constitution. Had they been consistent in fighting Bush's power grab, they would have credibility when they try to fight Obama's power grab.
Now the chickens have come home to roost...
I know it won't happen (I have seen repeatedly the continual behavior patterns on the right, they are mostly unprincipled fucks who only are about partisanship and power, not what is in the best interest of all the people) but the right wing should be blaming themselves for giving Bush Carte Blanche and made it OK to abuse the spirit of the Constitution.
I don't recall Bush giving such an end-run to a foreign body.
That is your opinion only, right? This would ultimately be decided in the courts, right?
Bush/Cheney established the precedent of abuse of the executive privilege which now gives Obama almost unlimited power via executive orders.
Look, Obama could sign an executive order to lock up any right wing talk show host, claiming some nonsense about best interest of the country.
It would then take time to get the executive order rescinded were they thrown out in court. In the time it takes to get these executive orders rescinded (how often have you seen that happen during a president's tenure?) great damage can happen. It is absurd that one man can have so much power.
The bottom line is that every president who abuses the executive order just opens the door for further abuse by subsequent presidents.
This should have been stopped long ago, but it becomes partisan rather than principled, so the when the right wing was in full power for 6 years, they just rubber stamped nearly everything Bush did.
The right just don't get it, because they are not genuinely principled...they said nothing about Bush abusing power, and now they talk about Obama? No credibility on this issue from the right, they just look like sore losers rather than genuine patriots and defenders of the Constitution. Had they been consistent in fighting Bush's power grab, they would have credibility when they try to fight Obama's power grab.
Now the chickens have come home to roost...
I know it won't happen (I have seen repeatedly the continual behavior patterns on the right, they are mostly unprincipled fucks who only are about partisanship and power, not what is in the best interest of all the people) but the right wing should be blaming themselves for giving Bush Carte Blanche and made it OK to abuse the spirit of the Constitution.
Quote from wjk:
I don't recall Bush giving such an end-run to a foreign body.
notice zzz does not condemn terror bombings nor obamas letting foreign police into the country.
by the way zzz - sometimes a yes or no is all that is needed.. just ask a computer.
are you a commie or not - your writings say yes.
Do you spew venon at white christians your writing says yes.
did you refuse to condemn the molestation of 9 year old girl -- if I recall your writing says yes.
Did you just recently refuse to condemn terrorist bombings -- yes.
Sometimes binary thinking is all that is need.
Your are a commie loving, terror bombing supporting, kid molestation supporting - white christian hating - troll.
You need to have your et personality re-written or you will end up on watch lists.
How about - becoming pro USA. pro democracy, pro constitution - pro separation of powers - pro smaller government, pro less taxes, pro less spending - pro libertarian. America needs to return to what made california great before the big spending government democrats took over.
by the way zzz - sometimes a yes or no is all that is needed.. just ask a computer.
are you a commie or not - your writings say yes.
Do you spew venon at white christians your writing says yes.
did you refuse to condemn the molestation of 9 year old girl -- if I recall your writing says yes.
Did you just recently refuse to condemn terrorist bombings -- yes.
Sometimes binary thinking is all that is need.
Your are a commie loving, terror bombing supporting, kid molestation supporting - white christian hating - troll.
You need to have your et personality re-written or you will end up on watch lists.
How about - becoming pro USA. pro democracy, pro constitution - pro separation of powers - pro smaller government, pro less taxes, pro less spending - pro libertarian. America needs to return to what made california great before the big spending government democrats took over.