The Cellar
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Perverting democracy for politics (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10679)

BigV 05-04-2006 05:13 PM
Perverting democracy for politics
 
Hell, perverting the rule of law, perverting co-equal government. Freakin' pervert. :rar:

From here.
:doubleplusplusfrustrated:
Here is the whole article. A must read for Americans who respect our Constitution.

Quote:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."

For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

Military link
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and ''to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.

On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.

On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.

In October 2004, five months after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in Iraq came to light, Congress passed a series of new rules and regulations for military prisons. Bush signed the provisions into law, then said he could ignore them all. One provision made clear that military lawyers can give their commanders independent advice on such issues as what would constitute torture. But Bush declared that military lawyers could not contradict his administration's lawyers.

Other provisions required the Pentagon to retrain military prison guards on the requirements for humane treatment of detainees under the Geneva Conventions, to perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and to ban such contractors from performing ''security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice functions." Bush reserved the right to ignore any of the requirements.

The new law also created the position of inspector general for Iraq. But Bush wrote in his signing statement that the inspector ''shall refrain" from investigating any intelligence or national security matter, or any crime the Pentagon says it prefers to investigate for itself.

Bush had placed similar limits on an inspector general position created by Congress in November 2003 for the initial stage of the US occupation of Iraq. The earlier law also empowered the inspector to notify Congress if a US official refused to cooperate. Bush said the inspector could not give any information to Congress without permission from the administration.

Oversight questioned
Many laws Bush has asserted he can bypass involve requirements to give information about government activity to congressional oversight committees.

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

(continued below)

BigV 05-04-2006 05:17 PM
It continues...
Quote:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
...

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

On several other occasions, Bush contended he could nullify laws creating ''whistle-blower" job protections for federal employees that would stop any attempt to fire them as punishment for telling a member of Congress about possible government wrongdoing.

When Congress passed a massive energy package in August, for example, it strengthened whistle-blower protections for employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The provision was included because lawmakers feared that Bush appointees were intimidating nuclear specialists so they would not testify about safety issues related to a planned nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- a facility the administration supported, but both Republicans and Democrats from Nevada opposed.

When Bush signed the energy bill, he issued a signing statement declaring that the executive branch could ignore the whistle-blower protections.

Bush's statement did more than send a threatening message to federal energy specialists inclined to raise concerns with Congress; it also raised the possibility that Bush would not feel bound to obey similar whistle-blower laws that were on the books before he became president. His domestic spying program, for example, violated a surveillance law enacted 23 years before he took office.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

''Where you have a president who is willing to declare vast quantities of the legislation that is passed during his term unconstitutional, it implies that he also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional," Golove said.

Defying Supreme Court
Bush has also challenged statutes in which Congress gave certain executive branch officials the power to act independently of the president. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the power of Congress to make such arrangements. For example, the court has upheld laws creating special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and insulating the board of the Federal Trade Commission from political interference.

Nonetheless, Bush has said in his signing statements that the Constitution lets him control any executive official, no matter what a statute passed by Congress might say.

In November 2002, for example, Congress, seeking to generate independent statistics about student performance, passed a law setting up an educational research institute to conduct studies and publish reports ''without the approval" of the Secretary of Education. Bush, however, decreed that the institute's director would be ''subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld affirmative-action programs, as long as they do not include quotas. Most recently, in 2003, the court upheld a race-conscious university admissions program over the strong objections of Bush, who argued that such programs should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Yet despite the court's rulings, Bush has taken exception at least nine times to provisions that seek to ensure that minorities are represented among recipients of government jobs, contracts, and grants. Each time, he singled out the provisions, declaring that he would construe them ''in a manner consistent with" the Constitution's guarantee of ''equal protection" to all -- which some legal scholars say amounts to an argument that the affirmative-action provisions represent reverse discrimination against whites.

Golove said that to the extent Bush is interpreting the Constitution in defiance of the Supreme Court's precedents, he threatens to ''overturn the existing structures of constitutional law."

A president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

Common practice in '80s
Though Bush has gone further than any previous president, his actions are not unprecedented.

Since the early 19th century, American presidents have occasionally signed a large bill while declaring that they would not enforce a specific provision they believed was unconstitutional. On rare occasions, historians say, presidents also issued signing statements interpreting a law and explaining any concerns about it.

But it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.

When interpreting an ambiguous law, courts often look at the statute's legislative history, debate and testimony, to see what Congress intended it to mean. Meese realized that recording what the president thought the law meant in a signing statement might increase a president's influence over future court rulings.

Under Meese's direction in 1986, a young Justice Department lawyer named Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a strategy memo about signing statements. It came to light in late 2005, after Bush named Alito to the Supreme Court.

In the memo, Alito predicted that Congress would resent the president's attempt to grab some of its power by seizing ''the last word on questions of interpretation." He suggested that Reagan's legal team should ''concentrate on points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress."

Reagan's successors continued this practice. George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years, according to Kelley, the Miami University of Ohio professor.

Many of the challenges involved longstanding legal ambiguities and points of conflict between the president and Congress.

Throughout the past two decades, for example, each president -- including the current one -- has objected to provisions requiring him to get permission from a congressional committee before taking action. The Supreme Court made clear in 1983 that only the full Congress can direct the executive branch to do things, but lawmakers have continued writing laws giving congressional committees such a role.

Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.

But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.

''What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House," said Kelley, who has studied presidential signing statements through history. ''That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration."
(continued below)

BigV 05-04-2006 05:19 PM
the third of three parts

Quote:
Exaggerated fears?
Some administration defenders say that concerns about Bush's signing statements are overblown. Bush's signing statements, they say, should be seen as little more than political chest-thumping by administration lawyers who are dedicated to protecting presidential prerogatives.

Defenders say the fact that Bush is reserving the right to disobey the laws does not necessarily mean he has gone on to disobey them.

Indeed, in some cases, the administration has ended up following laws that Bush said he could bypass. For example, citing his power to ''withhold information" in September 2002, Bush declared that he could ignore a law requiring the State Department to list the number of overseas deaths of US citizens in foreign countries. Nevertheless, the department has still put the list on its website.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who until last year oversaw the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for the administration, said the statements do not change the law; they just let people know how the president is interpreting it.

''Nobody reads them," said Goldsmith. ''They have no significance. Nothing in the world changes by the publication of a signing statement. The statements merely serve as public notice about how the administration is interpreting the law. Criticism of this practice is surprising, since the usual complaint is that the administration is too secretive in its legal interpretations."

But Cooper, the Portland State University professor who has studied Bush's first-term signing statements, said the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.

Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office, Cooper said.

''Years down the road, people will not understand why the policy doesn't look like the legislation," he said.

And in many cases, critics contend, there is no way to know whether the administration is violating laws -- or merely preserving the right to do so.

Many of the laws Bush has challenged involve national security, where it is almost impossible to verify what the government is doing. And since the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, many people have expressed alarm about his sweeping claims of the authority to violate laws.

In January, after the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could disobey the torture ban, three Republicans who were the bill's principal sponsors in the Senate -- John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina -- all publicly rebuked the president.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," McCain and Warner said in a joint statement. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation."

Added Graham: ''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."

And in March, when the Globe first wrote about Bush's contention that he could ignore the oversight provisions of the Patriot Act, several Democrats lodged complaints.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused Bush of trying to ''cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow."

And Representatives Jane Harman of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan -- the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively -- sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding that Bush rescind his claim and abide by the law.

''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight," they wrote. ''The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight. . . . Once the president signs a bill, he and all of us are bound by it."

Lack of court review
Such political fallout from Congress is likely to be the only check on Bush's claims, legal specialists said.

The courts have little chance of reviewing Bush's assertions, especially in the secret realm of national security matters.

''There can't be judicial review if nobody knows about it," said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ''And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked."

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

''The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they're not taking action because they don't want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans," said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ''Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party."

Said Golove, the New York University law professor: ''Bush has essentially said that 'We're the executive branch and we're going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.' "

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

BigV 05-04-2006 05:53 PM
More analysis.
Very passive aggressive. He's basically saying, "Because I'm the President, and you (Congress) have said we're at war, I can do this. It's not illegal, because I **say** it's not illegal." That's KING talk. KRAZY talk. The office holder is President Bush, not King George.
Quote:
Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.

President Bush and the attorneys advising him may also anticipate that the signing statements will help him if and when the relevant laws are construed in court - for federal courts, depending on their views of executive power, may deem such statements relevant to their interpretation of a given law. After all, the law would not have passed had the President decided to veto it, so arguably, his view on what the law meant ought to (within reason) carry some weight for the court interpreting it. This is the argument, anyway.
For the textually impaired, a graphic to give a sense of scale.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/G...98946_3253.jpg

Happy Monkey 05-04-2006 06:05 PM
Quote:
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
Oh, well that's OK then. As long as he might follow the law anyway.

BigV 05-04-2006 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Oh, well that's OK then. As long as he might follow the law anyway.
You're mocking me, aren't you? [/Buzz Lightyear voice]

Happy Monkey 05-04-2006 06:31 PM
Only if you're a former administration official...

billybob 05-04-2006 10:42 PM
A shame Nixon is dead, but even dead, he'd still make a more honest President than Dubya.

xoxoxoBruce 05-05-2006 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob
A shame Nixon is dead, but even dead, he'd still make a more honest President than Dubya.
Make that, only because he's dead. :mad:
He still pisses me off.

Ibby 05-06-2006 07:21 PM
How long d'you think it'll be before the US is effectively a dictatorship?

At this rate, not too long...

xoxoxoBruce 05-07-2006 09:54 AM
Ooow, oooow....me, pick me.......I wanna dictate.
It's good to be the king........until :behead:
Then it's good to be the piss-boy.

romuh doog 05-07-2006 07:08 PM
So THIS is why we never see any of the cabinet members on Texas "Hold-em"....you can't change the rules in poker. :3_eyes:

rkzenrage 05-08-2006 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
How long d'you think it'll be before the US is effectively a dictatorship?

At this rate, not too long...
When Dubya stole both elections... so already.

Urbane Guerrilla 05-13-2006 12:57 AM
Look, the guy I vote for is unlikely to steal an election -- kindly credit me with having both eyes open from now on, if you can't accept it's been that way for about the last fifty years and a day (Happy Fiftieth to me, yesterday) -- and the guy I vote for twice is even less likely to steal an election, particularly when he's opened an even wider lead against his rival for his second term. You guys lost fair and square and twice. Read all of Ann Coulter to find out why, since you seem short on the exact clues she can provide you. You may dislike her, but she will give it to you straight, if hard.

Allegations by Democrats that W stole either election are just one more of a half bazillion reasons why reasonable people like me (Most of them resemble me in that, rather than you "stole it" ventriloquist's dummies. Know where somebody else's hand is?) figure the Dems are liars. I hate how the Dems lie to me. Why can't you hate it too, and abandon the Dem Party completely and for ever?

You have Bill Clinton as a recent example of one whose instincts were to establish a dictatorship. George Bush's instincts are to not do so. Clinton's political education was in what amounted to a one-party state. Not so GWB.

I voted against Clinton, both chances I had, and against his wooden Mini-Me Gore also.

It's not like you have to be a Republican, but you really should try harder to adopt adult thinking. For one instance, it's the adults that win the wars, not the babies, nor the babies-in-older-form.

Ibby 05-13-2006 01:02 AM
I personally don't think he stole the election, because I have a realistically low opinion of my country.

Urbane Guerrilla 05-13-2006 01:11 AM
I understand. I held that same opinion from Clinton's reelection through his second term.

Ibby 05-13-2006 01:14 AM
At least we're both reasonable people and can agree to disagree, eh?
For every billybob or jordon, there's someone reasonable like UG.
Propz, yo.

Urbane Guerrilla 05-13-2006 01:28 AM
Yeah, I like that.

It's always the hardest thing to do in speaking of politics or religion -- because both of these are about "how things ought to be," and differences, even honest ones, are too often seen as attacks upon one's own integrity. I don't think this is actually something that can be solved; it will always be present in discussions of either.

Ibby 05-13-2006 01:39 AM
People just need to suck it up and not take every damn thing so personally, eh?

Happy Monkey 05-13-2006 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
You have Bill Clinton as a recent example of one whose instincts were to establish a dictatorship. George Bush's instincts are to not do so. Clinton's political education was in what amounted to a one-party state. Not so GWB.
How many laws did Clinton declare his right to ignore? For Bush, it's over 700.

skysidhe 05-13-2006 12:08 PM
re: original post


Interesting read this am. Supporting original post. I liked it anyway.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29811

Slaves' Quarters

United Slaves Of America

By Riggsveda | bio
63% of Americans said they had no objection to being probed anally by government sniffer machines if it meant the security of the United States would be ensured, including 44% who said they would volunteer for surgical castration to prevent terrorists from watching American TV.

A slightly larger majority--66%--said that allowing National Security agents to slowly roast their first-born children in front of their eyes was an acceptable way to prevent terrorism, and 65% said it was more important to let George Bush burn the Declaration of Independence and shove the Constitution up John Conyers' butt "for just a little while" than to selfishly hang on to their pitiful last shreds of privacy and freedom, "even if it intrudes on privacy."

51% said that Bush was such a scary guy that they would gladly agree to live under the interstate overpass and let Alberto Gonzales have their homes to house shock troops in, as long as they were allowed to have a bathroom break once a day.

Only 28% said they would rather breathe in ricin fumes than to give George Bush one more undeserved day of occupation in the Oval Office, and less than 17% could remember the definition of the word "democracy".

A total of 502 randomly selected brain-damaged adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey.
Slaves' Quarters | login or register to post comments
May 12, 2006 -- 08:18:27 PM EST

funkykule 05-13-2006 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram
I personally don't think he stole the election, because I have a realistically low opinion of my country.
:lol2:

The Apostate 05-21-2006 05:04 PM
How people can just sit back and spectate apathetically at such a flagrant disregard for the legislative process amazes me. Do modern politicans really inspire that little confidence to make this kind of thing possible?

Regarding the 2000 election, while I don't think Bush stole it, I do think it remarkably suspicious the private vote counting company was run by five GOP vets.

rkzenrage 06-04-2006 12:26 AM
Top Ten Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State
http://buffalobeast.com/99/policestate.htm

Hey America! Freedom is just around the corner…behind you
Allan Uthman
The Internet Clampdown
One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in the sky. Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an “Information Operations Roadmap” in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography and “internet predators,” which will surely lead to legislation that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.
“The Long War”
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained—as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, “get used to it. Things aren’t going to change any time soon.”
The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they’re not going to take it back, ever.
Prison camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified “new programs.” Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters—I mean, obviously detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but it’s, you know…secret.
Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush’s “Help America Vote Act,” the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public’s enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn’t. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho’s ouster before it will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public’s continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don’t win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.
Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.
Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn’t like with “signing statements.” Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don’t see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn’t care for. It’s much quieter than a veto, and can’t be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It’s also totally absurd.
Warrantless Wiretapping:
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that’s okay? Come on—if you know anything about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day they’re listening for Osama, and the next they’re listening in on Howard Dean.
Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn’t they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who’s spilling the beans? It’s a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don’t care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.
“Free Speech Zones”
I know it’s old news, but…come on, are they fucking serious?
High-ranking Whistleblowers:
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn’t you listen?
The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they wouldn’t be nominated if they weren’t on board all the way. Goss was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some (no doubt spectacular) hookers.

rkzenrage 06-04-2006 12:27 AM
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for “intelligence errors” leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged—through extensive CIA leaks—that the White House’s analysis of Saddam’s destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.
Who’d have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing—they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an “imminent threat” nobody’s going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a “necessary reform.”
Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?

MaggieL 06-04-2006 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control.
So, following that logic, when Ike Eisenhower was elected the entire country was under military control...right?

xoxoxoBruce 06-04-2006 08:40 AM
No, only the executive branch was under the control of the commander & chief of the military.:shotgun:

Happy Monkey 06-04-2006 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
So, following that logic, when Ike Eisenhower was elected the entire country was under military control...right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
No, only the executive branch was under the control of the commander & chief of the military.:shotgun:
And also, I'm pretty sure Ike was no longer in the military when he was President.

rkzenrage 06-04-2006 10:36 AM
You are in the military when you are President.

Ibby 06-04-2006 11:15 AM
Well, no longer in the military until he was sworn in as president.

Happy Monkey 06-04-2006 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
You are in the military when you are President.
No, you're in charge of the military. Part of our nation's strength is the civilian leadership of the military.

tw 06-04-2006 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control.
If you have not been aware of this battle and a much larger war between CIA and Rumsfeld, then you don't have a clue how much infighting is now regular in Washington. At one point, DoD tried to take the functions in the National Security Agency (NSA) completely away from CIA (yes NSA is a DoD function whose #1 customer is CIA). The Supreme Court literally stepped in and ended that battle in favor of CIA.

The story of Potter Goss is still not told. Many players are now holding cards very close to their chest. Potter Goss was basically installed to disembowel the CIA - a least that was the White House agenda. I still don't know what Potter Goss was doing. But whatever it was, it was in opposition to what the White House wanted. I suspect Potter Goss tried to work more for the CIA than for the White House. It is pretty much known that Negroponte - Intelligence Czar - has made a bureaucratic mess of the nation's intelligence. But again, it is not clear his position in a DoD's political war on CIA.

Too many in this battle still are not talking (leaking). When one victim (Potter Goss) does talk (if he ever does), then we should have a much better idea where even General Hayden stands. Currently it is unknown if he will work to undermine CIA (which I doubt) for the benefit of DoD, or if he will stand up for CIA. But the bottom line - if you did not see it years ago - there is major infighting between CIA and DoD. Currently, CIA appears to be losing - as indicated by the number of people who actually think there was an intelligence failure before and after 11 September.

BigV 06-05-2006 09:25 AM
Porter Goss, if you please. :grates:

Flint 06-05-2006 10:19 AM
...wathced U.S. Police-State Double Feature this weekend:

John Carpenter's They Live, and Running Man

EDIT - (bonus feature: follow the TV theme to Network)

Happy Monkey 03-28-2007 12:37 PM

link

Lunchtime "team-building seminars" at the GAO on how to support Republican candidates in elections.

TheMercenary 03-28-2007 01:17 PM
One seriously outdated thread.

Happy Monkey 03-28-2007 01:22 PM
Old, but unfortunately not outdated.

TheMercenary 03-28-2007 01:25 PM
Really, I could have sworn Porter Goss and Rummy were gone... wait let me check on that.

Happy Monkey 03-28-2007 01:31 PM
There's more where they came from.

TheMercenary 03-28-2007 01:33 PM
Yep, we need people to step up and do the good work that needs to be done.

Happy Monkey 03-28-2007 01:33 PM
First we need the bad ones to step down.

TheMercenary 03-28-2007 01:34 PM
Slowly but surely they are being replaced.

Happy Monkey 03-28-2007 01:47 PM
I have no confidence that the replacements are better. Gonzales is certainly worse than Ashcroft.

Of course, confirmation won't be a rubber stamp anymore, so there's some good news there. A swift boat financier was just blocked as ambassador to Belgium. Not that that position is particularly important, but it might force Bush to be more reasonable in his picks.

Or maybe he'll just do more recess appointments.

BigV 03-28-2007 01:57 PM
B

Happy Monkey 04-04-2007 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 327512)
A swift boat financier was just blocked as ambassador to Belgium. Not that that position is particularly important, but it might force Bush to be more reasonable in his picks.

Or maybe he'll just do more recess appointments.
I'm an oracle.

TheMercenary 04-04-2007 07:14 PM
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife. Somebody pass me the Ketchup...

BigV 04-05-2007 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 330584)
Respectfully, you're no oracle. You're a(t least) citizen of normal intelligence who's paying attention.

Well, you may be an oracle, but you'd have to have been dumber than a box of rocks to fail to see this behavior continued.

While we're on the subject, do you like my new signature?

Happy Monkey 04-05-2007 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 330657)
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife. Somebody pass me the Ketchup...
They certainly made a fantasy history.

DanaC 04-06-2007 07:30 AM
Quote:
Swift Boat Vets did our country a great service in exposing the fantasy history of Kerry and his bizzillionaire wife.
I thought that had been proven to be false?

Happy Monkey 04-06-2007 12:22 PM
Only in the reality based community.

DanaC 04-06-2007 12:53 PM
Ahhh. Yah, I see.

xoxoxoBruce 04-06-2007 11:02 PM
Yeah DanaC, fer chriss sake, you know that don't fit his agenda.

tw 04-07-2007 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 331146)
I thought that had been proven to be false?
That propaganda was never known to be true. Swift boat propaganda only demonstrated again some Americans will continue to believe obvious lies such a bin Laden / Saddam alliance, and Saddam's intent to attack America. For the benefit of TheMercenary: those also were lies promoted by the same people with contempt for the American soldier.

Meanwhile how many are asking a real question: "When do we go after bin Laden?" Those who hate America promoted / believed swift boat lies AND also do not ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

When was the last time TheMercenary asked that question? Never.

TheMercenary 04-07-2007 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw (Post 331540)
That propaganda was never known to be true. Swift boat propaganda only demonstrated again some Americans will continue to believe obvious lies such a bin Laden / Saddam alliance, and Saddam's intent to attack America. For the benefit of TheMercenary: those also were lies promoted by the same people with contempt for the American soldier.
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7...oilhat2cy2.jpg

Happy Monkey 04-07-2007 12:21 PM
You've got nothin', eh?

TheMercenary 04-07-2007 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 331668)
You've got nothin', eh?
You want a counter conspiracy theory? No I don't do them...

DanaC 04-09-2007 07:55 AM
Nope you just have lots of pictures of tinfoil hats. One of these days on the TV debate shows I'd love to see a politician answer someone's assertions by just donning a tin hat. Now there's debating for ya.

Ibby 04-09-2007 08:23 PM
I can TOTALLY see it - I'd totally vote for him, too, just for the wit.

DanaC 04-09-2007 08:26 PM
Interviewer: I'm going to direct that question to the Honourable Member from Bolton North.....

:tinfoil:

Happy Monkey 05-16-2007 11:51 AM
The beginning of the warrantless wiretapping program:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.