Quantcast

How does Bush get away with this?

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Bush says he can edit security reports

By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 7 minutes ago

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
 

Slugman

Frankenbike
Apr 29, 2004
4,024
0
Miami, FL
Simple - Fear.

People were afraid after 9/11 and his administration has done a FANTASTIC job of keeping them that way.
 

Secret Squirrel

There is no Justice!
Dec 21, 2004
8,150
1
Up sh*t creek, without a paddle
Ummm...

Article said:
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
Wasn't this the problem before??? or am I missing something...:brow: :brow: :brow: :brow:
 

Biscuit

Turbo Monkey
Feb 12, 2003
1,768
1
Pleasant Hill, CA
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.
One of the Bush perogotives from the begining has been to expand the power of the Presidential office. Not necessarily for GW's personal gratification, but more from a philosofical standpoint of how power should be distributed.

Regan had a much more powerfull office than the one GW inherited.

That's great! "The king has spoken!" Or does "I am above the law!" work better?
I think it's more about interpretation of existing laws that is under debate. Not exactly what many are coining a "power grab".

If you are in office, and something (anything) comes up that threatens to take away or alter what you believe is within your official duty/rights, you have a responsibility to defend it. Wether you plan on using it or not.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Regan had a much more powerfull office than the one GW inherited.
You think? How does Reagan's office compare to the one Bush is now leaving behind?

I think it's more about interpretation of existing laws that is under debate. Not exactly what many are coining a "power grab".
Except that Bush is the ONLY ONE interpreting laws this way. It's not about interpretation when everyone else agrees your interpretation is wrong. It's a power grab. He's a huge crybaby and has to have his way.

And now a brief aside from our friends at Disney (name that movie):

He sits alone on a giant throne
Pretendin' he's the king
A little tyke who's rather like
A puppet on a string
And he throws an angry tantrum
if he cannot have his way
And then he calls for Mum while he's suckin' his thumb
You see, he doesn't want to play
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
I wish I could remember the name of the book. But on NPR this morning they interviewed a guy who has written a book about this. It was called..."Corruption of Conservatives"...or something. It had Corrupt and conservative in the title.

He said the most telling thing about his experience is that while the republicans obviously don't like his book, they have not attmpeted to dispute anything mentioned in the book.....
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Robin Hood.....(old animated version)

You think? How does Reagan's office compare to the one Bush is now leaving behind?



Except that Bush is the ONLY ONE interpreting laws this way. It's not about interpretation when everyone else agrees your interpretation is wrong. It's a power grab. He's a huge crybaby and has to have his way.

And now a brief aside from our friends at Disney (name that movie):

He sits alone on a giant throne
Pretendin' he's the king
A little tyke who's rather like
A puppet on a string
And he throws an angry tantrum
if he cannot have his way
And then he calls for Mum while he's suckin' his thumb
You see, he doesn't want to play
 

rockwool

Turbo Monkey
Apr 19, 2004
2,658
0
Filastin
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
This is New Speak.

because Bush is far more bad-ass than Chuck Norris.
Of course he is. He's the Devil.

your avatar says it all.
Man, if you and your likes only new the truth....we would have an enlighted world. I fully understand that some forces fight against enlightment; to stay in power, and I fully understand why some people back those forces; ignorance.

One of the Bush perogotives from the begining has been to expand the power of the Presidential office. Not necessarily for GW's personal gratification, but more from a philosofical standpoint of how power should be distributed.
Just like Vladimir Putin. Both stealing power from the elected representatives and even more corrupting a failed democratic system.

I think it's more about interpretation of existing laws that is under debate. Not exactly what many are coining a "power grab".
His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
Do you call that an interpretation or twisting the truth? That law demanded "at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security" to ensure a person with "experiance and knowledge" gets that seat. Instead dubya is going to put a pal of his on that posision. That's like putting an auditor friend of his to fly Air Force One. :biggrin:

N8, your a funny mf. :cheers: