Bush to Ignore Rule on Written Notices of Intelligence Actions

Bloomberg.com ^ | Dec. 28 , 2001 | Heidi Przybyla

[74dodgedart]

Crawford, Texas, Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he'll use presidential authority to sidestep a rule requiring his administration to provide Congress with written notice of U.S. intelligence activities.

Bush made the announcement in signing the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2002, which includes an amendment stating that reports to Congress should ``always be in written form.''

[Cyber Liberty]

"Congress controls the funding and has oversight on all U.S. intelligence activities."

Preciesly the part you failed to point out was contitutional.

I don't have the time nor temperament to get into a circular argument with you.

[Arator]

Arator, your boy Pat would have simply bashed on his selected sections of the Constitution, so your words about tyranny ring as hollow as the space between your ears.

Regretfully, you are right. Pat Buchanan has praised Dubya's unconstitutional and Soviet-style secret military tribunals and gushed over Son of Spookdaddy, calling him a "war leader in the highest Western tradition". As such, he has proven himself as faithless to our founding principles and constitution as Dubya is. Consequently, while I still agree with much of what Pat has to say, I find him no longer fit to be president and will no longer support him should he seek that office again.

[Sandy]

Note: Nothing was deleted from the old law. New additions are in red.

[stryker]

Are you kidding? The stage was set with the WOD, which has been used as the rationale for abandoning much of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. We already had legalized indefinite detention, roadblocks, random searches, seizure of private property without findings of guilt of a crime, guilt by association (conspiracy), ex-parte hearings resulting in the complete loss of second amendment rights in divorce cases, and a host of other unconstitutional horrors that breath through our "living' Constitution. All through the Clinton administration, I read thousands of hysterical posts about his secret plan to create a crisis and declare martial law and extend his term. Then, when GB gets elected, a crisis does occur and he proceeds to shread the Constitution on a scale unmatched since the civil war, but to a chorus of "well dones," rather than the former hysteria. It seems we have been aptly conditioned to accept the loss of freedom so long as we lose it to a good and effective leader, rather than a moral sloth.

[dirtboy]

has praised Dubya's unconstitutional and Soviet-style secret military tribunals

I see the facts elude you yet again. Tribunals have been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court on two occassions, and Congress a long, long time ago gave the president authority to declare them. I personally would like to see changes to those laws, but that does not change the fact that Bush is acting in a constitutional manner in declaring tribunals.

Any other misinformation you wish to add to the thread?

[jethropalerobber]

If the president refused to enforce a law confiscating weapons, he would be doing so in defense of the constitution. I would support his arrest and trial of those congresscritters...

it seems like you're back pedaling here. what happened to doing the honorable thing and taking it up with the SCOTUS?

[Sandy]

the President should just follow a law passed by an idiotic anti-national-security Congress and signed by a treasonous president?

Ahem. It was Bush who signed the law.

[dirtboy]

see post #45 and the subsequent debate about what this change to the law actually means starting around post #85

[OWK]

Given all that I would think that a thoughtful individual would be a bit cautious before running his mouth

Try to keep up.

[veryconernedamerican]

the loop hole exists for circumstances where lives are in danger, and bush is using it. no one said or has shown any law is being broken. this is why the lefties are not crying bloody murder. and the fact that they know the american people are better off for it. it is costing them a little face time, that's about it. and now we miss out on dashole and company racing to the nearest reporter whenever secret info is shared, they will probably get fatter for lack of exercise

[veryconernedamerican]

this is a true no win situation for the bush admin, either they give the info, and the senate leaks it and soldiers die i.e. somalia. or they with hold and people like you complain, obviously they chose the latter. on clinton it's the same thing, either you rat out clinton and face a partison fight or sweep it under the rug and pull in the marker later, thereby drawing criticism from people like yourself, my guess is you would complain about any conversative pres. so they made the right choice again

[74dodgedart]

Bush must be trying to protect Clinton's mafia buddies - so maybe they are his buddies, too.

Just for the record, the mafia stuff is from the '80's. There is some stuff regarding investigations about Clinton.

[backup]

Where in the Constitution, then, does it say that Bush is supposed to inform Congress of intel matters? You are sidestepping the question.

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress to make all laws it deems necessary and proper to regulate and organize the navy, and land forces of the United States. If the Congress wanted to, it could pass a bill tomorrow abolishing the CIA, FBI, and the entire military. The President has NO authority to disregard Congress' laws. Indeed, the CIA and FBI are creatures of Statute -- the scope of their duties, who reports to whom, what reports ought be made, etc., etc. is entirely up to Congress.

[backup]

What if the president was the last stand against a law to confiscate all guns that was signed by his predecessor? Would you agree if he refused to enforce that law, and directed the FBI and ATF to not carry out confiscations? Could a constitutional crisis sparked by such a decision actually be healthy?

You know very little about constitutional law or the way our government works.

The executive branch is under no obligation to 'enforce the law.' None.

Prosecutors in every county, State, and Federal District, every day of the week, decide not to prosecute and enforce certain laws.

Exercising such discretion is part of their job and their oath.

[dirtboy]

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress to make all laws it deems necessary and proper to regulate and organize the navy, and land forces of the United States.

I don't see the words intelligence agency in there. Aside from that, the point is, Congress can set up agencies, but it is up to the Executive Branch to run them. But we've already progressed well beyond that point in the debate - it really comes down to the nature of the change in the law being spun as something else by the media.

[backup]

Your quote does not address matters of military intelligence.

Article I, Section 8 deals with military intelligence. It goves Congress full authority to make whatever policies or laws it deems necessary.

Does anyone at FreeRepublic ever read the friggin constitution?

[backup]

Congress can set up agencies, but it is up to the Executive Branch to run them.

Hogwash.

Every agency in this government is created by Congress and run according to rules promulgated by Congress, either through statute or through Congress' adoption of executive regulations through the Federal Register.

Ulitmately, Congress governs EVERYTHING that ANY agency does down to the color of pens they use.