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.''

[74dodgedart]

I sure wouldn't trust Gore with that kind of power though.

Bush is setting a precedence that all presidents after him will be able to follow.

No one is above the law.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[74dodgedart]

Of course, in times of national emergency, sometimes the executive says screw the law, at least his actions reflect that.

If GW is using the "War on Terrorism" as an excuse to do whatever he wants, then we are in trouble. The "War on Terrorism" will be like the "War on Drugs"-- it will never end.

Are we going to let the president usurp the government every time an embassy gets attacked somewhere ?

I think the Chief law enforcement officer in the land is setting a bad example by picking and choosing which laws\rules he wants to follow.

[MissAmericanPie]

This is what it is, as far as I am concerned, and you can accept it or not. We have had millions of laws passed that should not even have to on the books at all, why? Corruption.

The more corrupt we are, the more laws have to be passed, the more other laws have to be trampled on, in an attempt to control corruption. The lines between the branches of government are blurred and stepped over in an attempt to control corruption, or promote corruption as in Clinton's case. We have such corrupt members of congress that they cannot be trusted with our national security. We have had such corrupt Presidents that they cannot be trusted with our national security.

This must be why the Founding Father's said that this government will not work ever, unless Christian morals are held to, and they were right. We live in an anything goes society now, there is no moral condemnation for corrupt acts, Bill Clinton was even loved for his "charming corruption", they will not love the first missiles coming over the north pole from China however due to his corruption. I know, we are not going to last unless people in mass finally stand up and say, "There is good and evil, right and wrong, I morally condemn this corruption, knock it off now." But given that the new PC mantra is "judge not" taking it completely out of context, and given the hatred of anything Christian, especially morals, this is never going to happen and we will go down the tubes, in fact we are past the flush and half way down the tubes now.

[74dodgedart]

We have had millions of laws passed that should not even have to on the books at all, why?

If he didn't like the law, he shouldn't have signed the bill. If he signed the bill, he should follow the law.

We have three branches of gov't that are seperate but, equal and they operate within a system of checks and balances so that no one branch can take control of the other two.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your unsuccessful attempt at a clever retort illustrates once again your inability to understand the problem when it does not neatly fit your ideology.

Should I fall far enough behind I would meet you wandering in the wilderness muttering about tyranny.

[OWK]

Uhhhhhh...... yeah....

OK.

[MissAmericanPie]

Not anymore we don't, or havn't you noticed? The President wants to bypass congress with "Fast Track" trade abilities, very dangerous idea, and denial of Justice Department documents for Congressional oversight. And as for Congress itself, it can't be trusted with anything anymore period, it's members blab national security secrets, the height of an example of their corruption is to pass laws without even reading them, and so does the Senate. And the Senate Majority leader is trying to overthrow the Constitution by denying the Senate the ability to pass a bill with a majority vote.

The President won't President, the Congress won't Congress, the Senate won't Senate, and the Supreme Court cuts off the citizens right to have them address grievances by refusing to hear any case that overthrows an unconstitutional law they want kept on the books. The INS won't do it's job, the F.B.I. and B.A.T.F. are dangerous jokes, the E.P.A. is an arm of the United Nations, nothing in government is working as intended.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gee, it is such a shame that MissAmericanPie's version of constitutional government is not implemented well known channeler of the founding fathers such as she is.

[MissAmericanPie]

Your darn right it is a shame.

[MissAmericanPie]

I see no difference between the DSA and communism. I tend to take the labels off things and call it what it is.

[lepton]

Then it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine that the law was unconstitutional.

All three branches are supposed to do so...as a matter of fact, the SCOTUS gives Congress and The Executive Branch the benefit of the doubt, and have ocassionally opined that they might consider not doing that in the future, as Congress clearly has been passing laws that they have not reviewed for Constitutionality.