Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to Ignore Rule on Written Notices of Intelligence Actions
Bloomberg.com ^ | Dec. 28 , 2001 | Heidi Przybyla

Posted on 01/03/2002 9:50:13 AM PST by 74dodgedart

Edited on 07/19/2004 2:09:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.''


(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last
To: Askel5
Son of Spookdaddy's tyrannical impulses makes Clinton seem like a constitutionalist by comparison.

Even so, so-called conservatives cheer on every imperious edict and act by their Maximum Leader.

It is now all too clear that many conservatives care not one wit for the constitution, a free republic, liberty, this country, or anything else that real conservatives have traditionally valued and sought to conserve. All they really care about is whether the quadrennially elected tyrant-in-charge is one of their own.

61 posted on 01/03/2002 11:15:37 AM PST by Arator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
No ... but I find it ironic that you, of all people, are demanding that we follow the dictates of organizations you have called disfunctional countless times over the years, in order to make a point about Bush.

However dysfunctional the SCOTUS and the Congress may be, the President of the United States is the chief executive. As such, he is bound to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, and to protect the constitution.

If the president should choose to ignore laws that he does not wish to comply with, rather than openly challenging those laws within the framework of the constitution.... then the rule of law is DEAD.

We may as well simply declare it so now, and be done with it.

I'm sorry my friend, but there is no emergency grave enough, and no hobgoblin scary enough, to rationalize the destruction of the constitutional bounds of government, in order to save America. America is not simply a collection of loosely associated people trying to make ends meet. It is DEFINED by the constitutional charter which establishes it. Generations of presidents and congressmen and judges have already soaked the damned thing in gasoline, and now your boy is waving a torch back and forth over it (to keep the terrorists at bay of course)

Quite frankly, I'm astonished to witness the demise of all that America was. And saddened to my very core that it came about as a result of the efforts of a foreign enemy.

And I really didn't think it would happen this fast... and to the cheers of the unwary.

62 posted on 01/03/2002 11:15:44 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
That's how are congress criters need to be taken care of.

Considering that a simple majority votes these unconstituional bills out of Congress, exactly how are we gonna get a two-thirds majority to toss the rascals out when a majority are rascals?

63 posted on 01/03/2002 11:16:18 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
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.

According to this reporter, this is a "rule", not a law and while I'm not an attorney I know that rules and laws are not the same animal.

64 posted on 01/03/2002 11:17:12 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OWK
If the president should choose to ignore laws that he does not wish to comply with, rather than openly challenging those laws within the framework of the constitution.... then the rule of law is DEAD.

So you would disagree, then, with a president refusing to enforce a law inherited from his predicessor that both he and you found to be blatantly unconstitutional?

65 posted on 01/03/2002 11:17:28 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
According to this reporter, this is a "rule", not a law and while I'm not an attorney I know that rules and laws are not the same animal.

Considering the propensity of the newshogs to mangle terms, I wouldn't bet the farm that they have things correct here...

66 posted on 01/03/2002 11:18:12 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Well, I know about the frying because it wouldn't be my first either...
67 posted on 01/03/2002 11:18:50 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
You're obfuscating again.
68 posted on 01/03/2002 11:18:54 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Arator,OWK
It is now all too clear that many conservatives care not one wit for the constitution, a free republic, liberty, this country, or anything else that real conservatives have traditionally valued and sought to conserve. All they really care about is whether the quadrennially elected tyrant-in-charge is one of their own.

Arator, you cheered on Pat, who would simply carry out his own personal brand of tyranny. I'll debate the likes of OWK on this subject long before I pay any attention to you.

69 posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:42 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Neither would I but I sure wouldn't bet my life on Senator Leahy keeping his copy under wraps if I were an agent of the US government. His history is awful.
70 posted on 01/03/2002 11:21:57 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OWK
You're obfuscating again.

Why can't you simply answer the question? 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?

71 posted on 01/03/2002 11:22:14 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'll debate the likes of OWK on this subject...

the likes?

LOL

72 posted on 01/03/2002 11:22:45 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Insofar as moral decay ...the fall of Rome is similar. Our legions are not in tatters as were their's ...yet. Could our massive immigration be compared to the Goth hordes...I dunno...we'll have to ask Pat;>)

The integral part that collective guilt plays in our(and the West in general) demise ...is literally unprecented historically. The great irony is that we are far and away the most benevolent and powerful nation the world has ever seen...even considering our transgressions (see I even have to nod at our guilt reflex)...yet we are made to feel so guilty by those who resent us that we are willing to sell our own survival down the river to sate this guilt.

If Americans ever one day shed the burden of this weighty emotion in droves then we may yet have a chance to prevail. If not....then Libertarian or Conservative will matter little.

73 posted on 01/03/2002 11:24:05 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Arator
Ah, how nice to have the voice of reason back.

Thanks for reminding me that Bush is, indeed, the Anti-Christ.

74 posted on 01/03/2002 11:24:05 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OWK
the likes?

Meant in a positive manner, that term doesn't always have to carry a negative connotation. Basically, your beefs with Bush is over Constitutional issues, which is debatable, whereas with Arator it's that the object of his personal cult of personality isn't in the White House, which is a waste of time.

75 posted on 01/03/2002 11:27:25 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill,Fred Mertz,golitely,ratcat,LSJohn,rightwing2,rubbertramp,t-shirt,Judge Parker,Senator
from reply #43:

"Senator Inhofe might tell Bush to come down to Oklahoma and scream at your wife and kids, as you say he did."

For the record, the above sentence from reply #43 is false.

I never have written that Inhofe screamed at my wife and kids. I wrote that I spoke to Inhofe on the phone.

I wonder if sinkspur thinks Senator Inhofe can be trusted by Bush to be told of intelligence activities? Inhofe is a Republican who serves on the Armed Services and also Intelligence Committees in the Senate (the Senate is a part of Congress in case sink does not know).

Sink has never been known to get anything correct, but he knows how to smear Freepers, put false words in their mouths, and that is why he is known widely on FR as a nuisance, a disruptor, a poor debator ( he is a good "baitor" though), one who never persuades anyone of anything except that he has rotten behavior.

76 posted on 01/03/2002 11:28:24 AM PST by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
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?

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 who saw fit to act in violation of the constitution. Just as in this case, I would support his arrest and trial of any congresscritter who saw fit to share information that jeopardized US servicemen.

But as much as you would like it to be.... and as much as you;d like to ascribe some great sense of nobility to Bush's actions in this case... that example just isn't applicable.

The president clearly does not challenge the constitutionality of the notification requirement. He simply chooses to ignore it.

You know it.... I know it... so quit changing the subject ot hypotheticals.

77 posted on 01/03/2002 11:28:52 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: toenail
Bump to that reply!
78 posted on 01/03/2002 11:29:12 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Dead-on about the head Brigadier.
79 posted on 01/03/2002 11:29:36 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
unprecented=unprecedented....I had a large lunch(rare for me) with Mrs. Wardaddy and Wardaddy Jr....seriously....after a cigar now at my desk....I may nod off.
80 posted on 01/03/2002 11:30:43 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-185 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson