March 25, 2006
NOW HE'S JUST TAUNTING THEM:
Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement (Charlie Savage, March 24, 2006, Boston Globe)
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 25, 2006 8:40 AM
I'm sure the moonbats will view this as the first step to the imposition of the Bush Crime Family Dictatorship (although one is left wondering just how many "first steps" can occur). However, I don't like it because it's an obvious ploy to coverup the massive incompetence the FBI has been displaying in this area. It's another example of why Bush didn't have the credibility to push through on the Dubai Ports. Domestic security seems to be far down on his priority list.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 25, 2006 9:06 AMHe's preserving the power of the presidency. If the Congress cannot trust the president to oversee the FBI in matters of domestic securtity they're overiding the will of the people, as expressed in the election, IMHO.
Personally, the Congressional 9/11 committee's political performance reinforces the Presidents decision. I'd trust him before I would the Congress.
Posted by: Genecis at March 25, 2006 10:02 AMGenecis;
True, but that's damning with faint praise.
Mr. Judd;
Weren't you just saying how that episode damaged the GOP and boosted the nativist/isolationists in both parties, while giving the Democratic Party an excuse for protectionism? And you consider that a win?
The deal went through.
Posted by: oj at March 25, 2006 10:26 AMIt's hard to tell the hits from the misses when the media force Bush to govern by subterfuge.
Posted by: erp at March 25, 2006 10:34 AMHe's preserving the power of the presidency. If the Congress cannot trust the president to oversee the FBI in matters of domestic securtity they're overiding the will of the people, as expressed in the election, IMHO.
Hilarious.
In the words of the finest political blogger, Digby:
"9/11 changed everything. Suddenly the he-men of WalMart and the NRA leaped into Big Brother's arms and shrieked "save me, save me! Do what ever you have to do, they're trying to kill us all!" They now look to Daddy Government not to discipline the children, but to check under the bed for them every night, reassure them that the boogeyman won't hurt them and then read them a nice bedtime story about spreading freedom and democracy. It turns out that underneath all this swaggering bravado, the Republicans aren't the Daddy party --- they're the baby party.
"They are rhinestone cowboys who are scared to death and don't know how to contain their fear...
"Violent Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, not an existential threat. And it's a difficult problem that requires adults who can keep their heads about them when the terrorists put on their scary show, not big-for-their-age eight year olds staging a temper tantrum."
Posted by: M.A. at March 25, 2006 11:55 AMMA:
To the contrary, the Right has always been fiercely law and order and it would be hard to argue that the Lincoln/McCarthyite party is departing from wartime norms in placing defeat of the enemy above criminal rights.
Posted by: oj at March 25, 2006 12:00 PMTo the contrary, the Right has always been fiercely law and order and it would be hard to argue that the Lincoln/McCarthyite party is departing from wartime norms in placing defeat of the enemy above criminal rights.
Ah, you just said "criminal rights." You admit the obvious -- terrorism is a criminal activity; terrorists are criminal gangs. But investigation of crime requires oversight by the courts, which Bush doesn't want. You cannot be the law-and-order party if you cheer on the President as he ignores the basic component of law-enforcement. Liberals, who want cops to be checked by the courts as the law requires, are the law-and-order party; conservatives, who want BushCops to be without any restraints whatsoever, are against the very nature of law and order.
Posted by: M.A. at March 25, 2006 12:31 PMMA:
Exactly. You're sugggesting that criminal rights be extended to enemies of the Republic. The Right treats them as enemies instead.
Posted by: oj at March 25, 2006 12:43 PMViolent Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, not an existential threat. And it's a difficult problem that requires adults who can keep their heads about them when the terrorists put on their scary showI would be most interested in MA pointing out such adults and their recommended policies, just to see if they are significantly different from surrender / appeasement crowd's. It is of course very standard of people like MA that these people and policies remain safely unspecified, just like Senator Kerry's "secret plans". Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Madeleine, You can't know how impressed I am by your reading choices. That gem could have been written by a precocious fourteen year old.
Posted by: Genecis at March 25, 2006 1:07 PM"But after the reporters and guests had left... Bush, with that ever present smirk on his face, brought out front the hand that was behind his back and showed Karl Rove that he had his fingers crossed." "HA! yelled Karl, we fooled 'em again!"
Posted by: AllenS at March 25, 2006 2:07 PM