More BHO administration paranoia...

[Hew]

If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.

Killjoy!

While the "smear campaign" is over-the-top, nearly all sentient life forms would agree with you that she was protecting Bush admin. officials (namely, Libby).

But he did say there were reporterS, so in theory, he's still got a fighting chance to come up with another reporter's name.

[TXduckdog]

The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

Jeff....Obama is clear accumulating and centralizing powers and responsibilities in the WH. All his "czars" are evidence of this and are clearly obvious abuses of his presidential authority, because in fact they are clearly designed to bypass congressional oversight.

Name a couple of instances where Bush was "given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly". Did he ever create such czars to circumvent congress?

You speak of "increases in power"...who supposedly gave Bush these powers....he certainly didn't have a friendly congress.

I absolutely distrust the office when I feel the person occupying it has proven less than stellar motives and is into politicization more than anything else.

[TXduckdog]

Again, the lack of outrage over the past 8 years casts doubt on the true nature of the concerns here, when we saw power-grabbing like nothing since the Civil War!

Warrant-less wiretaps, recess appointments, stacking of the justice deptartment, war powers, executive privelages, signing statements, reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....
I was outraged then, and I am outraged now with some of the things that are occuring in the Obama whitehouse. Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.

"Power-grabbing"....how about stepping up to the plate and doing the necessary things for an increased national security after an un-precedented attack of US citizens on US soil.....not seen since the Civil War.

Everything but the warrent-less wiretaps are the identical things EVERY administration has engaged in, in this century. As has been clearly shown....the wiretaps were aimed at over-seas calls made by non-US citizens. In regards to the reporters...well, I'm not even going there.

As far as not seeing the amount of abuse.....we are in just the first 8 months of this administration. You must be turning a blind eye to the current economic abuse being served on this country.

[dnf777]

If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.

She reported her story, refused to reveal sources, and was jailed, was she not? What was the charge? I don't care if she takes warm showers with Bush, she did not reveal potentially damaging information via her sources, and was put behind bars. (BTW, her source which was ultimately revealed was scooter libby, who was convicted in a court of law)

ONe of the biggest farses of the warrantless wiretapping debate was that administration officials would have to wait for a judge to issue warrants. All the while, and everyone involved knew this....you could wiretap w/o a warrant if the situation was time critical, but you had to submit to judicial review AFTER THE FACT, in order to satisfy the letter of the law, while still allowing people to do their jobs and keep us safe. This had been done, and I haven't researched this, but am not familiar with any adverse outcomes from these reviews.

Are we a nation of laws, or a nation where one man can rule as he pleases? I think I know what the Founding Fathers preferred, and what they feared above all else, hence, Freedom of the Press.

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff....Obama is clear accumulating and centralizing powers and responsibilities in the WH. All his "czars" are evidence of this and are clearly obvious abuses of his presidential authority, because in fact they are clearly designed to bypass congressional oversight.

Name a couple of instances where Bush was "given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly". Did he ever create such czars to circumvent congress?

You speak of "increases in power"...who supposedly gave Bush these powers....he certainly didn't have a friendly congress.

I absolutely distrust the office when I feel the person occupying it has proven less than stellar motives and is into politicization more than anything else.

Bush's power "grab" basically followed a pattern of asserting the most extreme vision of a unitary executive in the history of our country (with the possible exception of Lincoln during the Civil War). This was justified in some cases based on the President's "inherent" powers as Commander in Chief and in others based on the President's "inherent" authority over the Executive Branch.

The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored.

Under its broader view of the executive powers of the President, the administration:

• made unprecendnted use of so-called "signing statements" to rewrite and reinterpret laws as it saw fit, sometimes directly contradicting the language of the legislation itself.
• defined rules of secrecy over executive action that went beyond anything in the post-Watergate era, including refusal of cabinet officers to testify before congress abut issues unrelated to direct communication with the president (e.g. termination of US Attorneys), as well as asserting a unique argument claiming specific exemptions from the public records laws with regard to the Vice President based on the argument that the VP is part of the legislature rather than the Executive branch in those cases where the administration deems that to be more convenient.

Signing statements were used for many purposes, often akin to a line item veto, which is not permitted. Frequently, however, they were used specifically to prevent Congress from exercising agency oversight by imposing direct requirements for Cabinet members to report on activities to Congress (your stated reason for concern about the appointment of "czars".) As one of many examples if this is the signing statement attached to a bill in 2004:

"May 25, 2006

Today I have signed into law S. 1869, the ``Coastal Barrier
Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' This Act provides for digital
mapping in support of the coastal barrier resources system and
authorizes appropriations through fiscal year 2010 for implementation of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
Section 3(c)(2) and section 4(c)(3)(C) and (D) purport to require
executive branch officials to submit legislative recommendations to the
Congress. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a
manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of
the authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such
measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to
supervise the unitary executive branch.
George W. Bush"

Altogether, in the first five years of his administration, Bush inserted more than 750 such "signing statements" into laws to modify the intentions of Congress.

I believe the above satisfy your request for a "few examples" of ause.

With respect to having a "friendly Congress", Bush had an unusually friendly Congress for the first six years he was in office. In fact, I do not think any President since World War II had a friendlier congress for six years than Bush faced from 2001 until the end of 2006. LBJ had similar support for about three years. Clinton had similar support for 2-4 years depending on how one counts. Reagan never had that level of support.

In answer to your comment on Obama's "czars", these were used by every recent President. Obama has named more such "czars" than Bush, but even that assertion needs to be considered in light of the fact that "czars" generally exist only in the eyes of reporters. Ultimately, they are simply members of the president's staff and have no legal authority over the agencies that fall under their purview. As one who has been in such roles, I can assure you that the differece between "staff" authority and "line" authority is huge.

EDIT: BTW, the biggest criticisms of Obama from the "left" have been his failure to reject some of the powers claimed by Bush.

[TXduckdog]

OK Jeff, now go do some research and report back with all the "signing statements" and while you're at it...."executive directives"....put out by Slick Willie, George the elder, Reagan, the peanut farmer and every other president going back to say, Eisenhower.

You'll find THEY ALL pulled this kind of crap. Might have been labeled something else. This is not an abuse created by George Bush.


"The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored."

Nice summation of liberal democratic talking points. The "creation" of a new system of justice, as you call it, was in response to combatting the war on terrorists. This was a unique creation to a unique situation never before encountered in the history of the US. This was not a conventional war and the "unlawful combatants" were terrorists, without a country, without a flag, and certainly not signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Therefore, they are not entitled to any kind of constitutional and legal protections.
Therefore no judicial or legislative oversight is needed or required.

Yet, the US extended them way more courtesies in regards to such things as their religious liberties. Something these same people NEVER extended to captives such as Perlman, who was a civilian, and our soldiers.

Not only did they not extend these courtesies, they summarily executed them by cutting their heads off or hung them from a bridge....and videotaped it for all the fricking world to see!!!

[road kill]

What is happening right now should have all "FREE" men concerned.

Sorry for not using enough paragraphs to present the idea.
But drop your ideology and grab on to your common sense.

[Richard Halstead]

I have had unsolicitated email on Whitehouse stationary signed David Axelrod. My question why can't they their own act first?

[YardleyLabs]

OK Jeff, now go do some research and report back with all the "signing statements" and while you're at it...."executive directives"....put out by Slick Willie, George the elder, Reagan, the peanut farmer and every other president going back to say, Eisenhower.

You'll find THEY ALL pulled this kind of crap. Might have been labeled something else. This is not an abuse created by George Bush.


"The administration used the President's authority as CIC to justify the creation of a new system of "justice" for what it deemed to be "unlawful combatants" under which individuals could be denied essentially all constitutional and legal protections based on a Presidential determination. It was argued, that this determination was not subject to any judicial or legislative oversight or control even after every court review rejected this argument. This same argument was used to implement warrantless wire taps in direct contravention of law based on the administration's assertion that even the very limited oversight provided by the FISA court was too onerous and therefore could be ignored."

Nice summation of liberal democratic talking points. The "creation" of a new system of justice, as you call it, was in response to combatting the war on terrorists. This was a unique creation to a unique situation never before encountered in the history of the US. This was not a conventional war and the "unlawful combatants" were terrorists, without a country, without a flag, and certainly not signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Therefore, they are not entitled to any kind of constitutional and legal protections.
Therefore no judicial or legislative oversight is needed or required.

Yet, the US extended them way more courtesies in regards to such things as their religious liberties. Something these same people NEVER extended to captives such as Perlman, who was a civilian, and our soldiers.

Not only did they not extend these courtesies, they summarily executed them by cutting their heads off or hung them from a bridge....and videotaped it for all the fricking world to see!!!

Signing statements were not invented by GWB but were taken to a whole new level under his direction. According to a recent study, he issued signing statements challengin 1200 different sections of laws that were adopted and signed, more than twice the number of all prior administrations (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us...ning.html?_r=2)

With respect to the actions taken by the administration using the GWOT argument, I would point out that the war on terror is substantially less threatening to our country than prior wars such as Korea, WWII, WWI, Vietnam, etc. However, the actions taken by the President did more damage to civil liberties in general than was done in those wars with the exception of the incarceration of citizens of Japannese descent by Roosevelt which remains a gross stain on our history. In fact, many of the actions that would have resulted in the removal of Nixon from office could be deemed legal under the authorities claimed by Bush. For a group as fearful of civil liberty violations by the current administration, I am stunned by the ready acceptance of much greater abuses by the prior administration. As I noted before, the validity of presidential powers depends on how willing we should be to trust the office, not the occupant at any point in time.

Back to my puppies.

[TXduckdog]

Signing statements were not invented by GWB but were taken to a whole new level under his direction. According to a recent study, he issued signing statements challengin 1200 different sections of laws that were adopted and signed, more than twice the number of all prior administrations (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us...ning.html?_r=2)

With respect to the actions taken by the administration using the GWOT argument, I would point out that the war on terror is substantially less threatening to our country than prior wars such as Korea, WWII, WWI, Vietnam, etc. However, the actions taken by the President did more damage to civil liberties in general than was done in those wars with the exception of the incarceration of citizens of Japannese descent by Roosevelt which remains a gross stain on our history. In fact, many of the actions that would have resulted in the removal of Nixon from office could be deemed legal under the authorities claimed by Bush. For a group as fearful of civil liberty violations by the current administration, I am stunned by the ready acceptance of much greater abuses by the prior administration. As I noted before, the validity of presidential powers depends on how willing we should be to trust the office, not the occupant at any point in time.

Back to my puppies.

Substantially less threatening? Jeff they succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers, they put a plane into the side of the Pentagon and brave citizens caused the crash of a third airliner that was aimed at either the Capital or the WH. They caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians on our OWN SOIL. How the hell can you say it is less threatening??!!

Whose civil liberties? If you are speaking of the terrorists, they got plenty of civil liberties at Gitmo....more than most felons currently in US prisons. And you have not addressed the lack of civil liberties in their viewpoint...you know...the beheadings and hangings...not to mention the autocratic abuses contained in their "Sharia"(not sure of the spelling) law. Talk about civil rights abuses....summary executions of women suspicioned of affairs....public whippings and cannings....these people are animals when it comes to civil liberites yet all you can do is demonize the Bush adminstration? Whose real motivations were not for power for powers sake but for the ability to posture this country to be able to defend itself against another attack.

You ain't seen nothing, yet. The Obama's of the world seek equality. But their equality is mis-used to pursue "uniform economic and social outcomes". They will seek to enhance their power at the expense of self government and individual liberties. To these folks, liberties are the enemies....they are the enemies of their so-called social/economic utopia. The state is the priority of society, everything must be subordinated to the state.

Obama spoke of a "collective salvation" during his campaign. (Remember the Joe the Plumber conversation). He's all about collectivism not individual rights. His "equality" is all about taking away the individuals rights and through deception and coercion he can subordinate individual freedoms to the Utopia of the State.

There is a term for such subordination of individual freedoms....its called TYRANNY.

C.S. Lewis once said, and it nails the current administration...."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons(despots) than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The despots cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity(avarice, greed) may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own consciences."