• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush says he can edit security reports

BoomerD

No Lifer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

WASHINGTON - President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

This way, he can alter the intelligence passed on to congress...sound familiar?

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Silly peons, these mortal laws don't apply to King Georgie

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
 
You know, I'm not sure it's part of some grand plan to destroy democracy, I simply think Bush is too stupid to work within a complex, democratic government. Trying to work within that system requires some intelligence and reasoning ability. When you lack those two things, it seems simply easier to just bash your way through the system. In other words, Bush it too clumsy and dumb to figure out the lock picks, so he's just going to sledgehammer down the door. Effective, but with some notable downsides.
 
Even if congress (one or both) flips next month, what's to say the King won't just do whatever the hell he wants anyway (assuming he doesn't create some executive order to abolish congress altogether)???
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know, I'm not sure it's part of some grand plan to destroy democracy, I simply think Bush is too stupid to work within a complex, democratic government. Trying to work within that system requires some intelligence and reasoning ability. When you lack those two things, it seems simply easier to just bash your way through the system. In other words, Bush it too clumsy and dumb to figure out the lock picks, so he's just going to sledgehammer down the door. Effective, but with some notable downsides.

I agree with you, partly. I doubt Bush is actively pursuing an agenda to destroy democracy. I do however think others within the administration are partly pursuing a country of military dominance due to there own fear/need for America to continue its world domination it has. This is not a conspiracy theory, as anyone who thinks the world is all nice and rosey is fooling themselves. People are not going out of there way to destroy democracy, I think perhaps people are being influenced into beliefs that they feel in the end will help protect America against threats that they see as country ending. The side effects as always just erode freedoms for security as has been in most rises of dictatorships. I actually doubt anyone in the current administration is power hungry for a dictatorship. Someone will come along and use there foundation to make one though, that is a given, and history has shown it always happens.
 
maybe we're all wrong about bush.

maybe he really does know what he's doing, but can't help himself.

maybe the situation he finds himself in the middle east is exactly what he and his crew wanted all along, just not the parts that he can't change with a signing statement.

maybe the party he heads truly believes that he's doing a heck of a job - at destroying the party from the top down inside-out.

maybe, just maybe alot of folks still believe in him. you know who i'm referring to; it's those folks that totally ignore all the bad things he's done and only remember the good things that they wished he'd done and all the other stuff that bush himself wished he'd done but somehow has done because karl marx--- i mean rove. yeah, because rove waved his magic wand and presto change-o mission accomplished?

maybe the people he surrounded himself with is as loyal to him as he is to them, a very admirable trait - that got him and his loyalists into that political abyss of epic proportions that he and his cohorts refuse to face and acknowledge to this day.

maybe if we just made him dictator-in-chief with unlimited power and made cheney torturer-by-shotgun-in-chief and rummy military micromanager-in-chief and---oh wait he's doing that already - and john bolton UN-Sec. Gen-in-chief we'd all be millioniares with full staffs of illegal immigrants to denigrate as we please.

but the least we can do is to allow him to re-write history from his point of view (ie-editng security reports?) so we can all understand about him what we can't believe he's doing here and now.
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
I think you are over reacting to that signing. Focus less on the experience and knowledge part and look at the 5 year requirement. Based on that people such as Arnold, governor of the largest state in the country, could not run FEMA, and neither could Hillary, Obama, M Bloomberg (NY mayor) etc etc some of the best people in government don't have 5 years of experience in fields such as that. "Homeland security" itself has only been around 5 years, not a lot of high ranking members of government have been involved in it for long.

Think about this? if we had a requirement that the President have five years experience running a large government operation then EVERY Democrat or Republican candidate since 1980 would not qualify, except Clinton and Bush.

 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
I think you are over reacting to that signing. Focus less on the experience and knowledge part and look at the 5 year requirement. Based on that people such as Arnold, governor of the largest state in the country, could not run FEMA, and neither could Hillary, Obama, M Bloomberg (NY mayor) etc etc some of the best people in government don't have 5 years of experience in fields such as that. "Homeland security" itself has only been around 5 years, not a lot of high ranking members of government have been involved in it for long.

Think about this? if we had a requirement that the President have five years experience running a large government operation then EVERY Democrat or Republican candidate since 1980 would not qualify, except Clinton and Bush.

Ah-Nold couldn't run FEMA...what a disaster that would be...oh wait, that has a familiar ring to it...

Hillary or Bloomberg? Nope, IMO, neither of them is qualified. Brown SURE wasn't qualified... Rewarding your supporters and cronies with cushy fat-cat jobs is a terrible way to run a country...regardless of party. Sure, ambassador to Lower Slobovia might be acceptable, but an important job like FEMA or Homeland Security Director SHOULD go to someone with SOME KIND of experience in a related field...
President, while an important job, is one of those that really has nothing in private enterprise that compares. Sure, you may run a multi-bazillion dollar business, with 15 million employees, but even that pales by comparison, since as CEO of MegaCorp, you really can't declare war or drop a nuke on another country, sign treaties with other countries, but I suppose, you COULD choke on a pretzel...😉
Sure, there OUGHT to be some kind of "pre-requisite" to being elected to the nation's highest office, but I doubt the voters would take much of that into account anyway...Elected positions are just that...elected...popularity contests. Positions like FEMA director etc., are appointed jobs, and SHOULD be given to those who actually know how to do the job...not to someone who wears knee pads...
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
I think you are over reacting to that signing. Focus less on the experience and knowledge part and look at the 5 year requirement. Based on that people such as Arnold, governor of the largest state in the country, could not run FEMA, and neither could Hillary, Obama, M Bloomberg (NY mayor) etc etc some of the best people in government don't have 5 years of experience in fields such as that. "Homeland security" itself has only been around 5 years, not a lot of high ranking members of government have been involved in it for long.

Neither of those people you mentioned are qualified to run FEMA.
I don't see your point.
 
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
I think you are over reacting to that signing. Focus less on the experience and knowledge part and look at the 5 year requirement. Based on that people such as Arnold, governor of the largest state in the country, could not run FEMA, and neither could Hillary, Obama, M Bloomberg (NY mayor) etc etc some of the best people in government don't have 5 years of experience in fields such as that. "Homeland security" itself has only been around 5 years, not a lot of high ranking members of government have been involved in it for long.

Neither of those people you mentioned are qualified to run FEMA.
I don't see your point.
The point is that all three of the people I mentioned are possible candidate for President. Hillary has a damn good chance to end up being the President, but she can't even be appointed to head FEMA because she lacks 5 years experience.
 
YASS -- Yet Another Signing Statement. The laws apply to everyone equally, but Bush considers himself more equal than anyone else.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's all Clinton's fault
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Its all the Christian fundamentalists fault...
I live in California, and it's all San Andreas' Fault.

Yes, I know that's a nasty crack. 😛

At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

WASHINGTON - President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

This way, he can alter the intelligence passed on to congress...sound familiar?

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Silly peons, these mortal laws don't apply to King Georgie

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉

rofl..Clinton did the same thing......
its all a Christian fundamentalist plot to over throw th government and install EagleKeeper
as Prime Minister and techs as Vice Prime Minister of the US!!!
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

With restrictions like that in place, how could he have ever hired Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" Brown? Gotta leave room to reward those who can actually see the Emperor's new clothes... 😉
I think you are over reacting to that signing. Focus less on the experience and knowledge part and look at the 5 year requirement. Based on that people such as Arnold, governor of the largest state in the country, could not run FEMA, and neither could Hillary, Obama, M Bloomberg (NY mayor) etc etc some of the best people in government don't have 5 years of experience in fields such as that. "Homeland security" itself has only been around 5 years, not a lot of high ranking members of government have been involved in it for long.

Neither of those people you mentioned are qualified to run FEMA.
I don't see your point.
The point is that all three of the people I mentioned are possible candidate for President. Hillary has a damn good chance to end up being the President, but she can't even be appointed to head FEMA because she lacks 5 years experience.

They may be good candidates for President, but they are bad candidates for other positions.

Just because you're a good candidate in the "be all" top post doesn't mean you'll make an excellent candidate at a lower post.

All those candidates may be qualified to be president.
Are they qualified to be Secretary of Defense, Treasury, FED chairman or FEMA head in my book? NO.
None of those candidates have experiences in dealing with federal (or state) natural disasters.
 
Back
Top