Bush: PATRIOT act restrictions don't apply to me

[CynicalGabe]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0324-07.htm

Yet another Episode of “I can do Whatever I Want”.

Seriously, how dare congress try to restrict the President’s power in a Time Of War?
Why do they hate our troops so much? :rolleyes:

[Guinastasia]

“If the president does it, it is not illegal.”
Yeah, that’s what I’m hearing.

[Hamlet]

Bush violated the law for years with the NSA wiretapping, why would he change his tune now?

Everyone surprised by this raise your hand. . . .

Thought so.

[Orbifold]

@Hamlet

Bush violated the law for years with the NSA wiretapping, why would he change his tune now?

And don’t forget, Congress’ response to the NSA wiretapping scandal (with the notable exception of the Feingold resolution) has been to propose a law (The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006) which says in effect “yeah, okay, go ahead and perform warrantless eavesdropping, as long as you inform some people on this here Subcommittee every 45 days”. Not “seek approval from”, just “inform”.

Does anyone have any reason to believe that if the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 becomes law then Bush won’t include a similar signing statement, saying that he reserves the right to ignore even that limitation on executive power?

[John_Mace]

@Hamlet

Bush violated the law for years with the NSA wiretapping, why would he change his tune now?

Everyone surprised by this raise your hand. . . .

Thought so.

So, here is the actual signing statement, of which this is a part:

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.

Here is the relavent part of HR 3199 (section 106a) with the important part bolded:

(a) AUDIT.–The Inspector General of the Department of Justice
shall perform a comprehensive audit of the effectiveness and use,
including any improper or illegal use, of the investigative authority
provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under title V of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.).
(b) REQUIREMENTS.–The audit required under subsection (a)
shall include–
(1) an examination of each instance in which the Attorney
General, any other officer, employee, or agent of the Depart-
ment of Justice, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, or a designee of the Director, submitted an application
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (as such term
is defined in section 301(3) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-
lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1821(3))) for an order under
section 501 of such Act during the calendar years of 2002
through 2006, including–
(A) whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation
requested that the Department of Justice submit an
application and the request was not submitted to the court
(including an examination of the basis for not submitting
the application);
(B) whether the court granted, modified, or denied
the application (including an examination of the basis for
any modification or denial);
(2) the justification for the failure of the Attorney General
to issue implementing procedures governing requests for the
H. R. 3199–10

production of tangible things under such section in a timely
fashion, including whether such delay harmed national security;
(3) whether bureaucratic or procedural impediments to the
use of such requests for production prevent the Federal Bureau
of Investigation from taking full advantage of the authorities
provided under section 501 of such Act;
(4) any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to orders
under such section, including any improper or illegal use of
the authority provided under such section; and
(5) an examination of the effectiveness of such section
as an investigative tool, including–
(A) the categories of records obtained and the impor-
tance of the information acquired to the intelligence activi-
ties of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
Department or agency of the Federal Government;
(B) the manner in which such information is collected,
retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, including any direct access to such
information (such as access to ``raw data’’) provided to
any other Department, agency, or instrumentality of Fed-
eral, State, local, or tribal governments or any private
sector entity;
(C) with respect to calendar year 2006, an examination
of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney
General under section 501(g) of such Act and whether
such minimization procedures protect the constitutional
rights of United States persons;
(D) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation utilized information acquired pursuant to an
order under section 501 of such Act to produce an analytical
intelligence product for distribution within the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, to the intelligence community (as
such term is defined in section 3(4) of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4))), or to other Federal, State,
local, or tribal government Departments, agencies, or
instrumentalities; and
(E) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation provided such information to law enforcement
authorities for use in criminal proceedings.
(c) SUBMISSION DATES.–
(1) PRIOR YEARS.–Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, or upon completion of the audit
under this section for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004,
whichever is earlier, the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary
and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report
containing the results of the audit conducted under this section
for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
**(2) CALENDAR YEARS 2005 AND 2006.–Not later than
December 31, 2007, or upon completion of the audit under
this section for calendar years 2005 and 2006, whichever is
earlier, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice
shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Perma-
nent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select
H. R. 3199–11

 Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report containing
 the results of the audit conducted under this section for cal-
 endar years 2005 and 2006.
 (d) PRIOR NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DIRECTOR OF

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; COMMENTS.–
(1) NOTICE.–Not less than 30 days before the submission
of a report under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2), the Inspector Gen-
eral of the Department of Justice shall provide such report
to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intel-
ligence.
(2) COMMENTS.–The Attorney General or the Director of
National Intelligence may provide comments to be included
in the reports submitted under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2)
as the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence
may consider necessary.
(e) UNCLASSIFIED FORM.–The reports submitted under sub-
sections (c)(1) and (c)(2) and any comments included under sub-
section (d)(2) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.**

Is there nothing that the president can’t withhold? Is he compelled to give those members of the Congressional committee everything, regardless of its level of classification? Can Congress just say that the president has to make available classified information to any arbitrary member of Congress? It seems like ther president should have some say in who sees classified information, even if he can’t withold it from all memebers of Congress. How does something like that get decided? Are there SCOTUS precedents?

n.b.: I’m not saying I agree with Bush here. I don’t know who to agree with, and have no historical basis to decide. Hence my questions.

[UncleBeer]

In case anyone is interested in the source material, rather than relying on the interpretation of the president’s statements by a partisan journal, they can be found here:

Speech made at signing ceremony
Statement released later.
and HR 3199 as enrolled

Thanks, John. On preview, I see I’m only repeating your work.

[UncleBeer]

And still fucking it up. Here’s those links again; there were supposed to be three of 'em.

Speech made at signing ceremony
Statement released later.
and HR 3199 as enrolled

[John_Mace]

@UncleBeer

In case anyone is interested in the source material, rather than relying on the interpretation of the president’s statements by a partisan journal…

Yep, that was exactly my intent. Let’s look at the facts and make up our own minds. And I hope we can stay away from stuff like: well, Bush has done so many illegal things that I’m sure this is illegal, too.

[threemae]

I read through the entire quote and I can’t understand what the president would need to hide. The audit only calls for generalities, never the actual “raw data” on who’s being wiretapped or why.

If the executive branch wants the ability to monitor phonecalls without warrant, are they also expecting to be allowed to do so completely without oversight?

How does disclosure of the number of illegal or inappropriate requests hamper national security? How does knowing the number of FISA requests rejected or approved hamper national security.

These are all the most basic numbers required for the legislature to do its job and for the public to have some means of oversight over the program, so what in the hell is Bush objecting to disclosing?

[UncleBeer]

@John Mace

Yep, that was exactly my intent. Let’s look at the facts and make up our own minds. And I hope we can stay away from stuff like: well, Bush has done so many illegal things that I’m sure this is illegal, too.

Yep. But you and I both know that somebody’s gonna come in here and slap that apologist label on both of us just for the mere suggestion that it might be valuable to inspect the original sources.

[Hamlet]

@John Mace

Yep, that was exactly my intent. Let’s look at the facts and make up our own minds. And I hope we can stay away from stuff like: well, Bush has done so many illegal things that I’m sure this is illegal, too.

Sorry I didn’t deconstruct the entire thing before posting. Why this administration would ever get a benefit of the doubt is beyond me, but to each their own.

Section 106(A), which is here (thanks UncleBeer) requires that the Inspector General of the DOJ provide a “comprehensive audit of the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of the investigative authority provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.” Title V amended FISA to allow the administration to obtain, not just wiretaps, but any “tangible things”, including books, records, business records, papers, documents, and other items. As the Senate stated: “In doing so, the broad reach of Section 215 has prompted a great deal of concern about the potential overreaching of Government demands.”

One check on the Presidental power was the audit requirement. The DOJ would have to inform “the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate” of the times they’ve used the FISA court, including applications sought , ones that were modified by the Court, and the sharing of the information. I don’t see any provision governing how much detailed information is required to satisfy the audit requirement, but it seems clear that Congress wanted, and enacted a law, forcing the government to report what they are doing with the power granted.

The same holds true for Section 119, where Congress requires the government to audit National Security Letters.

Bush, in his signing statement, clearly indicates that he feels he doesn’t have to comply with the audit requirements if “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.” Which boils down to, if he doesn’t feel like it. None of this is surprising, given his view that he is above the law on all matters of “national security”, including torture, eavesdropping, and now the obtaining of tangible records.

[John_Mace]

Thanks, but that doesn’t answer my main question. Can the Congress require the president to allow any arbitrary Congressman to have access to any and all documents, regardless of the level of classification of those documents? If they can, what is the source of that power, and if they can’t how is that inconsistent with Bush’s signing statemet? You can call it not doing anything the President doesn’t want to do, but ultimately someone has to classify documents and someone has decide who gets access to those docuements. No?

[One_amoung_many]

@John Mace

Thanks, but that doesn’t answer my main question. Can the Congress require the president to allow any arbitrary Congressman to have access to any and all documents, regardless of the level of classification of those documents? If they can, what is the source of that power, and if they can’t how is that inconsistent with Bush’s signing statemet? You can call it not doing anything the President doesn’t want to do, but ultimately someone has to classify documents and someone has decide who gets access to those docuements. No?

If they can stop congress from seeing any documents, what’s to stop them from lableing all documents secret? Are their no congresscritters with the clearance to see any document the government has? If the last statement is true. That’s scary.

[John_Mace]

@One amoung many

If they can stop congress from seeing any documents, what’s to stop them from lableing all documents secret? Are their no congresscritters with the clearance to see any document the government has? If the last statement is true. That’s scary.

Well, that’s not what I said. I said any arbitrary member of Congress. Plus, Congress does have subpoena power, does it not? It’s just unclear to me that it has pre-emptive subpoena power.

[Frank]

@John Mace

Can the Congress require the president to allow any arbitrary Congressman to have access to any and all documents, regardless of the level of classification of those documents?

That is for the courts to decide, if necessary. The President’s signing statement is legally meaningless.

[Hamlet]

@John Mace

Thanks, but that doesn’t answer my main question. Can the Congress require the president to allow any arbitrary Congressman to have access to any and all documents, regardless of the level of classification of those documents? If they can, what is the source of that power, and if they can’t how is that inconsistent with Bush’s signing statemet? You can call it not doing anything the President doesn’t want to do, but ultimately someone has to classify documents and someone has decide who gets access to those docuements. No?

I only have a second, but 50 USC 413 seems to indicate that the President is required to keep the Congressional Intelligence committees informed of “the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter”, including, “The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.”

Here is a memo prepared by a “Specialist in Intelligence and National Security” (whatever that means). I only glanced at it, so I can’t vouch for anything, but it seems to be a good introduction. As far as the judiciary, it states “Despite conflicting legal authorities governing congressional access to national intelligence, the U.S. Judicial Branch has not addressed the issue, since no case involving an executive-legislative branch dispute over access to intelligence has reached the U.S. courts.”

Of course, once again, no matter what laws Congress enacts and presidents sign into law, this administration has consistently taken the view that they cannot be legislated by Congress. The oversight audits in Patriot II is just the latest example.

[Fear_Itself]

Is this kind of concentration of power in the executive branch in keeping with conservative principles in general, or does it only apply when the President is a Republican? I would think conservatives would want more power in the Congress, where the states can exert control for local and regional issues.

[choie]

Can the Congress require the president to allow any arbitrary Congressman to have access to any and all documents, regardless of the level of classification of those documents?

I KNOW! I mean who the hell do these people think they are? It’s almost like they really believe they have some important role to play in our government. Just because they were elected by the citizens, they think some measly piece of paper from like the 1800s or somethin’ gives them the right and responsibility to know what’s going on in the country they are pleased to believe they’re supposed to govern! Jesus! It’s mass hysteria, cats living with dogs! What happened to that rubber stamp they were issued back in 2001?

Seriously … just what do you mean “any arbitrary Congressman”? All members of our Congress, whether from Albany or East Bumfuck, have sworn the same oath of office, and presumably don’t plan on glancing at “any and all documents” with the idea of selling us out to the Russians/Iraqis/Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans or whoever the latest Dybbuk du jour is. We are supposed to trust them. Some of them are asshats, to be sure, and I can name about a dozen I utterly despise and personally wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw 'em. Probably not the same ones you’d name … but that’s kinda the point. Like them or not, they were duly elected and have earned the charge over our nation’s security … certainly just as much as NON-elected appointees such as Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, who you can bet your sweet bippy know everything Bush knows.

It’s bad enough when Bush hides vital things from the regular citizens of the U.S. and generally behaving as if he’s the One True Ruler of the land with the only real sense of what’s best for all us. Doing the same to an entire branch of government, which is intended to be on an equal footing with his own, is even more egregious.

But that’s what one can expect from such a smug, truculant, condescending prick who believes in the Divine Right of Presidents.

[Oregon_sunshine]

Is there nothing that the president can’t withhold?

The last President was not allowed to withhold anything, not even the details of his private sex life. This one wants to take away our rights but “withhold” the ways in which he is doing so. What a mixed-up world.

[John_Mace]

@choie

I KNOW! I mean who the hell do these people think they are? It’s almost like they really believe they have some important role to play in our government. Just because they were elected by the citizens, they think some measly piece of paper from like the 1800s or somethin’ gives them the right and responsibility to know what’s going on in the country they are pleased to believe they’re supposed to govern! Jesus! It’s mass hysteria, cats living with dogs! What happened to that rubber stamp they were issued back in 2001?

Seriously … just what do you mean “any arbitrary Congressman”? All members of our Congress, whether from Albany or East Bumfuck, have sworn the same oath of office, and presumably don’t plan on glancing at “any and all documents” with the idea of selling us out to the Russians/Iraqis/Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans or whoever the latest Dybbuk du jour is. We are supposed to trust them. Some of them are asshats, to be sure, and I can name about a dozen I utterly despise and personally wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw 'em. Probably not the same ones you’d name … but that’s kinda the point. Like them or not, they were duly elected and have earned the charge over our nation’s security … certainly just as much as NON-elected appointees such as Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, who you can bet your sweet bippy know everything Bush knows.

It’s bad enough when Bush hides vital things from the regular citizens of the U.S. and generally behaving as if he’s the One True Ruler of the land with the only real sense of what’s best for all us. Doing the same to an entire branch of government, which is intended to be on an equal footing with his own, is even more egregious.

But that’s what one can expect from such a smug, truculant, condescending prick who believes in the Divine Right of Presidents.

Do you honestly think that answers my question? It didn’t. Yes, you dislike Bush. Good for you. But I asked a serious question, and all you did was respond with a tirade. The Constitution specifically sets up the 3 branches of government to be co-equal, with different powers and different responsibilities. Show me where in the constitution that Congress is given the authority that I quesitoned. I’m not saying it isn’t there, I’m just asking if it is, and if so, where. It’s an honest question, if you care to answer it.