Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Glen Greenwald: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 10:45 AM
Original message
Glen Greenwald: The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/09/fbi/

Glenn Greenwald
Friday March 9, 2007 08:57 EST
The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush

(updated below)

Multiple media outlets are focusing on the unsurprising story that the FBI seems to have been abusing its powers under the Patriot Act to issue so-called "national security letters" (NSLs), whereby the FBI is empowered to obtain a whole array of privacy-infringing records without any sort of judicial oversight or subpoena process. In particular, the FBI has failed to comply with the legal obligations imposed by Congress, when it re-authorized the Patriot Act in early 2006, which required the FBI to report to Congress on the use of these letters.

That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here -- and it is quite significant -- has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I've seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a "signing statement" as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

It was The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage who first drew attention to the Patriot Act signing statement in a typically superb article, back in March, 2006, which reported:

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.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

When a country is ruled by an individual who repeatedly and openly arrogates unto himself the power to violate the law, and specifically proclaims that he is under no obligation to account to Congress or anyone else concerning the exercise of radical new surveillance powers such as NSLs, it should come as absolutely no surprise that agencies under his control freely break the law. The culture of lawlessness which the President has deliberately and continuously embraced virtually ensures, by design, that any Congressional limits on the use of executive power will be violated.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. So?
Did you hear about the latest Ann Coulter comment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Why bring her up? This story has already been covered by CNN
(not that they are the font of knowledge, but it's out there). I don't think it's going away anytime soon. Add another to the growing list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It was sarcasm...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. Question: If Bush said he'd ignore the law, how did this report come to be?
I mean, I heard that er, some independent auditor produced the report? I mean, against Bush's wishes!? They didn't just find a way to fire the auditor!?

Who slipped up here? :) Not that I'm complaining about a little sunshine showing. I just mean that with :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-09-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kicked and recommended
Thanks for the thread babylonsister
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC