This is just unbelievable. - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

Lazarus · #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 08:11 PM

Another example of avoiding oversight. Yes, this post is critical of the Bush Administration. So if you normally avoid these type threads, leave now. But take off your blinders before you travel any great distance.
I encourage those who stay and wish to comment on this to read the entire article. However, this link might require registration, depending on how many times you visit. With that in mind, I have taken out with my trusty pen-knife and extracted the highlights.

Quote:

Nearly all members of the House of Representatives opted out of a chance to read this year's classified intelligence bill, and then voted on secret provisions they knew almost nothing about..... Many members say they faced an untenable choice: Either consent to a review process so secretive that they could never mention anything about it in House debates, under the threat of prosecution, or vote on classified provisions they knew nothing about......Unclassified versions of authorization and spending bills for intelligence activities are made public, but are purposely vague and do not include specifics of covert operations or even the aggregate cost of the bill. Lawmakers can read the classified portions of intelligence authorization and appropriations bills but must go through a strict security process and cannot discuss any aspects of the classified version.
In addition, the administration sometimes offers verbal briefings to some or all members of Congress. But some lawmakers said they also passed on these sessions, since participants are prohibited from future discussions of the information -- even if it is subsequently revealed in the media, as was the case with the recent disclosure of efforts to monitor overseas financial transactions.
The rules make open debate on intelligence policy and funding nearly impossible, lawmakers say. While members of Congress said they understood the need for some secrecy, many complained that the administration stamped as ``classified" information that should be subject to public debate.....The failure of individual members to read the bills or attend briefings puts a far greater onus on the House and Senate intelligence committees' reviews of secret programs.But committee members in both parties say the administration gives them too little information, and sometimes waits until a program is about to be leaked before sharing it with the panels......Shortly before the overseas banking surveillance program known as SWIFT was disclosed, Representative Barney Frank , the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, was offered a briefing on the program.
Frank said he was told that the program was about to be revealed in the media. But he was also told that if he sat in on the classified briefing, he could not discuss the SWIFT program, even after it became public, unless the administration confirmed it.
"I said, `I'm leaving, and if you want to tell me about something that's not in the paper, call me,' " Frank recalled..... Democratic and Republican leaders are no longer briefed together, raising questions about whether the two leaders are being told the same things......

I would bet that the same BS happens on the Senate side as well.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...unread?mode=PF

Spadplanter · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 09:17 PM

So what else is new? Congress ignoring its mandate? WOW!

Quote:

Nearly all members of the House of Representatives opted out of a chance to read this year's classified intelligence bill, and then voted on secret provisions they knew almost nothing about.

Sounds like they ALL blew it.

DGG · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

...Many members say they faced an untenable choice: Either consent to a review process so secretive that they could never mention anything about it in House debates, under the threat of prosecution, or vote on classified provisions they knew nothing about...

I don't see the problem. You read, you make informed decisions, you vote, then you don't speak. A lot of lawyers, policemen, MD's, nurses, social workers, people in the military etc. do this every day (except for voting), why cannot members of Congress?

doniston · #4 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGG

I don't see the problem. You read, you make informed decisions, you vote, then you don't speak. A lot of lawyers, policemen, MD's, nurses, social workers, people in the military etc. do this every day (except for voting), why cannot members of Congress?

A very good question. maybe it is time to clean house on the whole lot of them.

iamwhatiseem · #5 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 08:03 AM

I agree, I don't see what is objectionable in asking Congress to keep their mouths shut when voting on sensitive data.
What I do see as objectionable is Congress opening their mouths and revealing sensitive data.

Thematic-Device · #6 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

I agree, I don't see what is objectionable in asking Congress to keep their mouths shut when voting on sensitive data.
What I do see as objectionable is Congress opening their mouths and revealing sensitive data.

If bush is worried the public might find out damaging information, perhaps he should stop breaking the law.

doniston · #7 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

If bush is worried the public might find out damaging information, perhaps he should stop breaking the law.

VERY Well Said

SamInTheBurgh · #8 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

If bush is worried the public might find out damaging information, perhaps he should stop breaking the law.

Who said that was the case?

doniston · #9 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

If bush is worried the public might find out damaging information, perhaps he should stop breaking the law.

VERY Well Said

but he doesn't think he is breaking the law, he thinks he is above the law

Thematic-Device · #10 (**permalink**) 08-07-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

Who said that was the case?

What was the case, that Bush doesn't want to brief the SSCI or the HPSCI because he's worried that the senators who were briefed might reveal it to the press, or use it to debate against him on the floor.

Or that bush has been commiting major breaches of the law, so far the laws he's broken include: the Geneva Convetions, the Stored Communications Act, FISA, and has openly stated his intent to violate many more (signing statements) as well as exhibiting a flagrant disregard for the constitution.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode