Bush Rips Papers for Publishing Latest Scoop on Snooping

I, for one, agree with our gracious lordly king on this one. What kind of country would this turn into if we were actually allowed to know what our government was doing? The nerve of some people, to want to be informed. The constitution obviously sets up a secret dictatorship, we all just never knew it.

I think we definitely need to rethink and perhaps get rid of the first amendment, and second, and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth and tenth in order to protect our freedom. why not throw in the third amendment too.

[align=left]Now Bush Rips Papers for Publishing Latest Scoop on Snooping [/align]
AP | June 27 2006

WASHINGTON President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.


"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said it was up to the Justice Department to determine whether there would be a formal investigation of the news leak.

"Certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live," Snow said. "And whether, in fact, the publication...could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans."

Using broad government subpoenas, the program allows U.S.

counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

In advance of Bush's remarks, the New York Times defended itself against criticism for disclosing the program.

In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report.

He said part of the government's argument was that the anti-terror program would no longer be effective if it became known, because international bankers would be unwilling to cooperate and terrorists would find other ways to move money.

"We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling," Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. "The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere."

The note to readers was published the same day Rep. Peter King urged the Bush administration to prosecute the paper. "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," the New York Republican told The Associated Press.

"One of the most hotly debated issues in the country right now is the conduct of the war on terror," Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet said Sunday. "It is our job to publish what we know about the government's role, to offer the public what it needs to know to participate in that debate."

Keller said the administration also argued "in a halfhearted way" that disclosure of the program "would lead terrorists to change tactics."

But Keller wrote that the Treasury Department has "trumpeted ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."

another good sign of the new dictatorship of freedom trucking along.


Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress
LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press | June 26 2006

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge many more statutes passed by Congress than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that, but notes that Bush is hardly the first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power â?? from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.

But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do to check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

I am not sure what what you mean our "king..President Bush is our leader but the King was in Britain right..btw..is Camilla going to be Queen? Anyway..he is ridiculed here now..even those that support our current Federal Government are starting to chuckle..our local newspaper editor is not a fan of Mr. Bush and the cartoons that have been coming out are true but they make him (Bush) look really ignorant & just stupid.

Huh, leaking the identity of CIA operatives seems to be ok but leaking information about questionably legal, secret gov't programs is "disgraceful". Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

I didnt read the entire articles, I only needed the first few paragraphs.

I think it ridiculuos to think that real terrorists dont already know they are being watched heavily.

Discloseing the fact they they are monitoring bank transactions im sure is no shock to anyone.

In fact, i would hesitate to believe that these factions that hate america would deal in bank transactions and not expect the money to be followed.

Its a criminal organization, just like any other, even a crack dealer knows that their movements are being wacthed, so they take measures against being detected.

I dont even see a problem with disclosing the methods in which they track the money, the only undetectable movement of money is cash, so I'd think that would be the method of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Huh, leaking the identity of CIA operatives seems to be ok but leaking information about questionably legal, secret gov't programs is "disgraceful". Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

---

Thank You for the summary..I comprehend a summarization much better...

hahaha....Georgie got all worked up over NOTHING!

That the u.s. government ahs been tracking finacial records of folks they've got an eye is so old news. I mean come the fuck on...this is a long standing practice of this government! Ooo...so one adminstraion feels it just has to have tight reigns on EVERYTHING huh. Well laadeeda Mr. Pinhead.

Fukn prick....I seriously hope someone, some how, finds the means to jail his ass! Cheney...he ought be thrown in the Iraqi dessert!

he knows nothing, all he knows is to say what the men in black tell him to say.

It's just theatrics... the white house knew this was coming weeks in advance and decided to stage a furious protest. See the pattern? Attack don't defend, complete with coordinated threats from homeland security.

They're scared because they're about to lose a lot of seats in congress, and that's what this is all about ladies and gents....:thumbsup: