DeFazio asks, but he's denied access

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm just sayin' - try thinking outside the box once in a while.

I would be happy to think outside "this" box, however it wasn't me that made the Bush Administration questionable. It was Bush himself that ensures people to think the worst of him...

Consider this...

President Bush has signed more executive orders in his two terms of Presidency, than all other presidents combined. By doing so, Bush has set up every possible angle for completing his dictatorship. Read the E.O's for yourself, don't take my word for it.

President Bush has also taken as many steps possible to ensure that when Congress has been involved in lawmaking, using the terrorism bogeyman to it's fullest extent, each law they've passed (MCA, USA Patriot Act, John Warner National Defense, etc).... they are taking away more and more of our Constitutionally protected rights, giving him more and more power (or at least those in his administration), and essentially bringing us closer and close to a police state....

With everything that's been done, why wouldn't one "assume" that when the Bush Administration tells someone, someone that's supposed to be looking out for our Nations security, "No, you can't see what we've got planned"... they are up to no good?

IMO, everything that's taken place over the past 6 years, for the Bush team, has made this a box that's very hard to think out side of.

Originally posted by Infoholic

President Bush has signed more executive orders in his two terms of Presidency, than all other presidents combined. By doing so, Bush has set up every possible angle for completing his dictatorship. Read the E.O's for yourself, don't take my word for it.

That is flat out misinformation

Executive orders by Presidents

G W Bush 242
W J Clinton 364
G H W Bush 166
R Reagan 381
J Carter 320
G Ford 169
R Nixon 346
L B Johnson 324
J F Kennedy 214
D D Eisenhower 486
H S Truman 896
F D Roosevelt 3,728
H Hoover 1,011

National Archives

List executive orders by each President since FDR



[edit on 7/21/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

Uber: How exactly would anyone stop the government from comitting another attack on a country? I know most of the troops are deployed, but aside from public displays and picketing, what can you really really do that THEY WILL LISTEN TO? Not a whole lot. I've been thinking about this for a couple of years now, wondering what the best way was, and I can't find anything that would lay the smack down and actually stop them.

I mean, they're the ones with the military and the money, we as people have 'the say' but when it comes down to it, if they don't ask us, what can we really do?

Case in point from my own dear country, the UK. Tony wanted to do something, can't quite remember what it was (might have been the new EU thing, not the constitution, but that happened the same way), everyone called for a reforendum, but did he give us one, when really as a democracy we're allowed our say in matters that affect us? Nope, he said it wasn't important. Thankfully, we didn't get it into legislation but still, it was a pretty close call.

People are unfortunately pressured in many ways to do things, money, job security, prison charges, etc. George has more options on his side of the fence to do to YOU than you do to him. Lets face it, his peers have to impeach him, and I doubt, if you're running for dictator, people who want to get on your good side, are going to start calling you names.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow

Originally posted by Infoholic

Consider this...

President Bush has signed more executive orders in his two terms of Presidency, than all other presidents combined. By doing so, Bush has set up every possible angle for completing his dictatorship. Read the E.O's for yourself, don't take my word for it.

That is flat out misinformation

Good catch. Of course, when disinfo this blatant is discovered, it makes me question everything else presented by the author.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Initially I considered the possibility that because his request was spurred by expressions of concern on the part of citizens, someone might have feared that some aspects of the classified material might end up in the public domain. However, the article's statement that "This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents," would seem to indicate that he has been trusted with access before this particular incident.

I'm not an alarmist or "Bush-basher," but unless there is something we don't know about DeFazio himself that makes them unwilling to allow him access (which I would think should have disqualified him from being a member of the Homeland Security Committee in the first place,) I have no choice but to find this at least slightly disconcerting.

Exactly. Red flags and alarm bells went off in my mind.
I hope we can get some more insight on this.

Last night I found about 4-5 articles on google news, and now
there's only 1 or 2, and they all say pretty much the same thing.

All it take is just another attack in our soil and Bush will institute all the bills he had sign under his executives privilege powers.

Now can anybody deny that?

Just read what bills has he sign in the last 4 or 5 years and tell me that he has all those bills for the heck of it or because he was just bored.

Do your homework and see what he can do under another terrorist attack in the US.

Is there for all too see.

Under his executive powers he can, ignore about 750 laws when they conflicts with is interpretation of the constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

www.boston.com...

What is the reason for doing that but to be able to expand his presidential powers?.

We have a president that resign for less of what Bush has done to this nation before in our history.

Everytime he sign a bill to safeguard the people in this country from laws that can affect our civil rights he include his famous “signing statmenst add to it quietly” for him to interpret any way he wants.

How constitutional are his signing statement when Judiciary Committee Chariman Arlen Specter, R-Pa, was trying to have senate pass a rulling to stop Bush from “signing Statements” attached to bills because they are unconstitutional.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This are series of events that has been ignore by many but is people that keep taps on what this President is doing that could affect our Constitutional rights for ever if he get the chance to instiuted all his littler bills and laws.

When Bush own political party members are doing something to stop the executive priviledge powers of this president is because They can see where this president is heading.

SENATOR SPECTER INTRODUCES PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS LEGISLATION

specter.senate.gov...

The signs are out there but it takes only a person concern with our nation to see the deception.


[edit on 21-7-2007 by marg6043]

Well, I would have thought the people should have done something like oust him when he said, Our Constitution was nothing but a Goddammed piece of paper.

Some people have built there caccoons so tight they are warm and comfortable they don't want to come out an fly.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
That is flat out misinformation

Originally posted by jsobecky
when disinfo this blatant is discovered, it makes me question everything else presented by the author.

In reference to this..... My most humble apologies. I cited my source for my claim. Disinfo is not what I am guilty of, but I accept guilt of lacking further research before speaking my comment.

I should have looked for another source, and for that I am sorry. I do not wish my name, nor ATS to be looked down upon for disinformation.

Infoholic, hardly anything in this thread can be found to be un founded, under misinformation or anithing else that many people that do not want to do research or read about can do themself in order to find the truth.

Perhaps Bush is not the only president that have Have signed executive orders but he is the most one to have abused his privilege executive powers and the most that has used Singing statements to bills to interpret them later on at will.

And this is truth read my post above for more information.

We all make mistake.

jsobecky had a good point about DeFazio possibly being under investigation, etc. I have been looking around for awhile and haven't found anything about any significant issues with him.

I wonder if any of those classified parts have anything to do with what
Gen. Tommy Franks said in Cigar Aficionado magazine back in Dec. '03..

NewsMax wrote: “In (Cigar Aficionado magazine’s) December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.”

Their lead-in paragraph was even starker: “Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.”

source and OLD thread

Plans for a military form of government?
That might be something Bush and Cheney would hide.

Infoholic, don't feel too badly, that exact misinformation was on he Alternet site, a popular news website. Here is what it says:

"Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined."
www.alternet.org/rights/36553

It's this kind of disinformation that muddies the waters so that when a researcher tries to prove a point they are made to look stupid and/or crazy. I'm thinking this is deliberate information. As DSC proved, the information is there, why didn't the "researcher" find this out?

At any rate, I believe the police state has been in the works a long time and both Dems and Repubs are responsible for it. Now, it is building to a crescendo and I believe is impending.
Somehow, we need to find a way to unite as AMERICANS, not political parties. The time is growing short.

What is it going to take before people on all side WAKE UP and realize that
A: Bush needs to be removed from office
B: Arrested and charged for his crimes.
The second American Civil War?
TELL PELOSI IMPEACHMENT NOW.

I found the article to be sorely lacking in detail.

Look - maybe the president or someone near the top has access to everything and can go strolling merrily through any document he pleases, but even DeFazio has authorization limits and needs-to-know that will restrict his access.

You can't just say "Oh, he has had secret documents in the bubble room before - therefore - he should be able to gain access to any document." That's a leap of logic that may seem reasonable but is entirely untrue. I can guarantee you, for instance, DeFazio may have access to some stuff, but can't for example stroll into USSOCOM and demand to see mission records or personnel files. He can't saunter off to LANL and browse design files. Why? He doesn't have the clearance, and doesn't have the need to know.

So - the question really becomes, exactly what did he ask for, and what did he not gain access to? Has he tried to access to those documents successfully in the past? (NO - he hasn't, or he wouldn't be looking now) You'll note that they don't say in that article. All secret documents are not co-equal.

He may not actually HAVE access to continuity documents - that stuff's right up near the top of the heap. NO ONE should know that whole picture that doesn't have a real need to know it, and if he's asking just to mollify his constituency, then I can easily see it being denied.

Continuity of government doesn't require a need-to-know pass or something like that, it's not secret technologies informations. If it is, it's uber stupid. Everyone in government and watchdogs should be able to know to see if we could improve it in some way to assure a fonctionning democratic republic after an attack.

But Tommy Frank, the guy paid by the CIA to show on TV and talk about how martial law is good and military dictatorship is good... This is conditionning the public. If they want to go full ahead and implement dictatorship or put dissidents in camps, they'll have to detonate nukes... anything less wouldn't work I think.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
You can't just say "Oh, he has had secret documents in the bubble room before - therefore - he should be able to gain access to any document." That's a leap of logic that may seem reasonable but is entirely untrue.

Read the article again.

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

As a elected representative of his state and a Memeber of the US house on the Homeland Security Committee, I am sure that the information he asked for was within his limits..

TB, you're forgetting that DeFazio is on the committee that oversees Homeland Security. I would think he of all people should have access to things like continuity of govt (which is not "Eyes Only" anyway) and all of the Homeland Security documents.
The PTB are either afraid of being exposed, trying to get even with him for something he did politically that they don't like, or trying to shut him down.
No matter how you look at it, it doesn't sound right.
JSOBecky you have a good point. Thanks for pointing that out. And I'm sure you realize that if it is about retribution, then it's still very wrong.

There's too much secrecy in this administration IMO, and that goes against the Constitution. We are supposed to be a transparent govt.

I don't like the feel of this.

Originally posted by marg6043

Read the article again.

Oh, I did read it, but it doesn't really say much, as I pointed out. Here, I'll quote the exact bit:

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

Now, you'll see he has SCIF access. And has the default Congress-critter access which is probably roughly equivalent to a scope SCI.

However, you'll note that it doesn't say - "and he sauntered in and opened the file cabinet where the documents were kept". He had to request access. And was denied. If he had open access to that document, he would have been able to simply get it. But he didn't - he had to request it. Which could mean it was filed elsewhere in a place he had no access to, or it was beyond his scope, he tried to get an access waiver and was denied. So he's pouting about it. Which is the explanation I'm betting on.

As a elected representative of his state and a Memeber of the US house on the Homeland Security Committee, I am sure that the information he asked for was within his limits..

Why are you sure? Congresscritters get some level of security clearance upon swearing that oath not to reveal national secrets. (Which I don't agree with BTW) But that doesn't give them open access to any and every classified document.

I'm not at all sure, for example, that continuity falls under HS's aegis and not the executive branch, and maybe JCS/SecDef. There are several facets to continuity, and a lot of that is military. But there's also "survivability" and "determination of status" and the like, and that is all very very closely held as it should be. If it's not strictly related to Homeland's "need to know" then they can't get it, unless they can justify it. Thus do you have to put in a request for the stuff that's outside your scope.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Continuity of government doesn't require a need-to-know pass or something like that, it's not secret technologies informations. If it is, it's uber stupid. Everyone in government and watchdogs should be able to know to see if we could improve it in some way to assure a fonctionning democratic republic after an attack.

Sure it does. Look, there's a lot to it, and you really don't want an attacker knowing what your play book is.

There's a lot of stuff that goes on. The big picture is in the constitution, but all the little details are justifiably known only by the people that need to know them. If you knew that there was a bunker here or a command aircraft there, or a way to get this or that congresscritter to safety while you're using that or the other one publicly as a decoy, it would reduce your effectiveness, or eliminate it.

You don't WANT people to know where all the holdouts are, and who goes where when, or how you know the orders you're getting are really from person X in the chain of command and not some clever audio simulation.

Seriously, you don't. And if DeFazio doesn't need to know it, he shouldn't get it.

Originally posted by marg6043
As a elected representative of his state and a Memeber of the US house on the Homeland Security Committee, I am sure that the information he asked for was within his limits..

How can you be so sure, marg?

I think you still don't understand what Tom Bedlam said. There are classified documents and then there are classified documents. All classified documents are not equal. And just because someone had access to a particular document in the past does not guarantee future access. So until and unless we know the details of this particular situation, we're just speculating.

Originally posted by forestlady
JSOBecky you have a good point. Thanks for pointing that out. And I'm sure you realize that if it is about retribution, then it's still very wrong.

There's too much secrecy in this administration IMO, and that goes against the Constitution. We are supposed to be a transparent govt.

I don't like the feel of this.

Withholding necessary information for retribution cannot be tolerated, but I don't think this is the case. I read the Freeper blog on this issue, and they didn't have very nice things to say about DeFazio (I know, I know - they're righties). They called him a terrorist sympathizer, etc.

www.freerepublic.com...