Bush Puts Cheney Above The Law
The Great Decider is back at work, this time in defense of Dick Cheney and his contention that the Vice President’s office is not part of the executive branch of government. If this were true, Cheney would not be obligated to submit to the Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office, and would thus be virtually a second president. An executive order requires all members of the executive branch to comply.
Cheney has refused to comply with the Oversight Office since 2003.
“This is a little bit of a nonissue,” (White House spokeswoman Dana) Perino said at a briefing dominated by the issue. Cheney Is not subject to the executive order, she said, “because the president gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he’s decided that he should.”
So now the White House is deciding who must obey the law?
There are 10 Comments to "Bush Puts Cheney Above The Law"
Dear Sir,
It would seem to me that that President Bush is well within his authority to say just what an executive order that he issued actually means.
Regards,
Roy
Do you mean that the President is within his rights to decide whether or not the VP’s office is part of the executive branch? Or that he has a right to set Cheney up as head of what would amount to a “black ops” administration operating out of the White House, but accountable to no one except the President himself?
Everyone else in the executive branch is accountable; why not Dick Cheney and his people? Is it because revelations of his actions would be interpreted as criminal? Is the US government still engaging in mafia-style hit-games in the international community that must be kept hidden from Congress and the American people?
All speculation, of course, but it still smells fishy.
Dear Manfred,
When the president issues an executive order he may specify to whom it applies. The Office of the Vice President is uniques in that it is created by the Constitution. All of the rest of the executive offices are created by statute and thus subject to oversight by Congress.
There are many “black ops” run by the executive. There are secret executive orders. It is a dangerous world and these things are necessary.
Regards,
Roy
I’m sorry, perhaps I should have said “wet ops.”
Dear Manfred,
In 1976 President Ford issued executive order 11905 prohibiting political assassinations. In 1978 President Carter reaffirmed that prohibition in Section 2-305 of a rather long executive order concerning intelligence operations. In 1981 President Reagan issued executive order 12333 reiterating the prohibition.
http://www.trialbriefs.com/politicalassassination.htm
“The Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) (Public law 107-40) was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.” essentially changed the equation in re Al Quaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
In a few notable instances the CIA and/or the US Military thought they had Bin Laden in their sights but were unable to obtain legal clearance in time to assassinate him. There have been no allegations of assassination attempts against any persons not explicitly covered by the above mentioned resolution or by the subsequent resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
Manfred, we obviously have profound differences over the conduct of the war. I acknowledge that these are differences of opinion that sometimes separate men of good will. I am most willing to engage in discussions about these differences.
However, I do object to inferences that that the current administration has acted unlawfully in the pursuit of this war. Partisans have been profligate in accusations of unlawful conduct, but there have been absolutely no accusations made by any elected official. In discussions of grounds for impeachment of the president no unlawful acts have been cited.
I understand that you do not like what is going on but please let’s discuss the merits rather than resort to unfounded slander.
Regards,
Roy
In my opinion, this administration has few merits. Criminal or merely unethical, it’s a;; the same to me. The fact remains that we are engaged in an ongoing conflict which is not in the best interest of America, but is of great interest to multinational corporations which are making money hand-over-fist.
This administration is an enabler of such behavior, and a protector of those who engage in it.
They are sucking the lifeblood out of this country.
Dear Manfred,
Few merits?
Time will tell.
Criminal or merely unethical?
Ethics are in the eye of the beholder. I commend to you the the Canon of Ethics of the American Bar Association. If you examine these you will find that they are quite self-serving to the economic well being of the guild. The same can be said for all of the self-proclaimed codes of ethics promulgated by interest groups. Criminal on the other hand is the agreed upon standards of behavior which we have collectively defined as meriting formal sanctions. These are the standards by which we the people have chosen to judge the behavior of our government.
Not in the best interests of America?
From the Constitution: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The president went before Congress on two occasions and asked for declarations of war, first against Afghanistan then against Iraq. In both cases he received overwhelming support for these actions.
A bit of history. The Congress established the United States Navy in 1794 to address the problem of piracy by Arab “Musselmen”, the Barbary Pirates. This is a war that traces to the early days of our country.
As to the best interests of this country, most (if you look closely most Democrats) believe that precipitous withdrawal would have disastrous consequences both for world peace and our economic interests.
Aha! you say. Economic interests! “Just War Doctrine”, developed by the Catholic Church over 1.500 years and a core curriculum of the U.S. Military Academies. recognizes economic interest to be a legitimate cassus belli.
Multinational corporations?
Hardly. If any economic interests precipitated this war they were the cozy semi-private corporations in France, Germany and Russia which were profiting (illegally) from the “Oil for Food” farce set up by the U.N. Both France and Russia persuaded Saddam Hussein that they could block the U.S. from acting. They were wrong. Saddam is dead.
Sucking the lifeblood out of this country?
Economically, no way. Read the figures. Politically? Agreed. Rnat to follow if you so request.
Regards,
Roy
I do not argue that President Bush received enormous support for his wars from our elected officials. On the other hand, I have great skepticism for the actions of those in Congress. Most of those who supported war never read the intelligence reports before doing so–by their own admissions. We were led by our own anger and humiliation into these actions without even considering the consequences.
I do not see how you can argue that any excuse is acceptable so long as it is not strictly illegal. In doing so you make us no better than those you would proclaim to be superior to. Your argument simply advocates that it is better for the US to engage in world conquest than to allow for the remote possibility that someone else may beat us to the punch. Not that I am in favor of that, either.
I do not need facts and figures to know that our country is dying a slow economic death. The figures you speak of–if I may be so presumptuous–are tied directly to the US GDP; not exactly the same thing, for that only measures the mean, not the actual circumstances of the people.
Make no mistake, this is a war to sustain corporate health and to retain global dominance in a new age. The People have become nothing to their own government, even though they should be their first concern.
Dear Manfred,
“We were led by our own anger and humiliation into these actions without even considering the consequences.”
I, for one, certainly considered the consequences. My grandfather served during WWI. My father and uncles served during WWII. I served during the Cold War. The people of this country do not take these matters lightly. This was not an ill considered decision. It was an almost unanimous judgement of our elected representatives that military force was appropriate.
“I do not see how you can argue that any excuse is acceptable so long as it is not strictly illegal.”
I did not argue that decisions are “acceptable” as long as they were not technically illegal. I was answering your assertion in the original post that: “So now the White House is deciding who must obey the law?”
“In doing so you make us no better than those you would proclaim to be superior to.”
I don’t see in my comments where I claimed to be superior to anyone but now that you bring it up – you want sharia? You want a society where women are chattel? Property that can be slain at the whim of a male? Where apostates and homosexuals are beheaded? Yes, I do make a claim to superiority.
“Your argument simply advocates that it is better for the US to engage in world conquest than to allow for the remote possibility that someone else may beat us to the punch.”
Point the first, the United States controls absolutely no land that it has conquered. Wherever we are in this world it is by invitation.
Point the second, we have been attacked by enemies who have raped a continent (Japan) and sought to exterminate whole races (Germany) and movements (Islam) that are antithetical to all we hold dear. Yes, we fight. Damn betcha.
“I do not need facts and figures to know that our country is dying a slow economic death. The figures you speak of–if I may be so presumptuous–are tied directly to the US GDP; not exactly the same thing, for that only measures the mean, not the actual circumstances of the people.”
Manfred, go someplace better – if you can find one.
Regards,
Roy
Look Roy, I am tired of being told to hit the skids by jingos such as yourself if I refuse to believe or go along with the official program. I like it just fine right here–or at least I did until the Executive branch began to acquire so much power that we began to resemble a police state.
I am simply expressing the feelings of millions of Americans that we are headed in the wrong direction.
To compare WWII or even the Cold War to the War on Terror is ridiculous to my way of thinking because there is no particular enemy nation to confront. Attempting to bully other countries into complicity with our system of beliefs smacks more of the Crusades than anything else. I am not in favor of sharia for America, but I am not in favor of pushing our system onto those who don’t want it, either. Democracy cannot be forced down the throats of others; they must decide they want it. We should help in transforming nations that are asking for our help. We should not be making those decisions ourselves based upon what is best for American economic expansionism.
I initially favored the Afghan war due to the presence of Bin-Laden and his cohorts there. Of course they have simply fled to Pakistan since. There was never any evidence of al-queda activity in Iraq, but there was a lot of oil for the exploiting and a lot of Muslims for the taking of misplaced vengeance.
I do not believe that our elected representatives paused to reflect on what they were doing. Instead, most of them voted in shock and anger.
The US, by the way, does not have to control conquered territory in order for it to be an empire; we are an economic empire backed up by sophisticated, long-range weapons systems that frighten most countries into “going along with the program.”
Your previous comments have convinced me that you are blindly patriotic, believing every word that comes from the White House. That you are an Islamophobe. That you believe our system is the best system, and others should be forced to it, if need be. You seem to believe that the best way to keep world peace is by armed force rather than diplomacy. I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree with those things. I’m sorry, too, that you consider me a traitor to America.