[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Slim (Politics - Government 101)

[Steven Alm]

And this from today's Mpls StarTribune:

Cheney's secrecy fits long pattern
And so does his willingness to reinterpret established law.

As he has so many times before, Vice President Dick Cheney may well win his
current power struggle -- this one with the Information Security Oversight
Office (ISOO) -- at least for a while. But the courts and Congress have a
way of catching up to him, and it certainly would be in the public interest
if Cheney were to be backed down this time.

At issue is whether the vice president's office has to comply with an
executive order that, in its words, "prescribes a uniform system for
classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information
... ." Cheney has rebuffed the ISOO's compliance efforts repeatedly since
2002, employing a novel reason: It doesn't have to comply because his office
is not an "entity within the executive branch" since Cheney also serves as
president of the Senate.

A rebuff wasn't Cheney's only response, according to the ISOO's director, J.
William Leonard. Leonard reportedly told the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform that after he went to the Justice Department for a
decision about whether Cheney had to comply, Cheney recommended abolishing
the oversight office.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino tried Friday to clarify that Cheney's
office is in compliance with all proper procedures relevant to the
safeguarding of classified materials. But she ended up in the lame position
of simply *asserting* compliance while also saying that Cheney's office is
exempt from oversight -- and so is the president's.

That argument is outlandish. How can you have a "uniform system" for
safeguarding national security secrets and have two of the most powerful
creators and keepers of secrets exempt from it? That makes no sense to us --
nor to oversight director Leonard, who says the order clearly applies to
those offices.

What does make sense is this: All of the contorted reasoning offered up by
Cheney and the White House fits perfectly into Cheney's longtime pattern of
operation as vice president. As the Washington Post put it in Part 1 of
"Angler, the Cheney Vice Presidency" on Sunday, "Stealth is among Cheney's
most effective tools."

And as the enterprise series makes plain, Cheney stands ready and willing to
reinterpret laws, treaties and executive orders as he sees fit -- to the
extent of reinterpreting the rights of prisoners and the definition of
torture.

Secrecy is antithetical to the American values of government openness and
public access. Indeed, part of the executive order in question provides a
rationale for ensuring that classified material is chosen sparely and
handled correctly: "Our democratic principles require that the American
people be informed of the activities of their government."

Cheney's decision to rebuff the oversight office looks to be one more case
of rewriting plain law.






On 6/26/07, Steven Alm <stevenalm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I expected a snotty reply from you, of course.  Have you seen/read the
> news this week or not?  Cheney claims he can keep all the secrets he wants
> because he's not part of the executive branch but rather the congressional
> because he decides ties in the Senate.  At the same time he evokes executive
> privilege.  Brad would have us believe this is some sort of liberal media
> spin.  It's not.  Just ask John Stewart or Stephen Colbert--these are the
> real facts.
>
> As for Iraq, why is it so hard for conservative to see that this is an
> unwinable conflict?  Is it because they like to say there are lots and lots
> of good things happening out there that are not being reported by the
> liberal slant?  Talk about denial!  How many times recently have you seen
> retired military commanders come on TV and condemn what's happening over
> there?  Is that spin too?  I don't remember another time with so much open
> defiance among top leaders.
>
> And as for Government 101, Ed, Last I heard our government is supposed to
> be a Republic and not a Dictatorship.  That means we get to decide.  Do you
> think it's just spin when the media reports how low public support is for
> this president and his handleing all this?  Apparently a lot of otherwise
> reasonable people think that counts for nothing.  This administration is
> completely ignoring the bulk of the country, the congress and top military
> advisers, and most other free countries and doing whatever it damn well
> pleases.
>
> Slim
>
> On 6/26/07, TN Rhodey < tnrhodey at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ed, I guess maybe we should define "boss". In my way of thinking the
> > "boss"
> > is the person(s) who can fire you. The only way to "fire" the VP is
> > impeachment. It requires votes from both the House and Senate. First
> > only a
> > member of the House can initiate impeachment; this can be done without
> > existing indictment. From there it goes to Judiciary Committee and then
> > to
> > House (requires majority) vote.The VP presides over no-executive
> > impeachment
> > proceedings in the Senate. The Chief Justice would preside over Pres and
> > VP
> > impeachments.The Senate needs a 2/3 vote. The Senate can not initiate
> > impeachment proceedings. The VP is not his own "boss" in that the
> > President
> > can't certainly decide to force the VP out for "party" interests. All
> > elected officials work for us the humble tax payers. It is interesting
> > to
> > note that originally the VP was the runner up in the Presidential
> > election.
> > It is pretty obvious why this didn't last long.
> >
> > AC race 3 just started!
> >
> > Wally
> >
> > On 6/26/07, Tootle < ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Slim:
> > >
> > > I appreciate that you were a music major in college(?).  However, a
> > course
> > > in government is in order.  You might just pick up a copy of the U. S.
> > > Constitution and study it going to your next gig.
> > >
> > > The Office of Vice President of the U. S. is a Constitutional
> > Office.  It
> > > is
> > > not beholding or at the beckoning of Congress, but rather the Vice
> > > President
> > > sits as head of the Senate.
> > >
> > > This is a question of who is boss?   And if you read the U. S.
> > > Constitution
> > > it does not say that Congress is the Vice President's boss.  And if
> > you
> > > read
> > > further, regarding the Executive Branch, it does not say the President
> > is
> > > his boss either.  Hum, does this mean that in routine or ordinary
> > matters,
> > > as long as they are not criminal he is his own boss?  Yup.
> > >
> > > In conclusion, unless he has committed a criminal act for which he is
> > > indictable, and I would point out that Fitzgerald did not find that,
> > then
> > > Congress can say all they want, but really are wrong.  They
> > collectively
> > > need to read the U. S. Constitution.
> > >
> > > After you read the U. S. Constitution, will you cite specifics to
> > > substantiate your view.
> > >
> > > Ed K
> > > Greenville, SC, USA
> > > Addendum:  Political Cartoon:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p11304089/times%2B%25237.bmp times+%237.bmp
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/Reply-to-Slim-%28Politics---Government-101%29-tf3981896.html#a11304089
> >
> > > Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org , Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
>
>