<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>This Is The Way Of Dictatorships.</title>
		<description>Comments for This Is The Way Of Dictatorships. at http://www.pacificfreepress.com , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.pacificfreepress.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:15:32 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Bush and his signing statements</title>
			<link>http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/37-this-is-the-way-of-dictatorships.html#comment-5</link>
			<description>Bush's frequent use of signing statements to flip off newly enacted laws is a huge part of his path to dictatorship and a slice of his &quot;comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power&quot; at the expense of the legislative branch.

The Bush administration has continued to issue signing statements for new laws. 
Bush recently okayed the [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060929-15.html]2007 military budget bill, but then issued a statement challenging 16 of its provisions.[/url]

The original legislation bars the Pentagon from using any intelligence that was collected illegally, [b]including information[/b] about Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable government surveillance.
Yet in Bush's signing statement, he suggested that [b]he alone could decide whether the Pentagon could use such information.[/b] His signing statement instructed the military to view the law in light of ``the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.&quot;

Bush also challenged three sections that require the Pentagon to notify Congress before diverting funds to new purposes, including top-secret activities or programs. Congress had already decided against funding. [b]Bush said he was not bound to obey such statutes if he decided, as commander in chief, that withholding such information from Congress was necessary to protect security secrets.[/b]


PDF here

[url]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf[/url] - admin</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:35:14 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
