digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Governing Behind Closed Doors - Bush's Hidden Laws

latimes.com — The Yoo memo is just one example. The memos on torture policy that have been leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know nothing. Memo filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day on subjects including the government's ability to detain US citizens without congressional authorizatio

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rpi22, on 05/10/2008, -3/+50If Bush has nothing to hide, then what is he hiding?!
    • allowners, on 05/10/2008, -3/+16It's classified.
    • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -12/+2duh,,, nothing. god, you wouldn't last a day in intelligence.
      • yingjai, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6oh god, there are still bush fans?
        • robbiemuffin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1no. I guess it was hard to read that :) It's supposed to be; secrets of the government are the type of things you don't admit exist. so he has nothing to hide.

          honestly though, he's a lot like Reagan. He's a tool, not a bad person. The bad guys are the people who misdirect and outlast the presidents...
  • yellowcakewalk, on 05/10/2008, -3/+44Tyranny incarnate.
    • plimpton777, on 05/10/2008, -7/+10That's why I voted for Ron Paul.
      • Leomarth, on 05/10/2008, -7/+2Voting for slightly less slavery. Excellent.

        In the obscure chance that someone ties you up, and says they will give you the option of them shooting you with a .45 or a .22, I suppose you'll pick the .22... right?
        • earthforce1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2No, I'd rather be shot clean through the head with the .45 instead of bleeding to death slowly by being shot with a .22
          • Leomarth, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1See, therein lies the difference.

            I'd tell the bastard to go screw himself instead of pick what I'm going to be shot with.
  • alapoet, on 05/10/2008, -2/+42The true mark of a tyrant: Unwillingness to subject his deeds to public scrutiny and review.
    • plimpton777, on 05/10/2008, -9/+9That's why I voted for Ron Paul.
    • wanderlander, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Hey! Tyrants are unelected! Oh...
  • debunkthelies, on 05/10/2008, -1/+32What the hell did we fight for in 1776? It seems those who would be King have undermined the whole concept of democracy, and I'm not just referring to the current degenerate potentate. Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    • Leomarth, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5We fought to exchange one set of tyrants for another. The first set of tyrants was "the king", the second set of tyrants was "the collective".
    • thecatcantalk, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4The quote is from Lord Acton, a British M.P.: "Power TENDS to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." was what he actually said.
  • socivitus, on 05/10/2008, -0/+23There are laws hidden from Congress? I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. +_+
    • lordmetroid, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5Nope, it is extra constitutional.
    • yingjai, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4the unconstitutional constitution. anyone else's head about to explode?
  • plimpton777, on 05/10/2008, -14/+17BUSH GTFO!!!
    get out of Ron Paul's house NOW!!!
    • insanebrain, on 05/10/2008, -10/+3dumb *****. . .shut up with your RP-spam.
    • InSectWar, on 05/11/2008, -6/+1Here we have one of the big reasons for the downfall of Ron Paul's campaign(among other reasons, I'm aware there are a few big other ones). The spamming supporters who clogged straw polls rendering them even more irrelevant then they were in the first place, and the non stop spam on websites which caused people who may have possibly been interested or at least curious to associate their childish behavior with the candidate, which, ironically, was the opposite effect of what you may have intended. Hell, you guys were even in my battlefield 2 game spamming away on all the channels you could. Honestly... you have hurt your cause more then you will ever know. Ah well, at least Ron is making money from something he knows he can't change with his book now... lol
  • johncourt, on 05/10/2008, -0/+14I grew up in Wisconsin; go Russ Feingold for stepping up!
  • 223Sniper, on 05/10/2008, -2/+24bush sucks...and the american people suck for allowing it.
    • AGHatecraft, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Well, to be fair only half of the American people suck for allowing it.
  • sassip, on 05/10/2008, -1/+9Why does it matter? Have "we" forgotten that Bush has a Bat-phone to God... He has some serious ego-character defects the least of which is that he, like the Pope, has "Divine Infallibility" built-in...
  • insanebrain, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12only 1 thing to follow. . and that is martial law.
  • Heem, on 05/10/2008, -0/+31Seriously, why hasnt anything been done over the past couple of years to investigate and impeach this regime? What is congress afraid of (seriously...) - I mean come on, we started impeachment on Nixon and what just any one of the things Bush has done makes Nixon look like a saint. And all that crap over Bill Clinton getting a little action on the side? But.. nothing for Bush and his cronies.
    • mst3kcrow, on 05/10/2008, -1/+18Some of the democrats who care more about their own interests (such as their party or friends at XYZ Military Supplies Co) then the american people are letting this happen as to let things fall in their favor (such as republicans losing credibility or their friends receiving money). Nancy Pelosi has been a huge sellout in this regard with her refusal of impeachment proceedings. Basically the whole "elect democrats, we will change things" was a huge scam.
      • Heem, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5good thinking.
      • thecatcantalk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Nancy Pelosi sucks ***** out of dead seagulls. AND she goes back for seconds.
    • trixterIreland, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2well clinton had other issues that you are neglecting. His loan fraud stuff (all the witnesses against him mysteriously killed themselves while in protective custody of the federal government, 3 people I believe). There were others, however to compare a president who committed fraud, for which there were convictions, means nothing.

      Politicians should be judged based on the merit of their own actions and not on the actions of others. Comparing them does nothing to address any problems you may see.

      As for impeachment, really do you think that will do anything? Do you know what it really means? It does not mean to pull out of office, it just means congress officially says "you were naughty" and then its over.
      • Razormane11, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5I think the point of impeachment (and eventually removal if it happens) is more of an effort to curtail the corruptness of future presidents rather than try to fix what they have done. The fact that Nixon got pardoned afterwards just set a horrible precedent, especially considering the mound of evidence. The burden of proof against a president is damn near insurmountable.
        • earthforce1, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5What Nixon did is nothing compared to what is happening now. Nixon just tapped the phones on a very few of his opponents - the current administration has a secret high bandwidth connection right into AT&T. Multiply watergate by a million, yet nobody gives a damn anymore.
          Besides, Nixon at least did some good things, despite leaving the white house with his tail between his legs::
          i) Honorable exit from Vietnam
          ii) First SALT nuclear treaty with the USSR
          iii) Opened diplomatic relations with China
    • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1BJs are obviously unconstitutional
    • LinusVanPelt, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Democrats are not impeaching Bush because he is permanently increasing the power of the Presidency, and they will be just fine with that when they take over next year.
  • Leomarth, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6When will the people learn... government always does what it wants, without regard to the will of the populace. And we will always accept it because we have a collective cultural fallacy that bad government is better than no government.
    • earthforce1, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Because ever since the time of the Romans and up until present day governments have always been able to sucker people into confusing love of their homeland into support for whatever a**holes happens to be ruling it. That is how dictators get people to fight and die for them.

      Fools them every time, everywhere.
  • swrostmore, on 05/10/2008, -5/+13*obligatory "***** bush" comment*
    *obligatory "Vote Ron Paul" comment*
    *obligatory "why didn't Dems magically fix everything in 2006" comment*
  • trixterIreland, on 05/10/2008, -10/+6remember folks, its not a "law" unless the legislature proposed and passed it, and then the president signed it or they override the veto with a 2/3 vote. What we are talking about here are executive orders which arent laws, they are policy statements. The article calls them laws when they arent so I wrote this off as an uninformed reporter, and given its an election year, quite possibly a biased one at that and read no further.
    • kreneskyp, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2why are you digging him down? hes spot on. executive orders and legal opinions of the justice department are NOT laws. The only group of people that gets to make _BINDING_ opinions on what is or isn't legal are judges. (i didnt name the SCOTUS because they only are called in as the very last appeal)

      the only caveat is that the executive branch can decide which laws it intends to enforce, or not enforce. It amounts to ignoring crimes. however, they can't stop 3rd parties from bringing lawsuits like in the wiretapping cases.
    • nightmage61, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2When the guys with big guns show up at your door, are you going to ask them if they are enforcing a law passed by the congress? The writing or passing of laws go out the door when those in power have the force to ensure their will is carried out.
  • jacothedevil, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Feingold's piece is a relatively late opinion a mist the years this has been going on, needed as it may be. the invasion of iraq was a bi-partisan blunder, where nobody's the winner. Americans should band together in time of crisis instead of bicker over "who dun it" or how bush did it.
  • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Tyranny.........
  • nickymouse, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1Bush is evil story number 1,992,929,332.
  • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7I am concerned that no one is asking the candidates what they plan on doing if elected with the existing executive orders, signing statements, FISA law, detainees...etc...etc...
    • WTFppl, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Dr. Paul answered those questions before anyone ever asked him. He also mentioned it in the Republican Debates-if you would have watched it-!
  • WTFppl, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3After reading this I thought to myself, "how is it legal for the federal government to contract armed security teams to relieve U.S. citizens of their legal and constitutionally protected fire-arms? They took our grandparents gold, now they want our guns. Do we just need to outright decease these thinkers?
  • Skooma714, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1"It's a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record."

    Constitutional Republic.

    Who the ***** let you write for a major newspaper?
    • entropy82, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Furthermore Article 1 of the constitution explicitly says the opposite.
  • calantus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1americans aren't going to do ***** as usual, so who the ***** cares. They will only care when it starts to actually take place in 20 years when another president in office. If not sooner.
  • Bronnster, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Just in case. I mean, in know way am I attempting to be offensive or arrogant to others but you really don't know the level of IQ Digg. Here is some help:
    Main Entry:
    tyr·an·ny Listen to the pronunciation of tyranny
    Pronunciation:
    ˈtir-ə-nē
    Function:
    noun
    Inflected Form(s):
    plural tyr·an·nies
    Etymology:
    Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
    Date:
    14th century

    1: oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government 2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force 4: a tyrannical act
  • entropy82, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Laws aren't required to be made public. See: Article 1 section 6 of the US constitution.

    Tyrrany in this country is over 200 years old. Bow to your masters.
    • gabulldawg79, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Article 1 section 6 states:
      "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
      No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office."

      Where in there does it say laws don't have to be made public?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.