Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CHENEY DEFIED BUSH EXECUTIVE ORDER (Think Progress)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 07:00 PM
Original message
CHENEY DEFIED BUSH EXECUTIVE ORDER (Think Progress)
Edited on Fri May-26-06 07:12 PM by kpete
Cheney’s secrecy violates an executive order. The Office of the Vice President failed to report statistics regarding Cheney’s classification and declassification activity in 2005, defying an executive order requirement that he do so. The Office of the Vice President has declined to report such data since 2002.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/26/cheney%e2%80%99s-secrecy-violates-an-executive-order/#comments

Vice President Refuses to Report Classification Activity
For the third year in a row the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney has refused to disclose data on its classification and declassification activity, in an apparent violation of an executive order issued by President Bush.

"The Office of the Vice President (OVP), the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and the Homeland Security Council (HSC) failed to report their data to ISOO this year," the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) noted in its new 2005 Annual Report to the President (pdf)http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2005rpt.pdf (at page 9, footnote 1).

The Office of the Vice President has declined to report such data since 2002. Yet it is clear that disclosure is not optional.

"Each agency that creates or handles classified information shall report annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security classification program," according to ISOO Directive 1 http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/directive1.html(at section 2001.80).

more at:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/05/vice_president_refuses_to_repo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nice catch! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah but no doubt blivet secretly declared that directive null and void.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. more...
This and other ISOO directives "shall be binding upon the agencies," President Bush wrote in Executive Order 13292 (section 5.1). And an "agency" is not only a statutorily defined executive branch agency, but also includes "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/05/vice_president_refuses_to_repo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. The law doesn't apply to that man. He tellls the police to wait until
the next day, after he shoots a man. He still holds stock options in Halliburton despite the rule against doing so for any VP and despite the fact that there is supposedly an investigation into why he is holding them. He never revealed that when he took the job either.

This is one vile individual. The people do not want him in office. His poll ratings are 15%. Shouldn't someone with polls that low and so many unanswered questions swirling around him, just step down?

Thanks, kpete ~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Add to that, his refusal to turn over subpoenaed information
regarding his energy task force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-26-06 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. this isn't recent news -
-think I read about it months ago someplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The date on the report cited is dated May 25, 2006
Edited on Sat May-27-06 12:11 AM by troubleinwinter
You "think" you read it sometime "someplace". What does your comment add to the discussion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. almost a month ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Good catch. Time to drag this subject out of the shadows again.
I had missed this story when first reported (as you correctly recollected, about 1 month ago).

This is important news and bears repeating. We've got a vice-president who claims for himself the power to unilaterally classify and/or declassify material, and subsequently refuses to provide statistics/metrics on the frequency at which he does so.

Fortunately for us, it appears Cheney neglected to unilaterally declassify Plame's undercover status prior to outing her... I suspect he didn't realize she was an operative (undercover), instead believing that she was only an analyst (desk jocky).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. HOLD UP ! I read a signing statement for one of thses bills and
it stated that the Prez. could ignore reporting this data if it was sensetive info.
lemme scare it up if I can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-27-06 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. He has explicitly reframed the Vice Presidency as the uber-office.
Edited on Sat May-27-06 09:51 AM by enough
Interesting constutional issues.

snip>

Despite an executive order signed by President Bush in 2003 requiring all agencies or “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information’’ to report on its activities, the vice president’s office maintains that it has no legal obligation to report on its classification decisions.

Cheney’s office told the Chicago Tribune in an April report on the administration’s propensity for secrecy that it is under no duty to report this information. The vice president maintains that his office is not an agency, and is also unique in serving both an executive role and legislative role - the vice president is president of the Senate.

But monitors of government secrecy maintain that the vice president is flouting his own president’s authority in this matter.

“It undermines oversight of the classification system and reveals a disdain for presidential authority,’’ Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said today. “It’s part of a larger picture of disrespect that this vice president has shown for the norms of oversight and accountability.’’

A spokeswoman for Cheney, asked for response, reiterated the vice president’s stance on the issue.

“These reporting requirements are not applicable to (the office of the vice president),’’ Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said today. “This has been thoroughly reviewed and it’s been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to (the office), which has both legislative and executive functions.’’

snip>

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/05/cheneys_secret_.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC