Governing Process: Breaking Down

[PatrickHenry]

Senator Byrd, (who is accused by the clueless right for his ancient connection to the Klan, but has since showed a sincere dedication to government) was one of two Senators voting against the Bill that will reform intelligence in the USA. The other was Inhofe from Oklahoma, a Republican. Byrd's objection to the bill was that he wasn't given time to read it. And debate it and improve it. Isn't that what the Legislative Branch's job is? He also did not like a number of its provisions.

From Byrd's speech to the Senate: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004X.shtml

Quote by: Senator Byrd, It may well be that the only problem that this bill will actually fix is one of politics. Passing this bill in the waning hours of the 108th Congress means that, for all intents and purposes, intelligence reform will be removed from the agenda of the next Congress. By passing this bill today, the Senate will be giving political cover to those who wish to dismiss calls for more thorough reform of intelligence agencies to fix problems that are not addressed in the legislation, including the Iraq WMD fiasco and the abuse of prisoners in secret detention facilities. Intelligence reform should be done right the first time. But the actual implementation of this bill will be shrouded in secrecy and hidden from public scrutiny. Under this conference report, the total amount of intelligence spending will remain classified, so the American people may never know if the President is short-changing the reform effort that this bill requires. Senators ought not be so willing to rush this bill through, knowing that it may serve as political cover for an Administration that has a sorry history of promising big reform efforts that it never funds. The 9/11 Commission's endorsement of this legislation will mean nothing if these so-called reforms lead to future intelligence failures. What the American people will remember is that the Congress abdicated its role to protect their security interests. The American people will remember that the Congress empowered an unelected bureaucrat while doing little else to protect against future intelligence failures. This process has been hurried and rushed from the beginning, and it has been tainted ever since the decision was made to tie its consideration to a political schedule. When the 9/11 Commission needed more time to conduct its investigations into the September 11 attacks, the Congress acted magnanimously in granting a two month extension. Senators said at the time: "It would be counterproductive to deny the commission the extra two months it now says it needs to complete its investigations...we cannot feel we are successfully prepared to fight and win the war on terrorism and to protect the American people at home..." The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the notion that time is a luxury reserved for the unelected members of independent commissions. What about the Senate, and the elected representatives of the people that serve in this Body? The Framers of the Constitution conceived a Senate that would resist the forces that urge us to bend with each change in the political breeze. To the contrary, the Constitution binds Senators to serve the greater causes of the Republic, and reserves the power of each member to demand more time for debate and thoughtful consideration. Shame on us for not invoking that wisdom in claiming the additional time we need to better assess this legislation.

Please read and comment on Senator Byrd's remarks to the Senate and on the breakdown of the legislative process which is spelled out in the document we should all honor as the basis of the US republic, the Constitution of 1787 and its Amendments.

[tusaki]

So, in a summary of his arguments against the bill:

• it will not be dealt with in the next senate.
• the bill does not address current failures, like the WMD and prisoner abuse.
• among other, unnamed reasons, one of the things the public never knows is the budget.
• the security-tsar is appointed, not elected.
• some yadda yadda about the founding fathers... (sorry I don't really find arguments revolving around founding fathers interesting, since it cannot be proven and is used as a way of saying "oww.. so you are AGAINST the founding fathers? you unpatriotic $%@$%!)).

And meanwhile, he says the following which is interesting:

• the 9/11 commission endorses the bill.
• the current Senate, not the next will deal with it.
• he needs more time, while many more of his colleagues apparently do not.

And why exactly are you against the bill, Patrick H?

[Osborn F Enready]

Great post Pat, and you didn't ask me Tusaki, but I will tell you plain and simply my reason for being against it.

"This is the most far reaching reorganization of our intelligence agencies since 1947. These changes will remain for decades, and they will impact the security of our nation at countless levels. Such matters ought to be held to a higher standard of consideration by the Congress than is the case here.........
Senators take an oath to defend the Constitution, and common sense suggests that that means reading and studying the legislation before the Congress. We are duty bound to explore the opinions on all sides of an issue, and to work toward a process that does not exclude opponents or silence the opposition."

And look, I even used Byrds words! Notice how he also brings up 1947? Hmmmm, I wonder why? 8)

[PatrickHenry]

Heh. Yeah Osborn, 1947, in case other debaters don't know, was the inception of the National Security Act: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17603.htm
It brought sweeping changes to the Federal Government, including the creation of the CIA, the NSA and merging the War Department and the Navy Department into the Defense Department.

This was arguably a HUGE step in the direction of the New World Order taken by Washington DC.

My objections to this bill, soon to be an Act, a done deal: One of Sen. Byrd's objections, and mine is that only the committee members know what is in it. The other members haven't had a chance to read it yet. Do I object to having legislation passed into law that hasn't been vetted by the entire legislature? YOU BET I DO!!

Senator Byrd says this and relates this legislation to one of everybody's favorite Acts:

a number of provisions related to the Patriot Act and law enforcement powers have been inserted into this bill, which, again, have never been considered on the Senate floor.

See, tusaki, law enforcement powers. This means men with guns and badges getting authority to perform questionable activities in the name of the government. A government I don't trust, for reasons I have voluminously detailed elsewhere. I want a long-winded discussion on these types of issues, not a repeat of the procedure used to railroad the USAPATRIOT Act.

Byrd also says this:

Whistle blower protections for intelligence officials who report to the Congress also have been stricken from the Senate-passed bill.

See, I like having whisleblowers feel free to bust activities that are not in line with public opinion or even America's national interests. That is all we have left to keep this over-fed Federal system from descending into bald-faced tyranny.

There are doubtless more issues that will turn up as we get a chance to read what will soon be the law of the land. Forgive me if I don't have a high confidence in the leaders of the dominant parties in the Congress to have the best interests of the public foremost in their agenda. I trust them to avoid wrongdoing only if they are watched like a hawk.