Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What did Cheney start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent executive branch oversight?

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:43 PM
Original message
What did Cheney start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent executive branch oversight?
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 09:43 PM by ProSense
Friday, June 22, 2007

Dick Cheney and the Not-So-Unitary Executive

JB

Vice President Dick Cheney and his consigliere David Addington have long been associated with the doctrine of the "Unitary Executive," the notion that all executive functions are vested in the President of the United States of American and hence that the President has the right to direct all executive officers, who, in turn are required to obey his orders.

All except the Vice-President, apparently.

The New York Times reports that Cheney now takes the position that he is not bound by an executive order requiring all entities within the executive branch to report on how they obtain and use classified information because he is not just another part of the executive branch. The Vice-President's office, he contends, is unique. As President of the Senate, he exercises legislative functions, including the right to cast tie votes in the Senate. (Of course the President also has legislative functions-- he can veto bills-- but that has never stopped him from claiming that he is the chief executive officer.). The Times explains:

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the office in charge of overseeing classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested that the oversight office be shut down, according to documents released today by a Democratic congressman.

For years Cheney and Addington pushed the theory of the unitary Executive in order to avoid anyone looking into what they were doing. Once it became clear that the executive branch wanted to know what they were doing, they decided they were no longer part of the executive branch.

It is by now obvious, if any further proof were necessary, that Cheney and Addington have never been particularly interested in defending constitutional principles. They do not seek to preserve executive power. They seek to preserve their own power. They discarded the canard of the unitary executive as soon as it became inconvenient. (NB: The basic idea of a unitary executive, by contrast, is not spurious; some versions of the theory are quite plausible, just not Cheney and Addington's version. I discuss some of the different conceptions here).

The New York Times article leaves a tantalizing tidbit: Cheney's office complied with requests for data on classified documents in 2001 and 2002. "But starting in 2003, the vice president’s office began refusing to supply the information. In 2004, it blocked an on-site inspection by (the Information Security Oversight Office), routinely carried out across the government and intended to check whether documents were being properly labeled and safely stored."

So the question is this: Why did Cheney change his mind at the end of 2002? What did his office start doing in 2003 that gave him reason to prevent oversight even by other parts of the executive branch?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. I shudder to think
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very tantalizing... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. I got shivers reading that
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Had the Democrats not won Congress last year
we wouldn't even know this. There's so much we already know in just 6 months that we never would have known had the GOP retained control of Congress.

And you're right. This begs the question what did CHeney start doing in '03. I think it almost certainly has to do with Halliburton/KBR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. What year did he have those secret energy task force meetings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I think that lasted a few years
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. They need to look under every Iraq for the answer.
I am astounded at the bullshit that came down today. I watched some lying idiot on cspan lie her ass off repeatedly, making shit up and contradicting herself as she went along, not explaining the position of the VP, the position of the P, and the status of the dispute with the ISOO. I watched a press corps STILL unable to simply ask 'why are you lying to us and what is the VP hiding?'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well for one thing ...
that's the year he decided to frag Valarie Plame and Joe Wilson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. This one explains it. Can't put Treason on the record now can we? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. He also totally destroyed an operation tracking WMD sales and distribution.
HE ALSO set up WHIG to commit fraud against the U.S.A.

He ALSO set up an energy task force having something to do with divvying up Iraq.

Among lots of other shit, I am sure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. Isn't that supposed to be 'Urinary Executive'?
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 10:50 PM by Husb2Sparkly
Nobody seems more constantly pissed off than our Dick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. He moulted for one thing. He's part of a 17 year brood
and 2003 was his year to excarapate for the last time. His larval growth stages complete he will now undergo pupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hmmm, when did the illegal domestic spying program ACTUALLY
go into play?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. Only it goes back to early in 2002
Cheney's office had already starting refusing to respond to inquiries by March 2002. They may have broadened the range of things They wouldn't reveal in 2003, but that wasn't when it began.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=760

November 16, 2005 — Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff have been unilaterally exempting themselves from long-standing travel disclosure rules followed by the rest of the executive branch, including the Office of the President, the Center for Public Integrity has discovered. . . .

Instead of making disclosures like most of the White House, Cheney's office since March 2002 has periodically responded to OGE inquiries by stating that it is not obligated to file such disclosure forms for travel funded by non-federal sources.

The letters were signed by then-Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, who two weeks ago was named Cheney's chief of staff, replacing indicted aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Addington also reportedly helped write a memo validating the use of torture or similar techniques on terrorism suspects abroad that came to light during the attorney general confirmation process of Gonzales, Bush's former counsel.

In the letters to the Office of Government Ethics, Addington writes that the Office of the Vice President is not classified as an agency of the executive branch and is therefore not required to issue reports on travel, lodging and related expenses funded by non-federal sources. The letters go on to say that neither the vice president nor his staff had accepted any non-federal payments for travel during the period, and that the office is making that limited disclosure as "a matter of comity."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firefox_fan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. He means that the REAL power is in the VP Office...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. He realized that he could, and no one was going to stop him. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Please post the source, along with the date and a link. There are some publications
that I will not patronize, unless I am forced to, for a specific research item. It's my personal boycott, and it includes most of the hypocritical, damnable war profiteering corporate news monopolies, in both print and broadcast. Generally, this only means my very minor and singular denial of traffic to these rotters' web sites. But it's important to me. And it also helps to prevent for-profit traffic here at DU--say, paid agents of the big corporate press trying to worm their way back into the good graces of the Left, by posting their "news" articles here--articles in which they are starting to publish Bushite scandal material, now that our our country has been thoroughly looted and our democracy is lying in shreds from this corporate/fascist coup--and selling advertising of the basis of the traffic that is driven to their sites by postings here. What they have done to our country is unforgivable. I want to see every one of their monopolies busted up, their corporate charters pulled, their broadcast licenses denied, and their assets seized for the common good. And besides all this, it is very important to know which corporate shite rag or fascist broadcaster--or other source--you are reading excerpts from--to be able to gage its trustworthiness.

Thank you! I would greatly appreciate it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Second this:
"I want to see every one of their monopolies busted up, their corporate charters pulled, their broadcast licenses denied, and their assets seized for the common good."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
17. We found Osama, and he is being kept in Cheney's office!
That has to be it. They make him record video tapes when it is convenient to them.

I'm so happy I solved this mystery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
18. Creating a war in Iraq. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susu369 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Exactly
Bush announced the start of the Iraq War on March 19, 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
21. Was there some form of evil he was too timid to attempt in '03?
Edited on Sat Jun-23-07 11:52 AM by Orsino
I'm having a tough time imagining Cheney scruples.

Perhaps he was planning to shoot someone. In the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
23. Bush makes similar claim
Bush claims he’s not part of the executive branch.

They're both right these two aren't the president and vice president of the U.S. They are war criminals so it's time they get the appropriate treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. kick
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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