Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:

(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort; (2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.

(b) Information originated by: (1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;

I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush.

JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote:

I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush.

Surely you mean IF. IF they take back Congress. There are no guarantees in the twisting, murky forest that is politics.

sb_enail.com wrote:

I hate the idea that people refer to one party gaining seats in congress as "taking back congress". It's like politics in this country have degenerated to the level of a junior high hallway. It absolutely sickens me that the parties view each other as adversaries and choose to fight one another instead doing their jobs and helping the American people.

StrongRad wrote:

sb_enail.com wrote:

Unfortunately, the republicans in Congress are America's adversaries. They'll blindly support a dangerous president and let him stomp all over the citizen's rights, so unless we get a legislative branch that won't stand for that crap, we're in trouble.

Thus, we need to take back Congress.

That's the exact kind of crap I'm talking about.
Calling republicans 'America's adversaries'. That's REALLY intelligent.

I'd like to see political parties just disappear.

Hey, they managed fine in the first few years after the Constitution went into effect.

And that's relevant because...?

It's not the 1700s. Needs are different now.

Author:	HippityHomsar [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:34 am ]
Post subject:	Bush's CIA Leak
Opinions here? He keeps claiming to have the power to declassify information, but not a lot of information to suggest that he actually did. I hate to quote my own website because that seems like I'm shilling for visitors, but I don't feel like retyping this. See, you can’t claim the information was classified on day A if your mouthpiece is saying it was declassified on day B 10 days later. Also, there’s a little wrinkle in Bush’s plan, because according to a number of CIA officials, they had no idea Bush declassified any of this information. Now, Bush signed Executive Order 13292 into effect back in ‘03 which changed the heirarchy of how information is declassified. Here we go. Quote: Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if: (1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort; (2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and (3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights. (b) Information originated by: (1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President; I’m currently wading through the NSA of 1947, but it doesn’t look like there’s any indication that this information falls under that umbrella. I cut the quote off because after that it’s not that important, just that it’s the President or Veep or anyone under direct control OF the Pres or Veep (which the CIA and the US Intelligence Community certainly aren’t).

Author:	Duecex2 [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:
My only opinion is that I am surprised this hasn't become the next watergate. I mean, everyone was making a deal out of Cheney shooting his friend (which is still freakin' hilarious) yet they don't make a big deal about Bush leaking the idnetity of a undercover CIA agent? What's up with the American public?

Author:	Jitka [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:36 am ]
Post subject:
The American public is finally starting to catch on, albeit a year and a half too late. Bush's polls are at their lowest ever. I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush. Maybe they'll approve Sen. Feingold's censure motion. Or even impeach him, if they're feeling courageous. But don't get your hopes up on that.

Author:	lahimatoa [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:13 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush. Good luck with that. Remember the summer of 2004? Yeah, we all heard the exact same things. The mighty "evangelical right" will rear their ugly heads once again, much to the dismay of the Democratic party.

Author:	sb_enail.com [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:16 am ]
Post subject:
JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush. Surely you mean IF. IF they take back Congress. There are no guarantees in the twisting, murky forest that is politics.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Bush's CIA Leak http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7788	Page 1 of 1

Author:	StrongRad [ Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:26 am ]
Post subject:
sb_enail.com wrote: JohnTheTinyCowboy wrote: I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush. Surely you mean IF. IF they take back Congress. There are no guarantees in the twisting, murky forest that is politics. I hate the idea that people refer to one party gaining seats in congress as "taking back congress". It's like politics in this country have degenerated to the level of a junior high hallway. It absolutely sickens me that the parties view each other as adversaries and choose to fight one another instead doing their jobs and helping the American people.

Author:	HippityHomsar [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:29 am ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: sb_enail.com wrote: I hate the idea that people refer to one party gaining seats in congress as "taking back congress". It's like politics in this country have degenerated to the level of a junior high hallway. It absolutely sickens me that the parties view each other as adversaries and choose to fight one another instead doing their jobs and helping the American people. Unfortunately, the republicans in Congress are America's adversaries. They'll blindly support a dangerous president and let him stomp all over the citizen's rights, so unless we get a legislative branch that won't stand for that crap, we're in trouble. Thus, we need to take back Congress.

Author:	StrongRad [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:31 am ]
Post subject:
HippityHomsar wrote: StrongRad wrote: sb_enail.com wrote: I hate the idea that people refer to one party gaining seats in congress as "taking back congress". It's like politics in this country have degenerated to the level of a junior high hallway. It absolutely sickens me that the parties view each other as adversaries and choose to fight one another instead doing their jobs and helping the American people. Unfortunately, the republicans in Congress are America's adversaries. They'll blindly support a dangerous president and let him stomp all over the citizen's rights, so unless we get a legislative branch that won't stand for that crap, we're in trouble. Thus, we need to take back Congress. That's the exact kind of crap I'm talking about. Calling republicans 'America's adversaries'. That's REALLY intelligent.

Author:	HippityHomsar [ Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:27 am ]
Post subject:
StrongRad wrote: That's the exact kind of crap I'm talking about. Calling republicans 'America's adversaries'. That's REALLY intelligent. Would you care to prove me wrong? The republican side of Washington just seems to rubber-stamp everything the administration wants to do with no hesitation. Hell the only time they deviated from him was because he was going against his own "bomb all the brown people!" mantra with the UAE deal. Republicans in general aren't dangerous, but the ones we got now are. As long as either side of Congress will refuse to stop marching lockstep with the president, we're in some serious trouble. And look at the Abramoff scandal, DeLay and his boys of K Street. Are they helping matters? I wouldn't say so. How about Arlen Specter saying Gonzales didn't need to swear in for his testimony? Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo over a video? The problem in America is that the line between left and right has turned into the line between agreeing and disagreeing with Bush. Given that we're dealing with a president who has recorded lower approval ratings than any president save for Nixon AFTER he resigned, a president who cherry picks intelligence then tries to hide evidence of reports disagreeing with him, a president who leaks classified information for political purposes, a president that breaks laws to spy on the people, I'd say anyone who'll blindly follow him is pretty damn dangerous. Currently, that's the republicans.

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:18 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd like to see political parties just disappear. All too often people vote by party lines at times when it's entirely inappropriate. Like when you're impeaching a President... - Kef

Author:	The Human Wedgie [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:21 am ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: I'd like to see political parties just disappear. How do you propose we know who and why to elect, then? I'd really hate to see my two senators be elected because they promised a lot of tax cuts. (Like that isn't the case today...)

Author:	furrykef [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Hey, they managed fine in the first few years after the Constitution went into effect. I don't think that system would suddenly fall apart just because we have a lot more people now. - Kef

Author:	furrykef [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:
And that's relevant because...?

Author:	Simon Zeno [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't think parties are a good idea. If people just vote along party lines, then what's the point of even having a campaign. Not only that, but because of our party system, no third-party person will ever get elected. Democracy can't function correctly if people just vote on party lines instead of on the candidate's personal political stance. That having been said, if parties were dissolved now, then we'd have total chaos because of all the politically ignorant people who wouldn't know what to do. I think that parties never should've been formed in the first place.

Author:	IantheGecko [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, kef: -The territory of the United States now stretches between 2 oceans -Our population is about 300 million people. This number includes people originating from all over the world, not just northwestern Europe. -There is an overabundance of technology (and obese people).

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	furrykef [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:07 pm ]
Post subject:
The Human Pumpkin wrote: It's not the 1700s. Needs are different now. Different how exactly?

Author:	furrykef [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:08 am ]
Post subject:
Sure, but do any of these things really preclude a small group of people not belonging to any particular party vying for the presidency? Keep in mind that even back in the late 1700s, America was getting pretty "big" in the sense that lots of people were there... a number large enough that it'd be impossible to gather them all in a room, even a very huge room. Yet we still managed to pick out a few significant people and make sense of it all. And, well, aren't we still able to do that sort of thing? There are millions and millions of Americans, but the number of people in politics who are important to know about is relatively small. I don't think political parties have terribly much to do with that. - Kef