OpEdNews » Ore. Rep, denied access

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Congress; Conspiracy; Government; Security
Add to My Group

July 21, 2007 at 03:02:00

Ore. Rep, denied access

by Citizens For Legitimate Government (Posted by Dan Merica) Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government

21 Jul 2007

http://www.legitgov.org/

All links and summaries to articles below are available here:

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Ore. Rep. asks to see gov't plans for aftermath of terror attack, denied access 20 Jul 2007 Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack. As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents. On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED. "I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says. Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Contact Editor

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

3 comments

Charlie Levenson is a writer and activist in Portland, Oregon. In addition to serving as the Manager of Electronic Communications for a social/athletic club in Portland, he instructs in Digital Media at Portland State University, consults on communications strategy, and occasionally writes/directs videos.
Charlie LCharlie Levenson is a writer and activist in Portland, Oregon. In addition to serving as the Manager of Electronic Communications for a social/athletic club in Portland, he instructs in Digital Media at Portland State University, consults on communications strategy, and occasionally writes/directs videos.

Big question is...

It's not suprising that the Rethuglicans do this.

The big question is...

What's Congressman DiFazio going to DO about it?

Hmm?

Take it up the @zz like a good boy? Or is he going to raise a stink? Hmm?

Why not stand on Monday with the protestors, or even go get arrested with some of them? Don't think THAT might get some publicity Pete?

No, better just go buy some lube.

I'm sure Earl "Can't impeach them, we have too much to get done" Blumenauer (D OR-3) will be right there with you to ease it in.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 715 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 3:01:42 PM

Mother of 7, grandmother of 21, great grandmother of 41 and great-great grandmother of 2 and loving every minute of it. I want a better world for us all than the mess we have now.
RaeMother of 7, grandmother of 21, great grandmother of 41 and great-great grandmother of 2 and loving every minute of it. I want a better world for us all than the mess we have now.

DeFazio..what's he going to do?

Not much if anything..I wrote him with concerns re the Directives and asked where the outrage among the elected was..his reply was a perfect example of HEAD IN THE SAND regarding this administration and where they are headed with the directives and the new Exec. Orders. I can't decide whether our elected are obstructionist, enablers, asleep at the switch, dumb as a box of rocks..or all of the above. And, add Pelosi to the top of that list.

Here is the Sen. Peter DeFazio reply...

Dear Friend:
Thanks for your message regarding the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-20. I appreciate hearing from you.
I've heard from many of my constituents expressing concerns about this directive, which led me to read it. After having done so, I believe it has either been misread or misrepresented on a number of Internet sites. I can ensure you that as a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security; we will conduct vigorous oversight of the administration's actions in this area. As you know from my opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and other intrusive, and potentially illegal, actions by this administration, I have been a strong no vote on bills to erode civil liberties and a strong voice in favor of restoring and protecting our most basic freedoms.
The alarmist reporting about NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on some Internet sites appears to be based on a misreading of the actual document. I've read the document (available online here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html).
All NSPD-51/HSPD-20 does is direct certain individuals in the executive branch to establish policies and procedures needed to keep the government running in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack or natural disaster. This type of continuity of government proposal is not new. The federal government has had them dating back to the Cold War days. This type of planning prior to a catastrophic event is critical to ensure that the bureaucratic chaos that happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina does not happen again in the wake of an even larger disaster or terrorist attack.
The NSPD-51/HSPD-20 specifically states that all actions taken in response to this document must be "in accordance with applicable law." Further, it says that the directives "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations." In other words, NSPD-51/HSPD-20 does not in anyway overturn any existing restrictions on the president's behavior that are already in law. Besides, the president cannot overturn laws merely by issuing an executive order. Further, by acknowledging that actions can only be taken subject to appropriations, the president is conceding that Congress will have oversight of his actions.
Regarding the impact of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on the private sector and state and local governments, again, the actual language of the directive contradicts the Internet reporting. The document does require that the federal continuity of government plans be "appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure." The document tasks the Secretary of Homeland Security with coordinating the integration of federal plans with these other entities. But, the document does NOT say that the federal government will take over ownership or control of state, local, territorial or tribal governments, or private sector assets, in the wake of a national emergency. It merely says that federal emergency plans should be coordinated with the emergency plans of others. That makes sense to me. Otherwise, we're going to see what we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the state, local and federal governments did not work well together.
I am certainly a critic of many of the Bush administration's actions, including those that have eroded our freedoms and civil liberties. But, in this case, I think the alarms that have been raised about NSPD-51/HSPD-20 are misplaced.
Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely, Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
My question , particulary with the new Exec orders added in, is, how can they not see that they, the elected, (except maybe the boot lickers) will also be rendered as mute/castrated as the people and also under the dictatorship takeover?
And DeFazio is suddenly surprised at being denied access to something? Give me a break!
It has become quite obvious that the people are better informed than the majority of the elected. We also deal in REALITY! They seem to reside in Lala Land! Quite frankly, in view of the track record of this administration every single thing they do should be suspect.
Impeachment should have begun long ago and definately before this Exec. Order. Paul Craig Roberts, former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagon has an assessment of that order ..
httpL//en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340866.html
We are in very deep doo doo...and we have our so called "leaders" to thank for that.

by Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 218 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 4:36:26 PM

Robert Chapman is greatly interested in developing political awareness among as many people as possible.
Robert ChapmanRobert Chapman is greatly interested in developing political awareness among as many people as possible.

Letter is instructive

The letter from Congressman DeFazio's office printed above is instructive because it describes numerous valid justifications for confidentiality in governmental record keeping.

What it does not adress is the dilemna that we are facing as a result of the government's need for confidentiality.

The dilemna is how to separate legitimate state secrets from classification and confidentiality used to cover-up misfeasance.

There are numerous and strong reasons to suspect that the Bush Administration is using its power to impose secrecy to cover up its misdeeds and poor judgements.

The question is how do we discover the facts related to the Administration's misdeeds without compromising the government's legitimate need for confidentiality?

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 10:55:05 AM