You are herecontent / Obama Unconstitutionally Guts Another Law With a Signing Statement

Obama Unconstitutionally Guts Another Law With a Signing Statement

Obama Signing Statement Rejects Wider Sharing of Intelligence Info with Congress
By AllGov

Obama Signing Statement Rejects Wider Sharing of Intelligence Info with Congress
President Barack Obama continues to refuse to notify the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees about covert operations, reaffirming his position in a signing statement attached to his approval of an intelligence authorization bill recently approved by Congress.
Normally, if a U.S. president objects to a law passed by Congress, he vetoes it. But a president can ignore a certain section of a law if he says he considers it unconstitutional or if he claims that it might “interfere with his ability to conduct foreign policy.”
[No, he can't! --DS]
The legislation in question includes language telling the White House that the president has to at least give the committee members a “general description” of secret military activities. President Obama responded in his signing statement that he interprets the “general description” requirement as meaning he has to notify lawmakers only that he’s not telling them everything.
Rather than inform the full intelligence committees, the president prefers to keep briefings limited to the so-called “Gang of Eight,” which consists of the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Both Parties in House Slam Obama Signing Statement (by David Wallechinsky and Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That's comforting, but I'm not sure that it's very comforting that the language in the legistlation in question isn't stronger, as well as truly enforceable.

And if this intelligence doesn't include intelligence from all intelligence agencies, services of the government, so including military, then this wouldn't be comforting.

But even if the legislation was as thorough as it could be humanly possible to define it, then this still wouldn't guarantee that the President would not keep selected intel. secret.

In the following historical case, some legislation was evidently lacking, but if we had all of the legislation that'd be needed, then what guarantee would there be for the legislation to be fully respected when Presidents are "routinely" rogue?

There is a 4-part video in the following article. The video is for an audio-only interview that WW II veteran and Pearl Harbor researcher Robert B. Stinnett gave on The Power Hour. Each of the 4 clips is between 10 and 11 minutes.

"October 7, 1940: The Day That Should Have Lived in Infamy"

by Truth Excavator, Oct. 10th, 2010

The original copy of the video at Youtube is the following one.

"Robert Stinnett on the Power Hour, 1/4: Pearl Harbor was an Inside Job!"

ThePowerHourChannel, Dec. 7th, 2009

The above article by Truth Excavator is partly the writing of Truth Excavator, an excerpt from an interview that Robert Stinnett gave to Douglas Cirignano in 2002, and links for a few related resources, including for three audio-recorded interviews that Robert Stinnett gave to Scott Horton on the or his Antiwar radio program on June 1st, 2003, Jan. 29th, 2005, and Dec. 7th, 2007. I'll add some notes, below, for the 2002 interview and the interviews on Scott Horton's Antiwar program.

Re. the 2002 interview:

Reading the full interview that R. Stinnett gave to D. Cirignano is definitely worth reading in full; as opposed to reading only the except. There's important information that's not included in the excerpt, and the full interview also permits readers to learn that Robert Stinnett is not against the U.S. atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though apparently only because he says these two bombings ended the war. We also learn in the full copy of the interview that Robert Stinnett believes that President FDR did the right and necessary thing when he kept the pre-known attacks by Japan on Pearl Harbor secret, because it was the only way for FDR to drive support among Americans for the U.S. to enter WW II.

I don't agree with him on those views that he shared, even if I also believe that the Nazis had to be stopped. But his research on the real truth about the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor is clearly great as well as relevant for today, tomorrow, and into the future.

But he disagrees with FDR and the military commanders who knew what was going on having kept the Admiral and Army General in Hawaii out of the information loop; and also disagrees with all of the secrecy about this following the end of the war, government or political secrecy anyway.

Because of the FOIA having been eventually established, he was able to get plenty of USN documentation, around 200,000 pages I believe, and the USN withheld some, if not a lot, and blacked out parts, but he was still able to find out the truth about the attack on Pearl Harbor, including names of U.S. military commanders who were informed about the attack, one who presented a list of eight ways for the U.S. to try to provoke Japan into committing an apparent first-strike attack on the U.S., overtly, that FDR signed all of the orders, et cetera.

He spent 16 to 17 years doing this research and some people already knew about the U.S. having known that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but his research, and due to the FOIA, permitted him to discover details that no one else had known or made public.

And the U.S. elites continue a lot of secrets, many new ones.

The interviews at Antiwar:

The article by Truth Excavator provides a link for a page at that has links for the three interviews of 2003, 2005 and 2007, but I just tried to play the 2007 one there and had trouble with it, so searched for a copy at and found it. The page there has an additional interview of either Dec. 7th, 2007 or else 2006 when Charles Goyette interviewed Robert Stinnett.

"Scott Horton Interviews Robert Stinnett" (43:10), Dec. 7th, 2007

The one hosted by Charles Goyette was 14:55.

In searching for the 2005 interview at I came across the short article linked a little further below and which is entitled based on the book authored by Robert Stinnett, "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor". Scott Horton's short piece provides resource links, including MP3 links for two of his interviews with Robert Stinnett. He doesn't indicate when those two interviews were held, but they're probably those of Jan. 29th, 2005, and June 1st, 2003 interviews; unless these two people had additional interviews together.

Scott Horton also included a copy of a letter by "Patrick D. Weadon, curator of the National Cryptologic Museum, disputing Mr. Stinnett’s claims", and a solid rebuttal from Robert Stinnett. Those two extra "bits", which are short, certainly make for interesting additional notes.

"Day of Deceit", Scott Horton, Dec. 7th, 2005

History of a kind where "past, present and future meet"? I hope that it won't continue that way for much longer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.