http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opini ... anted=1&em

So Little Time, So Much Damage

While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here’s a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he’s not wasting a minute.

President Bush’s aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush’s case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage.

Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush’s recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come.

CIVIL LIBERTIES We don’t know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans’ rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject’s neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background.

The administration showed further disdain for Americans’ privacy rights and for Congress’s power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department’s privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans’ privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law “does not prohibit” officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn’t have done better.

THE ENVIRONMENT The administration has been especially busy weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species.

Mr. Bush, or more to the point, Vice President Dick Cheney, came to office determined to dismantle Bill Clinton’s environmental legacy, undo decades of environmental law and keep their friends in industry happy. They have had less success than we feared, but only because of the determined opposition of environmental groups, courageous members of Congress and protests from citizens. But the White House keeps trying.

Mr. Bush’s secretary of the interior, Dirk Kempthorne, has recently carved out significant exceptions to regulations requiring expert scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered or threatened species (one consequence will be to relieve the agency of the need to assess the impact of global warming on at-risk species). The department also is rushing to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list — again. The wolves were re-listed after a federal judge ruled the government had not lived up to its own recovery plan.

In coming weeks, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The agency is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value.

Interior also is awaiting E.P.A.’s concurrence on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.

And while no rules changes are at issue, the interior department also has been rushing to open up millions of acres of pristine federal land to oil and gas exploration. We fear that, in coming weeks, Mr. Kempthorne will open up even more acreage to the commercial development of oil shale, a hugely expensive and environmentally risky process that even the oil companies seem in no hurry to begin. He should not.

ABORTION RIGHTS Soon after the election, Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, is expected to issue new regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.

Existing law allows doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. These changes would extend the so-called right to refuse to a wide range of health care workers and activities including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of birth control pills or emergency contraception, even for rape victims.

The administration has taken other disturbing steps in recent weeks. In late September, the I.R.S. restored tax breaks for banks that take big losses on bad loans inherited through acquisitions. Now we learn that JPMorgan Chase and others are planning to use their bailout funds for mergers and acquisitions, transactions that will be greatly enhanced by the new tax subsidy.

One last-minute change Mr. Bush won’t be making: He apparently has decided not to shut down the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the most shameful symbol of his administration’s disdain for the rule of law.

Mr. Bush has said it should be closed, and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, pushed for it. Proposals were prepared, including a plan for sending the real bad guys to other countries for trial. But Mr. Cheney objected, and the president has refused even to review the memos. He will hand this mess off to his successor.

We suppose there is some good news in all of this. While Mr. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, he has only until Nov. 20 to issue “economically significant” rule changes and until Dec. 20 to issue other changes. Anything after that is merely a draft and can be easily withdrawn by the next president.

Unfortunately, the White House is well aware of those deadlines.

Spoiler: show

Sorry, I had to.

Does anyone have Vegas's over/under on number of presidential pardons upcoming?

Do you believe that subsequent administrations, regardless of party, will revoke such techniques and effectively make themselves less powerful? Of the few things that are constant in this world, government's propensity to accumulate and hoard power is certainly near the top of the list. Aside from youthful naivete, why would you be remotely surprised by the actions of the federal government?

But if the Obama administration doesn't deliver as we thought it would, we can always go back to traditional American principles, right?

Even if people could remember what those were, probably not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_ ... ed_species

Bush set to relax rules protecting species

Animals and plants in danger of becoming extinct could lose the protection of government experts who make sure that dams, highways and other projects don't pose a threat, under a regulation the Bush administration is set to put in place before President-elect Obama can reverse them.

The rules must be published Friday to take effect before Obama is sworn in Jan. 20. Otherwise, he can undo them with the stroke of a pen.

The Interior Department rushed to complete the rules in three months over the objections of lawmakers and environmentalists who argued that they would weaken how a landmark conservation law is applied.

The latest version has changed little from the original proposal, despite the more than 250,000 comments received since the change was first proposed in August, according to a Nov. 12 copy obtained late Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself it is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.

Current regulations require wildlife biologists to sign off on these decisions before a project can go forward, at times modifying the design to better protect species.

The regulations also bar federal agencies from assessing emissions of the gases blamed for global warming on species and habitats, a tactic environmentalists have tried to use to block new coal-fired power plants.

Tina Kreisher, an Interior Department spokeswoman, could not confirm whether the rule would be published before the deadline, only saying that the White House was still reviewing it. But she said changes were being made based on the comments received.

"We started this; we want to finish this," said Kreisher.

i'd take a dam over a species of salmon any day. maybe i'm just an asshole

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738933.stm

Bush attacked over wildlife plan

US environmentalists have accused President George W Bush of trying to rush through changes to the Endangered Species Act in his last days in office.

They say the changes could take away protection for animals and plants facing possible extinction.

The Bush administration wants to make it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment.

Under current rules, the impact of such projects must be assessed by experts.

The changes proposed by the Bush administration would let federal agencies make the decisions without a full scientific assessment as to the likely impact on the environment.

Republican supporters of the changes, along with developers and some federal agencies, argue that the current system of environmental reviews causes delays to projects, pushing up costs.

The White House denies that the late spate of rule changes is politically motivated.

However, a spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House of Representatives would be looking at ways to overturn the "one-minute-to-midnight" rules.

"The House... will review what oversight tools are at our disposal regarding this and other last-minute attempts to inflict severe damage to the law in the waning moments of the Bush administration," said spokesman Drew Hammill.

Mr Bush has until Friday to publish the new rules. Most regulations take effect 60 days after publication, and Mr Bush wants them in place before he leaves the White House.

This will make it harder for president-elect Barack Obama to undo them when he takes office on 20 January 2009.

Mr Obama's chief of transition, John Podesta, has said the incoming president will review the last-minute actions, and seek to repeal those that are "not in the interests of the country".

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says that if Mr Bush presses ahead, environmental groups and some states are almost certain to challenge the decision in the courts.

Mr Bush has already been criticised by environmentalists for adding fewer than 10 species of plant and animals a year to the endangered list.

That contrasts with former President Bill Clinton, who added an average of 65 species a year.

did anyone said lame duck?

now Obama's been elected, nobody has to bother about being nice to Bush anymore

extinction happens. Its all a part of the history of the world

we don't need to hasten the process. What does the Bush administration benefit by amending the ESA? it's pretty fucking stupid.

Depends on how taste the salmon is.

ESL fail.

English: the real endangered species.

Over the weekend, I read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. It's exhaustively researched, logically presented and in my opinion perhaps the most important book that has come out as a contemporaneous account of the Bush Administration. It questions how we view ourselves as a nation. I think that most of us believe that the American experiment had elements of nobility in it. But what are the limits of nobility? And how much can we test them before it is impossible to regain any semblance of integrity?

I think that the rebuilding of our nation's stature has to come with the free flow of information. The rejection of the kind of secrecy that so permeates our culture. Perhaps that will happen with time. Here is Jane Mayer writing in the New York Review of Books:

Seven years after al-Qaeda's attacks on America, as the Bush administration slips into history, it is clear that what began on September 11, 2001, as a battle for America's security became, and continues to be, a battle for the country's soul.

In looking back, one of the most remarkable features of this struggle is that almost from the start, and at almost every turn along the way, the Bush administration was warned that whatever the short-term benefits of its extralegal approach to fighting terrorism, it would have tragically destructive long-term consequences both for the rule of law and America's interests in the world. These warnings came not just from political opponents, but also from experienced allies, including the British Intelligence Service, the experts in the traditionally conservative military and the FBI, and, perhaps most surprisingly, from a series of loyal Republican lawyers inside the administration itself. The number of patriotic critics inside the administration and out who threw themselves into trying to head off what they saw as a terrible departure from America's ideals, often at an enormous price to their own careers, is both humbling and reassuring.

Instead of heeding this well-intentioned dissent, however, the Bush administration invoked the fear flowing from the attacks on September 11 to institute a policy of deliberate cruelty that would have been unthinkable on September 10. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and a small handful of trusted advisers sought and obtained dubious legal opinions enabling them to circumvent American laws and traditions. In the name of protecting national security, the executive branch sanctioned coerced confessions, extrajudicial detention, and other violations of individuals' liberties that had been prohibited since the country's founding. They turned the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel into a political instrument, which they used to expand their own executive power at the expense of long-standing checks and balances.

When warned that these policies were unlawful and counterproductive, they ignored the experts and made decisions outside of ordinary bureaucratic channels, and often outside of the public's view. Rather than risking the possibility of congressional opposition, they classified vital interpretations of law as top secret. No one knows to this day how many more secret opinions the Bush Justice Department has produced. Far from tempering these policies over time, they marginalized and penalized those who challenged their idées fixes. Because the subject matter was shrouded in claims of national security, however, much of the internal dissent remained hidden.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21716

I can't wait to see the Presidential Pardons

I actually heard on the radio that Bush has pardoned either 1/2 or 1/3 the number of people that Clinton and Bush Sr. did in their 8 years. I admit, I was surprised at first, but then I got to thinking - Texas isn't really known for compassion when it comes to criminals...

That's true. But don't they do most of them right before they leave?