[IP] Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement / In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: March 24, 2006 8:13:36 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement / In
addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Note: This item comes from reader Monty Solomon. DLH]
From: Monty Solomon <monty@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: March 24, 2006 5:51:55 AM PST
Subject: Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement / In addendum to law, he
says oversight rules are not binding
Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the
USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he
did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress
about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure
the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search
homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice
Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses
the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the
administration would have to provide the information to Congress by
certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9,
calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on
terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters
and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing
statement," an official document in which a president lays out his
interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to
tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that,
despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if
he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national
security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the
performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . .
... that call for furnishing information to entities outside the
executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's
constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch
and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile
instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to
bypass a law.
After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had
authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of
Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining
warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him
the right to ignore the warrant law.
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee
in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement
declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh
interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
.....
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/
bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/