by hmm » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:53 am
one almost has to admire them for their audacity.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/">www.boston.com/news/natio...quirement/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement<br>In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding<br><br>By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006<br><br>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.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>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.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> 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.<br><br>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." <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement,"</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>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</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> 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."<br><br>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 . . . "<br><br>The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.<br><br>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.<br><br>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<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
