Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Bush shuns patriot act requirement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush shuns patriot act requirement

    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."
    ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
    ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

  • #2
    Are we still living in a democracy?



    :> (still feeling feisty)

    kris
    ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
    ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

    Comment


    • #3
      :>
      ~Mom of 5, married to an ID doc
      ~A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

      Comment

      Working...
      X