Themes

• Amazing GraceAutumn ConceptBlueBlackExcelFalling LeavesIsland After SunsetPlatinumVidiyal

Tags

barack_obama beauty climate_change death_penalty earth faith follow_jesus forgiveness god grace human_dignity human_rights humility interrogation iraq jesus justice love movie peace politics poverty prayer revenge rule_of_law stoney terrorism torture ucc war

• Recently Written

  • not my world
  • conflict and community
  • “miah and friends”
  • an extremely regressive tax
  • one more state gives up the death penalty
  • killing bin laden
  • kilauea erupts
  • becoming our own worst enemy
  • illegal to love your neighbor in arizona?
  • easter sunrise 2010

• Recent Comments

  • Emavel D.: Death penalty is a good verdict for a criminal. So that it is good and it just shows how big and unlawful...
  • gabzo: This is my new fave song! so beautiful! that is exactly what happened to me! Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Eric the courier: After listening to Jesus tell this parable, can we possibly think that Jesus means the church to...
  • Rev Arthur R Stees: Harriet: I love your O’Henry-type story, “He’d Come Here” and will be...
  • Victor: This fits I think with the Buddhist concept of letting go.

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Wordpress
  • XHTML

Subscribe

 Print This Post

tipping the scales in “balance of powers”

Posted on March 26, 2006 | Filed Under general 

From the Boston Globe (Read the entire article)

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.”

Tags: rule_of_law, terrorism

Related posts

• saying “no” to torture means “no” I am hopeful that we may be of one mind as a nation in saying an unequivocal “No” to using torture in any and all circumstances. I am concerned, ...
• more debate over interrogation guidelines From the Boston Globe, September 18, 2006: In the fight over rules for the interrogation and trials of terrorism suspects, there is a split — not so much between Republicans and ...
• just say no Thomas Powers writes in The New York Review of Books: ‘The Biggest Secret’: In public life as in kindergarten, the all-important word is no. We are living with the consequences of ...
• the president we want … in a word We hosted a pre-caucus house party this evening at our home during which I asked our guests to express what it is they are looking for in a presidential candidate ...
• a conversation that needs to happen, but won’t From today’s New York Times: Bush Vows Not to Negotiate on Iraq Timetable A defiant President Bush vowed today not to negotiate with Congress about setting a date for withdrawing American ...

Comments