Posted on 03/27/2006 8:56:41 AM PST by IrishMike
The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effect, Bush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relations, national security or his duties as President. This was not the first such statement to come from the White House. When Congress passed a bill outlawing torture of detainees last year, President Bush quietly released a signing statement in which he affirmed his right to bypass the law if he felt it jeopardized national security. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said the President"s latest effort represents "nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."
(Excerpt) Read more at democracynow.org ...
Brace yourselves for another LameStream Media conniption fit.
ie The Al Qieda Bill of Rights
I find it hard to believe that we don't have the technology to chemically/electronically "debrief" anyone we might need to question without the use of "torture" as is is normally conceived. Efficacy, if not ethics, would seem to argue against most common ideas of physical torture.
Why even bother with elected representatives anymore when the President feels he can just ignore them when he feels like it? A lot of us didn't like the Patriot Act because it put too much power in the hands of the government, and were somewhat relieved when at least a token check was put on that power. Now even that check is worthless.
Actually, it's a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. Congress cannot take away the Executive's Constitutionally granted powers with a simple law. It takes a constitutional amendment. While Congress is busy reminding the President that he is not all powerful, they also need to remember that they are not all powerful either.
Cheney's weather machine is powered by draining the life essence of brown, and black people. Torture has been found to be the best method of obtaining this essence.
So, of course, the President and Vice-President MUST be allowed to torture innocent non-whites. Dontcha know.
Why even bother with elected representatives anymore when the President feels he can just ignore them when he feels like it?
He can't ignore them when he feels like it, but he can and should ignore them when they overstep their authority.
The Mc Cain terrorist 'Bill of Rights'
There is no magic elixir. Different people have varying levels of tolerance against any of the "truth serums", which generally tend to lessen inhibitions and disorient them to make them more talkative. Just as some folks will tell all with only one or two beers in them, others can control what they divulge up to the point of passing out from a case of beer.
If you really want them to talk, you have to make the position of staying mum untenable...
If you don't understand why secrecy and freedom to do what is necessary are sometimes indespensible for National Security, do me a favor and don't vote.
Any power he has to violate this law is an interpretation. Countering that is "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Saying that he'll ignore provisions of the law is not executing a law faithfully.
I would understand your point if Congress was trying to remove his explicit power to grant pardons, but that's not the case.
He can't ignore them when he feels like it, but he can and should ignore them when they overstep their authority.
Then he should take it to the Supreme Court to try to get the law overturned. Otherwise, he's bound by the Constitution to faithfully execute the revisions to the Patriot Act. Anything else is a violation of his oath of office and IMHO clear grounds for impeachment.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
2) The whole reason Bush didn't expend more political capital on the legislative debate was that he knew he was going to do this.
How about torturing people by forcing them to watch old Love Boat episodes, or something like that? Maybe that would be TOO cruel though....
You know, when President Clinton pulled this kind of usurpation of power crap Free Republic was quick to condemn him. When President Bush pulls the same kind of extra-Constitutional stunts, I'm sure that we'll be hearing crickets here. I hope that Congress, in a bipartisan manner, smacks him down on this misbehavior.
The law didn't say to publicly release the information. It remains classified if necessary. Bush simply doesn't want any accountability for his actions. I don't trust anyone that much, especially not a politician, and definitely not a possible Democrat successor.
are you a troll?
Are you a BushBot wishing to live in a totaliarian state?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.