It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Act Does Not Apply To Bush?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Following the formal signing of the "patriot act", after guests and reporters had departed, the President signed an addendum to the legislation laying out his interpretation. In this subsequent document the president states that he is not bound by the requirement to keep congress informed.
 



www.boston.com
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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Bush has obviously proclaimed himself king. Our congress needs to show some spine and impeach this turkey. I'm sure " the love it, or leave set" believe I should leave america. However this not necessary since the president is taking america out of america.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by df1]




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I am wondering why this story was shuttled from ATSNN to ATS?
Someone have an agenda?!

Story just further foments the idea that Bush sees himself as a wannabe dictator, and is pushing the limits of his position.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   


Nice pic! It's funny cuz it's true.

df1, you must have missed the memo. Not only is Bush above the law, he IS the law! Just ask Alberto Gonzales. But, you do know that Bush has been doing that with a lot of the bills he signs now; it's like, "yeah, I'll sign this, but I ain't gonna follow it unless I wanna."


What's wrong with Bush not following bills that he signs and the Constitution? After all, Gonzales says the Constitution is quaint and outdated, and Bush says it's just a GD piece of paper.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Beam me up.

Its an addendum saying he didn't "feel" required, not that he would "flat out not do it".

And that sort of addendum would probably have been thrown in to prevent another slow news week made up controversy like my oh so private international calls being listened in on.

The reason why this was moved from ATSNN? Cause its not news its speculation.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Beam me up.

Its an addendum saying he didn't "feel" required, not that he would "flat out not do it".


So, what's the point of the addendum then? It seems like Bush is taking the law that Congress passed and changing it under his administration's own discretion.

30 years from now, are we going to look back and say, hey, Congress passed the addendum too? Bush can take his addendums and spout them all over FOX news. I don't feel comfortable with a President "adding" things to law after they've already been voted on.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't feel comfortable with a President "adding" things to law after they've already been voted on.


Then maybe a system of government with an Executive branch isn't for you. The executive should have the ability to change laws Congress passes (the President (whoever it is) should have the ability to line item veto to get rid of pork) because sometimes Congress isn't always right.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't feel comfortable with a President "adding" things to law after they've already been voted on.


Then maybe a system of government with an Executive branch isn't for you. The executive should have the ability to change laws Congress passes (the President (whoever it is) should have the ability to line item veto to get rid of pork) because sometimes Congress isn't always right.


Maybe a checks and balances system isn't for you then. Perhaps a dictatorship or a monarchy will be more to your liking.

It's called oversight. If the President add or takes anything from a law, it should go back to Congress plain and simple. Did this little "addendum" go back to Congress or is it going to? Are you telling me Bush simply has the power to change laws without anyone stopping him?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
The reason why this was moved from ATSNN? Cause its not news its speculation.


The Boston Globe article doesn't speculate. What the hell are you reading?
What have you submitted to say you have any experience in the matters?



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 . . . "



Act's Addendum Says Rules Not Binding

The rules would require the president to inform Congress that the FBI didn't abuse its expanded anti-terrorism powers to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush signed the bill March 9 with fanfare at the White House but subsequently issued an official statement on his interpretation of the new law, the Globe said.

In that statement, Bush reportedly said he could withhold information from Congress that he deemed would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.











[edit on 24-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Maybe a checks and balances system isn't for you then. Perhaps a dictatorship or a monarchy will be more to your liking.


Maybe checks and balances aren't for me in a system with career politicians who do nothing for anyone other than their constituents.




It's called oversight. If the President add or takes anything from a law, it should go back to Congress plain and simple. Did this little "addendum" go back to Congress or is it going to? Are you telling me Bush simply has the power to change laws without anyone stopping him?


It's not like he changed it and no one noticed or reported it. It is known he made the change so if Congress has a problem they have the ownus on them to fix it or are they too busy building another bridge for Ted Stevenson.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

The Boston Globe article doesn't speculate. What the hell are you reading?
What have you submitted to say you have any experience in the matters?



Newspapers or news outlets can publish things that aren't inherently new or headline snatching, and when it comes to politics this regularly happens. The article I saw on ATSNN didn't say "Patriot Act doesn't apply to bush" it simply reported "Bush makes addendum to Patriot Act", so thats why I said it got moved off ATSNN. ATSNN isn't for someone to push an agenda with a loosely affiliated article.

And don't try to belittle my ATSNN experience, just cause I don't post articles regularly or post snazzy edgy photoshop images
oh god you are quite the rebellious poster
., Doesn't mean I haven't been reading and using ATSNN for as long as I've been here.

I don't need to make light of the attrocities of the Nazi's and then slink into the shadows to make a point.

[edit on 3/24/2006 by Agent47]


df1

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I am wondering why this story was shuttled from ATSNN to ATS?
Someone have an agenda?

Me too.

Count me as another former ATS news poster. The news posting system is too cumbersome for me to waste my time jumping through those hoops only to have a valid story canned.

PS: I have no desire to debate this issue or to receive any explanation.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Uh...

I thought the legislative makes the laws and the executive enforces the laws. That damn govt teacher, lying to me...


But, this is all moot when Bush is the law. Come on, the law flows from this guy; who the HELL are you to question it? Questioning it is actually BREAKING the law!

I actually saw something where they were trying to make it illegal to report that the president is breaking the law. Be careful what you wish for, huh?




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
First of all Presidents can and have passed legislation, via Executive Orders. Now, what Bush added to the Patriot Act is known as a Signing Statement, many Presidents have used them to make there views clear about how Executive departments under the president should interpret and administer said law. Ever since President James Monroe signing statements have been part of the Presidential lexicon. If you really want to have fun look at Billy’s record and you shall find a colorful portfolio of signing statements. Just like Executive Orders the Supreme Court has never directly ruled against them, so continue to argue but as of right now signing statements are legal, deal with it.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   



The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration

George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number may be approaching 600 challenges by now. Yet Bush has not vetoed a single bill, notwithstanding all these claims, in his own signing statements, that they are unconstitutional insofar as they relate to him.

More...



Interesting reading....

See also, THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS

[edit on 24-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

I don't need to make light of the attrocities of the Nazi's and then slink into the shadows to make a point.


BUSH SHUNS PATRIOT ACT REQUIREMENT
PATRIOT Act: Bush Regime Mimics Soviet/Nazi Model

Yeah, you just speak from the halls of no experience while waxing hypocrisy.

News posted is subject to voting process and then is usually shuffled down into the forums, if it doesn't make the grade. The pending position is there so the moderator can communicate what needs to be changed, if the title doesn't correctly reflect the composition. No, it's not a tremendous leap of logic to read Bush's quotes and surmize that he will not "apply" the Patriot Act to his office unless he sees fit.

I come from Bavarian Lutheran roots as in speaking from experience and my satire has a purpose. Whether you get it or not, or have no artistic talent is your problem, verstehen?? I'd say, I would qualify as an expert in regards to knowing the difference between fascism and patriotism considering I lived in Germany, hold dual citzenship and served in the US Army. I have earned my right to mock it, reveal fuhrer Bush, poke holes in his perversion of nationalism, and use it to make a point! Whether you can get past your denial phase, before it grinds you into the gutter is up to you.


Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle-Our leader über alles

Movie-Aaron Russo's "America: From Freedom to Fascism"
So learn something, and live it.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
People when you are going to understand that Mr. Bush is not like any other president, Mr. Bush is at War and that gives him Executives powers that he can used any way he wants to.

Even signing documents after they have been in congress, so don't be surprised.

We are just witnessing a President that takes his own initiative when it comes to make decisions that are in his benefit.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
People when you are going to understand that Mr. Bush is not like any other president, Mr. Bush is at War and that gives him Executives powers that he can used any way he wants to.


That's Bush's war based of fallacies and fabrications, which is big difference in regards to a war based on truth.

Here's some straight dope from neocon central's mouth aka Hertiage Foundation via Foxnews:


War Time Presidential Power Presents Constitutional Dilemma
This problem is particularly important in protracted wars. The longer the war, the more desperate the country becomes to win. States become more authoritarian. They centralize decision-making. They curb liberties. They increase taxation. All in an effort to generate the power to win.

In the process, they may become a garrison state, destroying the civil society the state was created to protect, and, ironically, making the state less powerful. Slave states can’t generate as much will to win as free markets and open societies.

The challenge in an extended war is to sustain the things that make a nation strong. That means not just fighting the enemy, but preserving liberties. The challenge is make sure neither the terrorists nor the executive become a threat to the nation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Regenmacher, I agree with you that is why I made my sarcastic comment, we have to be aware that power corrupt and when the executive branch thinks itself above any other brach in the government we will have problems with the checks and balances.

Taking in consideration that the congress is also Republican we see to what extend the executive branch will go around doing things without the congress then to made things worst we have a president that is at War even when we agree that is fictisious and a war created by him he still is taking advantage of the powers that war gives him.

Now you heard him telling the Americna public that the fate of our troops is in the hands of other presidents and foreign government in Iraq.

Then we most think as why did he went to war, perhaps the reason was for him to increase his executive powers create a patriot act that he would not bind himself too but we the people do and. . . do what he needed to do to pay back his personal links with private interest.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Regenmacher, I agree with you that is why I made my sarcastic comment, we have to be aware that power corrupt and when the executive branch thinks itself above any other brach in the government we will have problems with the checks and balances.


Okay, I was wondering if you had given up the fight to stay afloat of the political cesspool and decided to be complacent to it all.
I suppose we all are getting rather tired of disappointments and seeing little progress towards justice, authenticity and freedoms. Hang in there...

There's some big corporate torpedoes coming for Bush and all his buddies. They will either drown as the ship sinks or learn how to swim while praying for a rescue. The level of extremes this administration is promoting is going to have a severe backlash and the piper always collects.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

People when you are going to understand that Mr. Bush is not like any other president, Mr. Bush is at War and that gives him Executives powers that he can used any way he wants to.


What is so different about Bush? And since Bush is the President aka the head of the Executive Branch he always has inherent executive powers, signing statements included.


Even signing documents after they have been in congress, so don't be surprised.


So you are saying that Signing Statements were somehow pioneered by Bush, and that as of now the war is somehow empowering him with Signing Statements?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join