Justice: FBI misused Patriot Act powers
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversees the FBI, described the problems cited in the report as unacceptable and left open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further investigation."- From the Yahoo news Article hereUh, surely we got something in our bag of tricks to secretly monitor the activities of those who are secretly monitoring the activities of us.
Whatever......just as long as the soylent green keeps coming.
Also, on a lighter note, this next sentence from the article sux from an informational perspective,
"Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration."
1. Who exactly objected. Better to state, over the objection of X.
where X = something that could be confirmed.
Stating one specific person's objection is more informative than broadly mentioning the objections of many. I suggest the following as a better sentence, "Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objection of Gonzales (or whomever made the most strenous objection)." Fewer letters and more informative, and the blame isn't with some intangible "Administration."
Or, just this,
"Fine's annual review is required by Congress, to which the Bush Administration objects."
(see how I did that?)
2. Why are the objections pertinent? Are we to infer that Congress overruled the objection, or that in some way there was a battle amongst ideas. The Executive branch has no authority over Congress, and objections are irrelevent. Actually, the president not having ANY power to directly influence these types of situations is the core of our political system. Good thing the Pres doesn't have line item veto power, else the audit provision wouldn't be there.
3. If you have two items in a list you are suppossed to have three, but I really don't. So,
I'll close with, is the article any worse off with out this sentence in it?
"Fine's annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration."
No comments:
Post a Comment