| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low |
1/4 Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
\_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
to ...
\_ Another reason to block alito.
\_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g -John
\_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
Please enlighten us.
\_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
\_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
with the text of the constitution.
[ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
\_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
\_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
implicitly accept it.
For the sake of argument I will say that the
majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
framers conception of the CinC power or other
limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
ability, there will realistically be no review.
This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
has practically unlimited powers.
In day to day terms, it probably means the
while the President can't shoot you in broad
daylight for being a democrat, he probably
can deploy any covert means against you for
the same w/o any real review.
\_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool!"
\_ First strike and other military defense issues
I think fall under the general head-of-military
designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
might be weaseled around by questioning the
definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
are at a point where the Constitution does not
at least in theory grant US citizens protection
versus military operations, covert or not.
I suppose if they did their job well enough then
practically the question would not come up.
\_ I agree that the modern interpretation
is that the CinC power encompasses the
ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
but my point is that the framers prob.
did not intend to vest a single man w/
the power to unilaterally decide the
fate of every living thing on the
planet.
What if the President exercises this
power in circumstances (objectively)
not constituting a threat to the repu-
blic? Who really will be left to reve-
iew the decision? What remedial action
can really be taken? I think that the
answer is that no one will review and
no remedial action is available. This
to me means the President possess uni-
lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
power as the CinC.
From this one could argue that under
this power, the President could deploy
less than abs. force against arbitrary
targets w/o any limits on his power.
From this one could argue that the Pres.
could deploy less than abs. force w/o
limits on his discretion under the same
power.
Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
been preauthorized to act under certain
conditions, what happens when he acts
outside of those conditions? Will there
really be a Congressional hearing? If
not, then Congress has basically given
him unlimited discretion.
\_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
impeach the president. He could mess things
up pretty royally before then, perhaps
irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
sense. Basically he could destroy the other
branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
same as absolute power.
no remedial action is available.
If the President possess unilateral
discretion to wield almost absolute
power via the CinC power, is it real-
istic to say that there are limits on
his ability to deploy less than this?
not, then the President has been pre-
authorized to act in any situation and
Congress has implicitly given him abs.
power (one wonders if Congress can do
this). |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF The Boston Globe Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment." But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit. Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks. Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal. Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president." Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney. And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad. In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy. But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it. Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference. Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress. |
| tinyurl.com/bdj8g -> www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF The Boston Globe Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment." But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit. Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks. Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal. Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president." Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney. And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad. In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy. But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it. Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference. Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress. |