[Peace-discuss] Truly scary stuff: Are we all helpless before King George?

[C. G. Estabrook]

  Obeying the Law
  Posted by Morton H. Halperin

While signing the bill containing the McCain anti-torture
amendment this week, President Bush made explicit his view of
the constitution.  It is a frightening position which
threatens the separation of powers which is at the heart of
our government.   

In short, the President asserts that he can decide which laws
he should obey. If he believes that legislation violates what
he calls the unitary presidency he will not veto the bill, but
rather he will simply ignore the law. Sometimes he does that
publicly and on other occasions he pretends to be following
the law while secretly operating in defiance of it.

Presidential signing statements were, in fact, invented by
Judge Alito, whose hearings for a Supreme Court seat starts on
Monday.  The original purpose was to enable the President to
participate in creating legislative history.  Now President
Bush uses the statements to identify some of the provisions he
plans to ignore.

There are several such assertions in this single signing
statement, but I want to comment only on the provision
relating to torture.  Here is what the President said about
that provision:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of
the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with
the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the
unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and
consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial
power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of
the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of
protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

In other words, if the President wants to direct the CIA to
torture captives held in secret prisons around the world, he
will feel free to do so.  Senators McCain and Warner reacted
sharply to this extraordinary challenge to the Congress's
constitutional right to enact the laws, saying this:

“We believe the President understands Congress’s intent in
passing by very large majorities legislation governing the
treatment of detainees included in the 2006 Department of
Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills. The Congress
declined when asked by administration officials to include a
presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our
legislation. Our Committee intends through strict oversight to
monitor the Administration’s implementation of the new law.”

It is not hyperbole to say that the outcome of this struggle
and one over warrantless electronic surveillance will
determine whether 9/11 fundamentally changed the balance of
power between the President and the Congress and truly created
an imperial presidency.

As the ACLU has pointed out in hard hitting ads, on June 9,
2005, the President stated that "wiretaps and search warrants
require a high level of proof and permission from a judge." 
That is what FISA requires, but not what the government has
done.  We now know that President Bush authorized a program of
warrantless surveillance with a very low level of proof.  When
the program was made public by the New York Times, the
President's response was to denounce the printing of the story
and defiantly assert that he intends to continue the program.
Congress must stop him and hold him accountable for lying to
the public and violating the  law. 

January 6, 2006 07:16 AM