Bush Signs Statements to Bypass Torture Ban: Democracy Now

[babylonsister]

One of several stories today;

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/1450205


Bush Signs Statements to Bypass Torture Ban, Oversight Rules in Patriot Act

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

When President Bush signed a law banning torture he quietly signed a statement saying he could bypass it. Earlier this month, Bush signed the USA Patriot Act but signed a statement that said he did not consider oversight rules binding. We speak with the Boston Globe reporter who broke the story. 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."

* Charlie Savage, reporter with the Washington bureau of Boston Globe who has written several articles exposing Bush's signing statements.

[kysrsoze]

1. Isn't this, in and of itself, considered breaking the law?

You can't sign a bill, then say it applies to everyone else but you. Is there any REAL legal precedent for this B.S. tactic?

[babylonsister]

4. One would think. I don't get it either. nt

[leveymg]

5. No, but, they carry no legal weight.

They're CYA directives to his underlings and agencies, saying, "This is how I REALLY want things done. You can just ignore the rest of it. Mr. Gonzales will proceed accordingly."

Unitary Executive theory in action.

[Ezlivin]

2. Let's all sign a statement that Bush doesn't represent us

This guy is nothing but a common criminal.

When did the mob take over the White House?

[leveymg]

7. That's what we did with George III

It's called the Declaration of Independence.

[Ezlivin]

11. By George, you're right

So where's our Patrick Henry?

[sam sarrha]

3. lets agree with it if he agrees to let us give him some of his medicine

first so that he knows first hand what it is he is doing..

[gristy]

6. John Dean talks about signing statements

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

<snip>
The Constitutional and Practical Problems With Bush's Use of Signing Statements

Given the incredible number of constitutional challenges Bush is issuing to new laws, without vetoing them, his use of signing statements is going to sooner or later put him in an untenable position. And there is a strong argument that it has already put him in a position contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution, vis-à-vis the veto power.

Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Those memos will serve us nicely

. . . as exhibits in impeachment and war crimes trials.

[Ufomammut]

9. One of numerous "flip-flops"

Count on CNN to pimp it correctly.

[wake.up.america]

10. The Armed Forces should be very upset about this. ...