Bush believes he's above the law

[Gentle Giant]

Suddenly, Feingold's gesture doesn't seem strong enough. ITMFA!


Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 24, 2006

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.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

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 . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.

Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went unnoticed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act -- provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -- represented ''nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."

''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word," Leahy said in a prepared statement. ''The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's signing statement was simply ''very standard language" that is ''used consistently with provisions like these where legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch or where disclosure of information is going to be required."

''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ''The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil liberties using the Patriot Act."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.

But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.

''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Gary Sisco]

Leahy by the way was a state prosecutor by profession before becoming a Senator. He is one whole hell of a lot more intimately acquainted with the Constitution than Alfred E. Bush will ever be if he lives long enough to become the man his mother is. I very much doubt that Alfred E. has read the document and if even if he has, I doubt even more that he has the intellectual power to understand it (or much of anything more complex than *The Little Train That Could,* his acknowledged, during his first campaign, favorite book).

What the Bushists are insisting in fact it that the president -- and by extension the executive branch and its bureaucracies -- neither of which are elected by the people in a popular vote -- has dictatorial powers that are beyond any popular control (which in the US federal system resides in Congress alone).

They are insisting in fact on totalitarian powers.

[Gary Sisco]

And the above is to ignore the fact that he believes his god talks to him and that that alone necessarily makes his notions and behavior correct and beyond argument. His government is a theocon state with neocon allies.

[patricia]

The signing of the bill forbidding torture, like all the other reassurances of civilized conduct during his war by President Bush are photo-ops. Nothing more. Nothing has changed. He has given himself the powers of a medievel king.

AND you have three more years to go.

[Monte Smith]

This addendum sounds much like the addendum that the Carter administration attached to FISA when that law was enacted, an addendum which said the same thing: the executive branch has powers and responsibilities it cannot (or will not) cede to Congress. That's the Bush understanding here, it was the Carter understanding then, and it is probably the understanding of all administrations on national security issues. I know it is not the understanding of Sisco or patricia, but then what're ya gonna do?

[patricia]

But, Monte, isn't a proposal to change or modify a practice already in place supposed to change it in such a way that society is better, not worse? But, as you say, what do I know? I'm obviously being hopelessly naive, even idealistic.

[Scott Dolan]

Isn't there a Hands Across Canada event badly in need of your help?

[patricia]

Isn't there a Hands Across Canada event badly in need of your help?

So, are you telling me to butt out, it's not my business how the U.S. conducts itself in the rest of the world?
No wonder that the coalition of the willing was composed of fewer countries than the U.S. government had hoped for.

[Scott Dolan]

If you had any insight or ideas beyond your dreamy utopian visions, it would be interesting to hear from you.

But...........

[sonic1]

This addendum sounds much like the addendum that the Carter administration attached to FISA when that law was enacted, an addendum which said the same thing: the executive branch has powers and responsibilities it cannot (or will not) cede to Congress. That's the Bush understanding here, it was the Carter understanding then, and it is probably the understanding of all administrations on national security issues. I know it is not the understanding of Sisco or patricia, but then what're ya gonna do?

Before you conclude your comparisons you will have to shed more detail on Carter's actions. I think your comparison will pale if looked at in detail. The Bush administration's theme is revolved around the president's powers. Carter hardly compares here.

[Scott Dolan]

Of course.

[sonic1]

Of course.

You can't constantly call Carter a weak president, as the repubs do, and simultaneously say he was a power monger. It just doesn't work. Carter had a lot of weaknesses, he certainly can not be blamed for the blatant actions Bush is being blamed for. Bush's theme has been, during most of his presidency, that the president can do whatever the president wants. Even if Carter WANTED to do that, he didn't have the fabulous excuse Bush has (9-11, terr'ism).

[patricia]

If you had any insight or ideas beyond your dreamy utopian visions, it would be interesting to hear from you.

But...........

But, isn't PEACE the goal of the prosecution of this war of choice? No? Then what is the goal? When is victory achieved? Is the administration simply giving themselves a project that will end for them when they are out of office in '08??

I'm a dreamy utopian?? Not at all. I'm a realist, who doesn't believe that it's possible to solve the problem of the use of terrorism by stateless individuals by launching a war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[claude]

terr'ism.

That's pronounced "Tur"

http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...&highlight=tur

[sonic1]

But, isn't PEACE the goal of the prosecution of this war of choice? No? Then what is the goal? When is victory achieved? Is the administration simply giving themselves a project that will end for them when they are out of office in '08??

I'm a dreamy utopian?? Not at all. I'm a realist, who doesn't believe that it's possible to solve the problem of the use of terrorism by stateless individuals by launching a war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush uses the ideals of peace and democracy no less than any bleeding liberal in his very predictable rhetoric. That people let him get by with those lies and not a liberal confuses me, particulary since, whether or not you believe in utopian values, his methods seem contrary.

[Scott Dolan]

isn't a proposal to change or modify a practice already in place supposed to change it in such a way that society is better, not worse?

I'm a dreamy utopian?? Not at all. I'm a realist

Oh my.

I see your point.

[patricia]

Oh my.

I see your point.

No you don't. As usual you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. You're rattling my, and everybody else's cage...... as usual.

You didn't answer any of my questions. What is the purpose of this make-work project, this war of choice, and when can victory be claimed?

[Scott Dolan]

I don't answer your questions because I have already answered them many times.

Yet you continue to ask the same ones over and over and over............ I'm assuming you're waiting to see how long it takes before I give you an answer that satifies you.

Keep waiting.

[groover]

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.

But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.

This addendum sounds much like the addendum that the Carter administration attached to FISA when that law was enacted, an addendum which said the same thing: the executive branch has powers and responsibilities it cannot (or will not) cede to Congress. That's the Bush understanding here, it was the Carter understanding then, and it is probably the understanding of all administrations on national security issues.

So, Monte, Golove, and the other legal scholars who presumably agree with him that Bush has been more assertive than past presidents, are all wrong, in your judgement? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but wouldn't the opinions of experts in the subject matter area presumably carry more weight than a non-expert's opinion?

[Scott Dolan]

Well sure.

As long as the experts tell you what you want to hear.

[groover]

And if they don't, ignore them. Ignorance is bliss!

But seriously, either do your own research, or present differing opinions by other experts. Short of that, the educated opinions must be considered seriously. The legal scholars did not say that previous executives had not claimed authority to override provisions, only that Bush has been more aggressive in asserting that claim, which seems reasonably true to me, as a non-expert.

It's always been understood that in a time of war or equally dire threat, a resort to a more martial form of government is necessary and acceptable. Though terrorism has been a threat since at least the 1970's, Bush has attempted to make a case for an indefinite state of war that allows him to justify a much greater degree of independent operative power than normal. When a state of war becomes the indefinite status quo, the social contract on which our system of government is based is voided.

[Scott Dolan]

Here's his actual statement, if anyone is interested.





Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE, March 9, 2006.

[groover]

O.K., I'll admit that doesn't sound so bad, as he twice invokes the phrase "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority".

[patricia]

I don't answer your questions because I have already answered them many times.

Yet you continue to ask the same ones over and over and over............ I'm assuming you're waiting to see how long it takes before I give you an answer that satifies you.

Keep waiting.

No, thank you.

[Scott Dolan]

That Globe "piece" really stretches things a bit.

[Scott Dolan]

No, thank you.

Well then, accept the answers I've already given and move on.

[patricia]

Well then, accept the answers I've already given and move on.

Whatever......

[groover]

As long as Bush stays within his constitutional authority and lays off the meth, he's o.k. with me.

FWIW, he's matured a lot in the job, as all presidents do. He recently seemed to be directly addressing the public criticism which he blithely ignored in his first term. Of course, the fact that more of it's coming from his own party may have made a difference.

[Scott Dolan]

Snazzy retort, particia.

Here's a bizarre thought. How about offering solutions instead of criticism. Perhaps you could get a movement started where people actually think about things and find ways to solve them rather than just sitting around bitching about how fucked up everything is, and what a bad, bad man President Bush is.

Silly, I know.

[steve(thelil)]

The problem, as is so often the case, is that Bush believes that by merely saying he's doing something in a manner that is within the President's Constitutional Authority makes it so.