| |
|
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
|
|
Well, so much for our hero John McCain. And we now have a pattern of the White House saying they can ignore federal law at will because Bush is commander in chief. 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.
''The executive branch shall construe [the law] 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....
''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] 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. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will." Excuse me? He has to balance the law of the land with his responsibility to defend the country? The two are mutually exclusive?
He just made a blanket statement that he is above the law, any and all laws in our country.
(Via AMERICAblog.)
10:45:08 PM 
|
|
Briliant analysis, courtesy of Glenn Greenwald: Thus, we have one argument which claims that the 2001 Congressional Resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda (the "AUMF") -- a resolution which obviously never mentioned FISA, eavesdropping or surveillance, because it had nothing to do with any of those things -- should nonetheless be "construed" and "interpreted" to have "impliedly" amended FISA by giving Bush an "exemption" entitling him to eavesdrop in violation of that law. And this argument is made even though the Congress which supposedly gave Bush that exemption says that it did no such thing, but to the contrary, expressly refused to provide that very authority. And then we have the second Bush-defending argument: a dressed-up Constitutional theory which claims that George Bush has the "inherent" authority under Article II of the Constitution to violate Congressional law and eavesdrop on American citizens without the judicial oversight required by FISA - even though nothing in Article II mentions or even references the power to eavesdrop, the power to engage in surveillance, or the right to violate Congressional statutes. Indeed, the only express clause in Article II which seems to relate to this controversy is one that would rather strongly undercut the claim that the President has the right to violate Congressional law. That's the part mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed... " So much for plain language and original intent. Who has time for those fancy constructs when George Bush needs defending? What we have in their place are implied, hidden amendments to laws which are silently buried in other laws which don't even reference the law which it supposedly amended. And that's backed up by a claim that George Bush has certain Executive powers which the Constitution doesn't mention, but which instead, one presumes, are lurking quietly somewhere in Article II of the Constitution, maybe hiding behind some penumbras or sprouting from the evolving, breathing document [...] What we really have from these paragons of Judicial Restraint trying to defend George Bush is everything except plain language and original intent - the very tools of construction which these "conservatives," when not concocting legal defenses for the President, claim that they believe in. That's because the plain language of the law is crystal clear ("A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute") and leaves no doubt that George Bush broke it. The clarity of this law is why the Administration is reduced to peddling legal theories which, no matter how they are sliced, amount to a claim that George Bush has the right to break the law. And to argue that he has that right, they are employing on George Bush's behalf the very legal theories which advocates of "judicial restraint" have spent the last two decades ridiculing and attacking.
Go read the whole thing.
(Via Daily Kos.)
10:25:25 PM
|
|
From Media Matters: Earlier today, “Embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, agreeing to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that threatens powerful members of Congress.”
Despite Chris Matthews’ minimization of the Jack Abramoff scandal, a November 25, 2005 Washington Post article identified four lawmakers under investigation in connection to Abramoff -- former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Rep. Rob Ney (R-OH), and Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) -- all Republicans. Our search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats or Democratic leadership political action committees.
Despite those facts, we have documented Washington Post staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum miscasting the rising tide of ethics investigations and corruption scandals plaguing primarily Republican officials as a bipartisan problem. We have also noted a number of national media figures that have cast the recent spate of political scandals as "nonpartisan," while the vast majority of government officials who have been indicted or are under investigation are Republicans.
(Via AMERICAblog.)
8:46:41 AM
|
|
The Islamic Republic of Iran--under the new government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--is engaged in a major anti-homosexual pogrom targeting gays and gay sex. This campaign includes Internet entrapment, blackmail to force arrested gays to inform on others, torture and executions of those found guilty of engaging in "homosexual acts." Homosexual acts have been considered a capital crime in Iran since the 1979 revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Iranians found guilty of gay lovemaking are given a choice of four death styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword or dropped from the highest perch. According to Article 152 of Iran's penal law, if two men not related by blood are found naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge's discretion. Iran's crackdown on gays drew worldwide protests (except in the United States) after the hanging for "homosexual acts" of two teenagers--one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17--on July 19 in the city of Mashad. Charges against the two teens included the alleged rape of another youth. But three independent gay sources inside Mashad told Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah (an Internet zine for gay Muslims), that the teens were…
(Via In These Times.)
8:30:33 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Steve Michel.
Last update: 2/1/2006; 8:43:46 PM.
|
|
|
