Fourth, Bush has continued to engage in the same criminal behavior. Bush continued the illegal spying following his signing statements, and has continued to torture. The evidence of torture, including torture to the point of murder, is extensive and is added to on almost a daily basis.
The four steps above present a pattern unknown in previous presidencies. Had it been known in previous presidencies, we would refer to them as previous dictatorships.
And this pattern is by no means limited to the two prominent examples I've mentioned. Bush has both announced his right to disobey laws and actually disobeyed those laws on many occasions that we know about. In many cases we have no way of knowing whether he is acting on his announced intention to disobey laws. In other cases we know that he has obeyed laws despite announcing his right to disobey them. In these cases we have no way of knowing why Bush is obeying the laws, and the reason may have more to do with bureaucratic inertia than respect for the rule of law.
Without attempting a comprehensive overview, let's just briefly list some of the other signing statements that should offend every American who imagines this to be a nation of laws.
Four times Bush has used signing statements to overturn a ban on using U.S. troops to combat rebels in Colombia. Twice Bush has thrown out a ban on using in military intelligence materials gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Twice Bush has brushed aside the creation of an Inspector General in Iraq to report directly to Congress, requiring instead that he or she report to the executive branch. At least nine times, Bush has rejected affirmative action requirements (despite the Supreme Court having already ruled on the issue). Several times Bush has signed into law and then tossed out requirements that information be provided to Congress, including information on spying programs.
Now, Congress often repeats itself, especially in funding bills that it passes on an annual basis. But, one has to wonder: why this amount of repetition? Is Congress hoping that Bush will allow it to create a law if it does so a second time or a third time? It took Bush five and a half years before he issued his first veto. And Congress Members for much of that time may have imagined that they were creating laws. But it's been a year now since the scope of Bush's signing statements became a news story. Congress has held hearings and introduced at least one bill to address the matter. Every Congress Member knows what's going on. So, why the repetition? Once you've passed a bill and Bush has thrown it out, if you aren't going to impeach him, why not spend less time passing that provision again and more time golfing or reading?
One reason may be theater and a presumption of public ignorance. The Democratic leadership in the House sought public credit and support for including yet another ban on torture in its recent Supplemental spending bill, a bill that primarily provides Bush and Cheney with money for war, some of which will no doubt be used for torture. In November of 2003, Bush threw out with a signing statement limitations on the use of troops in Iraq who were not rested and ready, limitations passed by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. Yet the Democrats made similar limitations a central focus of their new Supplemental. But, in a move that seemed to advertise their awareness of Bush's disregard for the law, they stipulated that Bush can waive those limitations by publicly signing a waiver. This, they presumably thought, would make a better spectacle – and perhaps more than one spectacle - than a single vague legalistic signing statement posted on a website on a Friday night.
What else has Bush undone unconstitutionally? Well, he's thrown out a requirement to report to Congress when money from regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations – such as black sites. So, now he can torture and pay for it. He's eliminated a requirement to make background checks of civilian contractors (including mercenaries)in Iraq. He's also erased a ban on using said contractors to perform security, law enforcement, intelligence, and criminal justice functions. And, in a somewhat well-known case, Bush has signing-statemented away a requirement to report back to Congress on the use of PATRIOT Act authority to secretly search and seize.
Richard Nixon's lawyer John Dean had this to say:
"As readers will recall, in early 2006, Congress reauthorized the controversial USA Patriot Act. Previously, [Republican Senator Arlen Specter], as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had negotiated with [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales in good faith over reauthorization. They agreed that Specter would approve reauthorization - but only on condition that there would be more stringent oversight of the law's application by Congress. Yet on March 6, 2006, after Congress reauthorized the Act, Bush issued a signing statement that boldly betrayed that agreement.
"So at the January 18th hearing, Senator Specter asked the Attorney General to explain the betrayal of their agreement. He pointed out that the agreement was that Congress would have 'additional safeguards on oversight.' And he noted that, nevertheless, the President's signing statement 'reserved what he calls his right to disregard those oversight provisions.' He then asked Gonzales, 'In a context where the chairman of the committee and the attorney general negotiate an arrangement, is it appropriate for the president to put a signing statement which negates the oversight which had been bargained for, which has been bargained for?'
"Gonzales simply cited the legal proposition that 'a signing statement cannot give to the president any authority that he doesn't already have under the Constitution.' But Specter responded adeptly that 'if [the President] thinks those provisions inappropriately take away his constitutional authority and the Act's unconstitutional, then he ought to veto it. Or at least not to bargain it away.' Gonzales had little to say in response, except to reiterate that the President wanted the Act reauthorized, and had the power not to honor the deal Gonzales had made.
"This kind of practice might be common on used car lots, but should not be common in our government."
Well, at least that's the worst of it, right? Bush hasn't used signing statements to pull any other fast ones, has he? Well, only if we overlook his eliminating a requirement that government scientists transmit findings to Congress uncensored. Only if we pay no attention to his blocking the creation of an educational research institute to report directly to Congress on the state of our schools (Bush chose to have it report to his Department of Education).
Numerous times, Bush has tossed out requirements not to punish whistleblowers. Who knows what crimes we've not yet heard about? But we've heard about the signing statements. They're posted on the White House website.
To some extent, over the past year, the media have caught on. When, for Christmas 2006, Bush bestowed upon himself the right to read anyone's private mail, the story was widely reported. Senator Russ Feingold [D., Wisc.] wrote Bush a letter asking: "[H]as your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans' first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?" As far as I know, Bush has never replied. The right to read anyone's mail was one of the rights claimed early on by Adolph Hitler.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
