1
   

Fundamental disagreement on president's "war" powers

 
 
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 12:59 pm
The spying thread has gotten a little bit long so I thought I'd start a new one in light of this article I just read.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Three key Republican senators yesterday condemned President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief give him the authority to bypass a new law restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees.

John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''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."

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ''and would go a little bit further."

''I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. ''If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."

The White House did not return calls yesterday about the senators' statements. On Friday, in signing the ban on torture, Bush issued a ''signing statement," saying he would interpret the restrictions in the context of his broader constitutional powers as commander in chief. A ''signing statement" is an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

A senior administration official later confirmed that the president believes the Constitution gives him the power to authorize interrogation techniques that go beyond the law to protect national security. But in enacting the law, Congress intended to close every loophole and impose an absolute ban on all forms of torture, no matter the circumstances, Graham said.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the senators' statements ''mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the two branches of government.

''The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. ''The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.' "

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, said the senators' statement should send a clear warning to military and CIA interrogators that they would be subject to criminal prosecution if they abuse a detainee.

''That power [to override the law] was explicitly sought by the White House, and it was considered and rejected by the Congress," she said. ''And any US official who relies on legal advice from a government lawyer saying there is a presidential override of a law passed by Congress does so at their peril. Cruel inhuman and degrading treatment is illegal."

But Golove said that it is politically unlikely that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would prosecute an official for taking an action Bush ordered him to take. Still, he said, Congress has a number of tools for compelling the president to obey the law. Congress can withhold funds for programs. It can subpoena administration officials to testify under oath. It can pass stricter laws or block legislation Bush needs. In an extreme and politically unlikely scenario, it can impeach the president.

Bush's interpretation of another detainee-related provision in the new law sparked further friction yesterday with some lawmakers.

The provision stripped courts of the jurisdiction to hear most lawsuits from detainees held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Citing that provision, the administration said this week that it would ask courts to dismiss more than 180 Guantanamo lawsuits
.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/3_gop_senators_blast_bush_bid_to_bypass_torture_ban/

Sorry it's so long, but there weren't any obvious clips that I could cut out that would indicate what I think is the heart of the matter. Basically, the president seems to be indicating that he interprets the constitution as giving him the power to bypass US laws in the context of his commander-in-chief role.

So what do you think? Does the president have the power to by-pass or override laws passed by Congress?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,273 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 08:57 am
Long url's stretch screens, make baby Jesus cry.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:13 am
That thought tempts me to stretch every thread with long urls . . .

Good piece, FD--the problem now will be finding a sufficient number of Republican Congressmen and -women with the spine to make it stick. I suspect the courts will slap the administration down, but that's not a given, and there are myriad ways to bypass judicial authority and to delay the review process.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:15 am
Sorry about the link. Didn't realize how long it was or I would have wrapped it in url tags. I can't edit it now so post a lot of thoughts so we can get to the second page.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:22 am
never count your bridges until you burn your chickens.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:22 am
never hatch your chickens before they're counted
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:24 am
Never cook your chickens on a burning bridge.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:27 am
the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:27 am
jesus is coming
look busy.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:29 am
jesus is busy
start coming
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:00 am
Are we there yet?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:01 am
Carry on.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 10:03 am
Yay.

So anyway, it seems to me that the Bush administration has is of the opinion that the Article II powers trump everything. Any legal experts have an opinion? I realize it is probably going to have to be decided by the SC at some point, but I'm curious about other's interpretations.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:17 am
The words of King George III is the law! Hail to the King, Long live King George III! Now where is the guillotine?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fundamental disagreement on president's "war" powers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:23:14