Political Crossfire Forums

[agentkgb]

It's also his duty to avoid doing anything unconstitutional himself. We see how well that's been working out.

[bigstick61]

Of course it is. Bush certainly isn't the first to do so many unconstitutional things himself. Clinton and his administration come to mind. Every administration, with few exceptions, usurps more power and violates the law as much as or more than the last one. However, this in part a result of popular influence on the President, something which should not exist.

[agentkgb]

bigstick61 wrote: Of course it is. Bush certainly isn't the first to do so many unconstitutional things himself. Clinton and his administration come to mind. Every administration, with few exceptions, usurps more power and violates the law as much as or more than the last one. However, this in part a result of popular influence on the President, something which should not exist.
Yeah because if it weren't for the fact that there are so many Americans writing letters to him saying "tap my phone!" "No, tap mine first!" he would definitely not even consider the possibility. :roll:

[John Galt]

agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?
Well, the first thing that came to mind for me was the disregard for FISA and the fourth amendment when he wiretaps people's phones without a warrant.

What does FISA have to do with the Constitution?

As for the fourth amendment argument, please tell me exactly what happened that you are mad about. Was it legislation or was it the President doing things himself. Furthermore, was any of this "unreasonable" searches and seizures?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Since we are talking about Signing Statements, didn't Bush issue a signing statement against the McCain Torture Amendment?
And today he is touting that same amendment with regards to getting his Detainee treatment legislation approved?

In that signing statement he stated he would not be constrained by those provisions yet, now he says this detainee treatment legislation should be based upon that same amendment.

How's that going to work?
Oh and couple that with this NEW method of compromise he's pushing.

Quote: The Slope is getting Slipperier !

The latest word coming out of Washington today is that of a compromise between the Senators who oppose President Bush on detainee treatment.

The new buzz words are "Amend the War Crimes Act of 1996".
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1629269#1629269


Quote: As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.
Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."


Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

[LostSoul3412]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

Ex Post Facto out the window? Interesting...

I admit that I did not know much about Signing Statements, but now it seems more and more along the lines of a line-item veto mixed with a Presidential middle finger.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

Ex Post Facto out the window? Interesting...

I admit that I did not know much about Signing Statements, but now it seems more and more along the lines of a line-item veto mixed with a Presidential middle finger.

Now that's an apt description ! :tu:

[bigstick61]

Quote: Yeah because if it weren't for the fact that there are so many Americans writing letters to him saying "tap my phone!" "No, tap mine first!" he would definitely not even consider the possibility.

The President first began recieving such powers because the people willed Congress to permit it after the Senate was popularized. His policies in regards to executing the law, and even now in some forms of legislation, is somewhat subject to the will of the people, as are judicial and executive nominations, because the current perversion of the EC system is tantamount to a direct vote; this is not what the state of affairs should be.

[John Galt]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

Ex Post Facto out the window? Interesting...

I admit that I did not know much about Signing Statements, but now it seems more and more along the lines of a line-item veto mixed with a Presidential middle finger.

No, it really isn't, since he hasn't vetoed anything nor has he "used" his statements to stop enforcing a law in an unconstitutional way.

[John Galt]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Since we are talking about Signing Statements, didn't Bush issue a signing statement against the McCain Torture Amendment?
And today he is touting that same amendment with regards to getting his Detainee treatment legislation approved?

In that signing statement he stated he would not be constrained by those provisions yet, now he says this detainee treatment legislation should be based upon that same amendment.

How's that going to work?
Oh and couple that with this NEW method of compromise he's pushing.

Quote: The Slope is getting Slipperier !

The latest word coming out of Washington today is that of a compromise between the Senators who oppose President Bush on detainee treatment.

The new buzz words are "Amend the War Crimes Act of 1996".
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1629269#1629269


Quote: As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.
Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."


Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

The President had no inclinaion that those would be "war crimes;" had the Supreme Court followed its own precedent then tribunals would be fine.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Since we are talking about Signing Statements, didn't Bush issue a signing statement against the McCain Torture Amendment?
And today he is touting that same amendment with regards to getting his Detainee treatment legislation approved?

In that signing statement he stated he would not be constrained by those provisions yet, now he says this detainee treatment legislation should be based upon that same amendment.

How's that going to work?
Oh and couple that with this NEW method of compromise he's pushing.

Quote: The Slope is getting Slipperier !

The latest word coming out of Washington today is that of a compromise between the Senators who oppose President Bush on detainee treatment.

The new buzz words are "Amend the War Crimes Act of 1996".
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1629269#1629269


Quote: As David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out in the August 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld "suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantánamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3--and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." A similar argument would indicate that top US officials have also committed war crimes by justifying interrogation methods that, according to the testimony of US military lawyers, also violate Common Article 3.
Lo and behold, the legislation the Administration has circulated on Capitol Hill would decriminalize such acts retroactively. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, told the Associated Press on August 10, "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous." Human rights attorney Scott Horton told Democracy Now! on August 16 that one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is "to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government."


Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

The President had no inclinaion that those would be "war crimes;" had the Supreme Court followed its own precedent then tribunals would be fine.

I disagree completely that He had no inclination, in fact he was advised as such.
Please read Below:
Quote: GOP Infighting on Detainees Intensifies
Quote: "If the nations such as those you named adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act," Bush said, meaning the model for his preferred legislation, "the world would be better."


I find it rather curious that President Bush is citing the McCain Detainee Detention Act as the model for moving forward when he opposed it and even issued a Presidential Signing Statement saying he would not abide by it.

Administration subverts Detainee Treatment Act; allows controversial torture techniques
Quote: Although last winter President Bush declared that the U.S. government would not condone torture and the Senate passed 90-9 the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (amendment to the Defense Appropriation Bill) banning "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment, the Bush administration has manipulated the law into legitimizing controversial torture techniques according to Amnesty International USA member and professor Alfred W. McCoy.
The amendment was invalidated by Senator John McCain's modification allowing criminally charged agents to claim that they "did not know that the practices were unlawful" and Senator Lindsey Graham's amendment specifying that Guantanamo Bay detainees cannot invoke the U.S. law to challenge detention. Graham's amendment nullified the 2004 Supreme Court decision Rasul v. Bush that permitted detainees to appeal for habeas corpus. McCoy's article also affirmed that Bush had alleged in his "signing statement" unlimited license in defending America due to his authority as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch

McCoy also stated that since the Cold War, the CIA has become increasingly defiant in its use of coercive interrogation, including psychological torture, on detainees. The International Committee of the Red Cross described these practices as "an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture." The Bush administration has also been accused of allowing "black sites" and supporting "extraordinary rendition" beyond Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The U.N. Convention Against Torture has labelled "extraordinary rendition" as illegal.


And now the President is seeking to amend the War Crimes Act of 1996 and have it apply retroactively so as to give cover for any War Crime abuses which might have occured in the past.

Shouldn't we hold accountable those who violated US Law ?

Quote: Discussions are underway within the administration with a view to presenting a bill to Congress to amend the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) following the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling of the US Supreme Court on 29 June 2006. In the Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court overturned a central tenet of the executive’s "war on terror" policy. In a case involving the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it ruled that Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 – which prohibits torture, cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment – applied. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy noted that under the War Crimes Act, violations of common Article 3 are war crimes.

Quote: In an early "war on terror" policy memorandum, dated 7 February 2002, President Bush had decided that common Article 3 did not apply "to either al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees". This had followed advice drafted by the then White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, recommending such a determination on the grounds, inter alia, that it would make future prosecutions of US agents under the War Crimes Act more difficult.(2) Former Attorney General John Ashcroft had also advised President Bush that not applying the Geneva Conventions to the Afghanistan situation would "provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials, or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violation of parts of the Geneva Convention a crime in the United States".

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040825fay.pdf

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510932006

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050714report.pdf

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior530022001

[GTTofAK]

bigstick61 wrote: Quote: But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

That power is not explicitly granted. Many things are obviously unconstitutional, and it is the President's duty to veto such laws; it is his oath of office.

No. Certain laws may only be unconstitutional in a certain sense or have the potential to be unconditional given the right circumstances. That does not mean that the entire bill should be vetoed.

The controlled substances act clashing with the use of certain drugs in religions ceremonies would be a prime example of such situational unconstitutionality.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

GTTofAK wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Quote: But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

That power is not explicitly granted. Many things are obviously unconstitutional, and it is the President's duty to veto such laws; it is his oath of office.

No. Certain laws may only be unconstitutional in a certain sense or have the potential to be unconditional given the right circumstances. That does not mean that the entire bill should be vetoed.

The controlled substances act clashing with the use of certain drugs in religions ceremonies would be a prime example of such situational unconstitutionality.
That is why the amendment process was implemented.
Also, any Bill which contains any portion that is unconstitutional must be VETO'd.
At that point, it is sent back to Congress and rewritten.
Signing Statements are not Constitutional, therefore they carry NO weight.

[GTTofAK]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: GTTofAK wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Quote: But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

That power is not explicitly granted. Many things are obviously unconstitutional, and it is the President's duty to veto such laws; it is his oath of office.

No. Certain laws may only be unconstitutional in a certain sense or have the potential to be unconditional given the right circumstances. That does not mean that the entire bill should be vetoed.

The controlled substances act clashing with the use of certain drugs in religions ceremonies would be a prime example of such situational unconstitutionality.
That is why the amendment process was implemented.
Also, any Bill which contains any portion that is unconstitutional must be VETO'd.
At that point, it is sent back to Congress and rewritten.
Signing Statements are not Constitutional, therefore they carry NO weight.

But you don't know that it is unconstitutional at the time. There is the potential that it may be at some time down the road unconstitutional given the right circumstances. All a singing statement does is identify that potential. Thereby showing that if the bill should at some time down the road infringe on the presidents authority and the president ignore said act that the executive did not act rashly or suddenly.

[John Galt]

Again, Supreme Court precedent was that it was legal to execute terrorists via tribunals, even if they were caught in this country. Since we look to the Supreme Court for guidence since the rest of us are a bunch of rubes who have no buisness being in the same room as their highnesses, we cannot possibly fathom that they would change the constitutionality of the issue of tribunals and make them illegal, Bush included.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

GTTofAK wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: GTTofAK wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Quote: But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

That power is not explicitly granted. Many things are obviously unconstitutional, and it is the President's duty to veto such laws; it is his oath of office.

No. Certain laws may only be unconstitutional in a certain sense or have the potential to be unconditional given the right circumstances. That does not mean that the entire bill should be vetoed.

The controlled substances act clashing with the use of certain drugs in religions ceremonies would be a prime example of such situational unconstitutionality.
That is why the amendment process was implemented.
Also, any Bill which contains any portion that is unconstitutional must be VETO'd.
At that point, it is sent back to Congress and rewritten.
Signing Statements are not Constitutional, therefore they carry NO weight.

But you don't know that it is unconstitutional at the time. There is the potential that it may be at some time down the road unconstitutional given the right circumstances. All a singing statement does is identify that potential. Thereby showing that if the bill should at some time down the road infringe on the presidents authority and the president ignore said act that the executive did not act rashly or suddenly.

So, you're saying the signing statement on McCain's Detainee Detention Act regarding Torture was only issued because the president didn't at the time believe Torture was unconstitutional?

Now that the SC declared it was unconstitutionally applied, the President was covered?
And now he desires to FOLLOW the McCain amendment?

:gdgf:

[agentkgb]

John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?
Well, the first thing that came to mind for me was the disregard for FISA and the fourth amendment when he wiretaps people's phones without a warrant.

What does FISA have to do with the Constitution?

As for the fourth amendment argument, please tell me exactly what happened that you are mad about. Was it legislation or was it the President doing things himself. Furthermore, was any of this "unreasonable" searches and seizures?
I was referring to the NSA tapping people's phones, which is regarded as a search and therefore requires a warrant, which he didn't have.

[GTTofAK]

agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?
Well, the first thing that came to mind for me was the disregard for FISA and the fourth amendment when he wiretaps people's phones without a warrant.

What does FISA have to do with the Constitution?

As for the fourth amendment argument, please tell me exactly what happened that you are mad about. Was it legislation or was it the President doing things himself. Furthermore, was any of this "unreasonable" searches and seizures?
I was referring to the NSA tapping people's phones, which is regarded as a search and therefore requires a warrant, which he didn't have.

Which the FISA's own review court admitted they did not have the power to require.

[agentkgb]

GTTofAK wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: agentkgb wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why this is an issue; talk is cheap and he has not acted yet.
I don't know if he's used signing statements yet (or maybe he has and one of them says it's a national security issue we can't know about), but he has disregarded the constitution.

How would you say he has?
Well, the first thing that came to mind for me was the disregard for FISA and the fourth amendment when he wiretaps people's phones without a warrant.

What does FISA have to do with the Constitution?

As for the fourth amendment argument, please tell me exactly what happened that you are mad about. Was it legislation or was it the President doing things himself. Furthermore, was any of this "unreasonable" searches and seizures?
I was referring to the NSA tapping people's phones, which is regarded as a search and therefore requires a warrant, which he didn't have.

Which the FISA's own review court admitted they did not have the power to require.
What?
Either way it's in violation of the fourth amendment.

[Nathyn]

John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?
Congress and the President can act in ways which are constitutional and unconstitutional, and should consider that.

But if, for example, the Supreme Court judged something as unconstitutional, neither Congress nor the President could claim the court's judgement is wrong and ignore it, or else there's no checks and balances.

If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, it's his duty to veto it. He can't pick-and-choose. This practice is recent.