Presidential Signing Statement Contradicts Congressional Torture Ban

Under the American constitution, when congress passes a law, the president must either veto it or sign it and live by its provisions. George “Lyndon” Bush doesn’t like playing by the rules. He has reserved the right to ignore the recent ban on torture passed by congress with a "signing statement." This is a power grab that even this lethargic and mindless congress may resist. If not, the fuhrerprinzip (the leader’s will is law) may yet wind up part of the American political and legal landscape. Perhaps it already is; in his first term alone, he issued signing statements 108 times.

The full signing statement is full of legalistic Federalese, but the significant part reads, “'The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief . . . [and] will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.” In other words, this law applies except when the president doesn’t feel like obeying it.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, told the Boston Globe that Bush's signing statement was an “'in-your-face affront” to both McCain and to Congress. She said, “The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch. Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it’s impotent. It’s quite a radical view.”

The White House and its boosters say that the president needs this authority and offer a thought experiment to justify their hankering for torture. Suppose a nuclear time bomb is set to go off in a major American city, and the US has the mastermind behind it in custody. In this case, torture would be justified, they argue, because millions of lives would be saved if the necessary information could be extracted.

This is, of course, bullshit. Reversing the experiment, how long must a terrorist mastermind maintain silence? Knowing that he had to hold out only a few hours, or a day or two, he is less inclined to talk with the clock ticking. Moreover, he might just lie. During the Cold War, deep cover KGB and CIA operatives were taught to hold out as long as possible and then lie. The Americans would go running off with bad information, and the city would still go kerpow. The presumption here is that torture would work. Did Air Force officer John McCain talk while he was tortured in Hanoi? He was offered his freedom if he did the bidding of the North Vietnamese, and he turned them down. Toture didn't work even in conjunction with the promise of freedom.

More importantly, what makes America worth fighting and dying for is not its amber waves of grain and purple mountains majesty. The liberties and values of America make it unique. The troops who have died, from Lexington and Concord to Normandy to Inchon to Fallujah, thought their lives were worth the collective freedom. No patriotic American would say otherwise. Now, in a war against Fascislam, every American is on the front line. There will be casualties. More Americans will die -- men women and children. The question is, will the country they die for be worth it? A country that tortures its prisoners is far less deserving than one that doesn’t.


© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home