He's Right

31 December 2007



Google
WWW Kensington Review

Bush Uses Pocket Veto on Defense Spending Bill

President Bush has used something called the “pocket veto” to kill the defense appropriations bill that Congress passed. He objected to a provision in the legislation that would allow freezing of Iraq-Namese assets while American citizens sued for damages in compensation for harm committed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush is entirely in the right on this one.

Since the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, international law has held that the actions of a government are binding on its successors. Thus, any agreement signed by the Saddamites must be honored by the Al Maliki regime. And at the same time, any sin committed by them is a liability on the books of the Green Zone government. None of this is at issue. Americans who suffered under the Saddamites can sue for reparations to be paid for by the current Iraq-Namese government.

Where Congress went wrong is section 1083 of the defense appropriations bill that would allow the freezing of Iraq-Namese assets before a verdict in any such lawsuit. Under usual American and international law, a court doesn't freeze assets just because there's a lawsuit under consideration. This provision of the defense spending bill would prevent the Iraq-Namese government from using its own money to fix its country up because some guy in Decatur, Alabama, felt Saddam Hussein did him wrong and sued.

The use of the pocket veto is an interesting move as well. The American constitution allows the president to kill a piece of legislation by doing nothing whatsoever if Congress isn't in session. This “pocket veto,” so named because the president simply puts the bill in his pocket and forgets about it, allows him to say that he didn't oppose the bill – rather that Congress wasn't around to override his veto. This is significant because there were provisions in the bill that increased the size of the US military (as if it could recruit any more kids) and hike the basic pay of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Mr. Bush can say with a straight face that he didn't veto their raise.

Rarely does this journal back the White House because rarely is the White House right. In this particular case, though, there should be no short cut in the lawsuits against Iraq-Nam. Mr. Bush has actually supported one of the basic tenets of international law with his pocket veto, and for that, he should be praised. The temperature in Hell is approaching the freezing point.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home