The Most Generous Soul

When President Bush signed a law banning torture he quietly signed a statement saying he could bypass it. Earlier this monthBush signed the USA Patriot Act but signed a statement that said he did not consider oversight rules binding. We speak with the Boston Globe reporter who broke the story. [includes rush transcript] ——————————————————————————–The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effectBush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relationsnational security or his duties as President. This was not the first such statement to come from the White House. When Congress passed a bill outlawing torture of detainees last yearPresident Bush quietly released a signing statement in which he affirmed his right to bypass the law if he felt it jeopardized national security. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said the President”"s latest effort represents “”nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.”" Charlie Savagereporter with the Washington bureau of Boston Globe who has written several articles exposing Bush’s signing statements.Related Links: “”Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement”" (Boston Globe)”"Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban”" (Boston Globe)Related Democracy Now! Coverage:An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture (DN!1/6/06)——————————————————————————–RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. Howeverdonations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate – $25$50$100more…AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now in our WashingtonD.C.studio by Charlie Savagea reporter with the Boston Globe in the Washington bureau. He’s written a number of pieces exposing these signing statements that don’t see the light of day very much. Welcome to Democracy Now!Charlie Savage. CHARLIE SAVAGE: Thank youit’s nice to be here. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Welljust explain how these statements work. The President signs the lawand then someone hands him the statement? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Essentiallysomeone in his officea lawyerdrafts a statement that gets issued along with the signing of the bill. This is not a proclamation that says”"I’m really glad that I signed the bill; it’s going to help us.”" It’s a technically legal document that lays out how he’s going to enforce the billwhat it is he says that he signed that day. And previous presidents have issued thesebut they’ve never issued them the way President Bush hasboth in terms of frequency and in terms of the aggression with which he says‘I am not bound by thisI’m not bound by thatI will take this law in bits and piecesI’ll enforce the measures I likeand I have the power as president and commander-in-chief to ignore the provisions I don’t like.’ And soin this casein the PATRIOT Act caseall the provisions in which Congress said‘We’ll give you these powerswe’ll renew this act. But you’ve got to tell us how you’re using themso we make sure that they’re not being abused,’ he said ‘as president and commander-in-chief and the head of the executive branchI will decide what I tell youif anythingand that’s just what I can do under the Constitution.’ AMY GOODMAN: How often have signing statements been used? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Wellas I saidprevious presidents have done thisgoing way back in time. The frequency really increased under the Reagan administration. And Clinton also issued a number of them. But President Bush has taken this to an unprecedented level. I think one study showed that through the end of 2004there were more than 500 provisions of new laws that he had said that he would not consider himself bound to obeyjust through the end of his first term. And sohe’s really been aggressive about thisin a new way. AMY GOODMAN: How much attention have these signing statements gotten? The most recent onethe USA PATRIOT Actwhich at firstwellthere was a question — there’s a lot of controversy about it. Explain how that happenedthe more recent onethen we’ll go back to torture. CHARLIE SAVAGE: How the signing statement happened or how we –? AMY GOODMAN: Yeahhow much attention it has gotten and what it means for senators who said that they weren’t going to sign off on this unless they got certain concessionsand then this evisceratingthe signing statement eviscerating these concessions. CHARLIE SAVAGE: I understand. Wellinitiallyvery little attention. No one is used to paying attention to these things. These are not something that’s been regularly a part of the political fabric of our country. The traditional way that it happens is if a president gets a bill that he doesn’t likehe either swallows the provisions he doesn’t like and signs the whole thingor he vetoes itbecause he says‘I can’t live with this,’ and then Congress can try to override the veto or notdepending on the strength. That’s how traditionally it’s supposed to work under the Constitution. And the Bush team has never vetoed a single bill in the five years he’s been president now. Insteadthey’ve used these signing statements to say that ‘we will takeyou knowthe bits that we want and ignore the other parts.’ And no one has been used to looking at these things. SoBush issued this signing statement on the PATRIOT Act on March 9ththe same day that he signed the bill. But it went almost unnoticed. There were a few legal specialist blogs that sort of took note of it in a wry way. I wrote this article that came out in Friday’s paper. And there was a huge responseas people realized what he had done again. But that was the first time in the mainstream mediaat leastthat it’s received any kind of attention. AMY GOODMAN: Nowthe previous signing statement happened over New Year’s. Can you talk about thataround torturespecificallywhat the bill sayswhat the ban on torture is aboutwhat’s called the McCain billand thenwhat the signing statement says? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Absolutely. Wellyou may recall that there was a huge controversy in Congress last year with John McCain trying to make clear in federal law that it is illegal to torturefor a U.S. official to torture a detainee in U.S. custodyno matter where that detainee isanywhere in the world. I think most specialists would say that was already illegal. But the Bush administration had come up with some contorted arguments about why maybe they could get around it if it was outside the U.S. border. And sothere was a long fight in Congress in which McCain was trying to get this passed. And Bush kept threatening to veto it and fought it hard. Dick Cheney personally came to Congress to say“Don’t do thisdon’t do this.” But Republicans came together with Democrats; they passed this overwhelmingly in both chambers. It was such a show of force in both chambers that Bush could not veto it. They had the strength to override the veto. So thenhe signed the bill. He invited McCain into the White House and said‘Ohthis is a good thing. It’s going to help us with our image,’ even though he had been fighting it all along. And thenafter McCain had left and everyone had gone homehe again issued another one of these signing statements. This was on the Fridaylate in the evening before — on the weekend of New Year’s Evewhen everyone had gone homeessentiallysaying‘By the wayI’m commander-in-chiefand I don’t really have to pay attention to this if I don’t want to. If it’s the national security is involvedI can do whatever I want.’ And againyou knowit was New Year’s weekend; no one really paid attention. And I saw in a legal blogwhen I came into work the next weekthat someone was taking note of this and started exploring it. And sure enoughthat’s what he had saidand that’s what it meant. I called the White House and asked them for an explanationand they put me on the phone with someone to serve as their spokesmanwho said‘Yesyou knowwe intend to follow this lawbut a situation could arise where we don’t have to.’ And sothat’s what it means. And you knowthere was a sense of outrage over thatincluding among Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and John Warner and especially John McCain: ‘We had negotiated this. This is what it means. We passed the law. You’ve got to follow it.’ And the question with both of the PATRIOT Act and the torture thing isthis is just a piece of paper in which he says‘I don’t have to do this if I don’t want to.’ But it’s not proof that he’s not going to do itand it’s not proof that he hasn’t done it. AMY GOODMAN: Can Congress do anything about this? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Wellthat’s a good question. If they have the political willthey can try to pass moretougher legislation. They can try to withhold funding for things. They could launch investigations. Right nowCongress ishoweverdominated by the same party as the President. They are not particularly willing toor have not proven themselves particularly willing until nowwith a few exceptionsto be too aggressive in conducting oversight on what he’s doing. AMY GOODMAN: WellCharlie SavageI want to thank you for being with us. And we will link at democracynow.org to your stories at the Boston Globe. Source: democracynow.org