Congress, Fight Back More And Harder!

Prospect: From Signing Statements To Surveillance, Stop Bush

(CBS)  Not even this administration will dare openly propose revoking the Geneva Conventions. The danger lies in more subtle attempts to undermine them. The administration's bill, for example, would make the Geneva Conventions unenforceable in court, permitting violations in practice if not in name. The bill also rewrites the War Crimes Act, the 1996 law criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 and other grave breaches of the Conventions, by narrowing the Act to conduct prohibited under the federal anti-torture statute. In light of the administration's crimped interpretation of that statute, the effect would be to green light the CIA's continued use of such "enhanced interrogation techniques" as threats of violence to detainees and their families, prolonged sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and possibly even water-boarding.

Hamdan may also prompt renewed efforts to strip the courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction over detentions at Guantanamo, where approximately 450 prisoners are still imprisoned without charge. Hamdan rejected the administration's argument that a law enacted last year, the Detainee Treatment Act, eliminated habeas for prisoners at Guantanamo. The administration, along with some lawmakers, including South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, may now try to override these rulings by making a habeas repeal explicit. If they succeed, Guantanamo will revert to a legal black hole and the stage will be set for yet another major Supreme Court showdown.

Congress is also expected to turn to the issue of domestic surveillance. The administration's game plan here is similar: Dodge court rulings rebuffing its claims of unchecked executive power by seeking even greater authority from Congress.

The current controversy first erupted in December, when The New York Times reported the existence of a warrantless electronic surveillance program run by the National Security Agency that eavesdrops without court approval on Americans' international telephone and Internet communications. A subsequent story in USA Today provided additional details on NSA spying, describing the use of data-mining techniques to analyze the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. These revelations, moreover, may only be the tip of the iceberg.

The administration responded to lawsuits challenging the NSA's warrantless surveillance by invoking the "state-secrets" privilege, claiming that the suits would compromise national security if allowed to go forward. In July, a federal judge in California rejected this argument, observing that district courts routinely handle classified information without putting the country at risk. And, just last month, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that the NSA domestic spying program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which regulates intelligence agency surveillance, as well as the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizures.

Senator Specter, however, has already introduced a bill that would gut existing checks on domestic spying. The bill short-circuits current legal challenges to the NSA program by providing for their transfer to the specialized FISA court, which was established for the very different purpose of reviewing individual warrant applications. The proposed legislation would then give the FISA court authority to dismiss the suits for any reason at all. It also permits the FISA court to approve entire surveillance programs, substituting one-time wholesale review for the individualized consideration the court now gives to each warrant application. In addition, the proposed legislation states that the president has "inherent authority" to conduct surveillance, an escape clause permitting the president to commit perpetual end-runs around FISA's strictures.

Another possible area of legislative action is presidential signing statements, remarks that accompany the president's signing of a bill into law. No past president has issued such statements nearly as often, or with the same intent to nullify restrictions on his power, as George W. Bush has. When, for example, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act prohibiting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody, the president still reserved the right to independently interpret and apply that law -- in other words, to waive the anti-torture ban whenever he deemed necessary. In July, a blue-ribbon task force of the American Bar Association issued a report criticizing the president's use of signing statements for undermining the proper relationship between the branches of government.

Indeed, though Bush has put himself above the law by creating military show-trials, mistreating detainees, and spying on Americans, it is his abuse of signing statements that has so far roused a slumbering Congress to fight back. Senator Specter has already introduced a bill that would give members of Congress the right to sue in court to challenge the president's issuance of signing statements. Lawmakers may be moved less by principle in this case than merely their sense that the president has transgressed institutional prerogatives. It's a bit dispiriting to see Congress stand up to the president only to protect its own turf rather than the rule of law. But after five years in which it has failed to do even that much, it's at least a start.

[annabanana-1]

Congress must not allow GWB to do an end-run around the Constitution. The FISA laws were put into the books PRECISELY to keep an out of control executive from abusing power. Signing statements and other egregious power grabs must be stopped before we slide further into a dictatorial nightmare.

AG Alberto Gonzalez is no longer "house counsel" for the Bush family and he should not be allowed to operate as such.

[corey47630]

Short while to November elections...but a long, long stretch until 2008 to remove this "supreme anarchist" from power over a free republic! We certainly ARE fighting nazis...right here in our own government! Connect the dots.

[getcentered]

The Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, The Senate should have done to G.W. Bush and his staff what G.W's parents should have done years ago; SLAP THAT FOOL IN THE FACE.
To bad for us, most of the above protections from presidential abuse will not be put in check with the RUBBER STAMP united GOP. That's why we need to VOTE these mindless talking point passing Republicans out of power, and replace them with folks who can think freely and listen. If we don't we'll be high on money and low on cash for the rest of our lives. Remember this: The days are long but the weeks are fast. So the next time cursory leaders want to take power in the United States, I'm not going to let them use up a tenth of my life doing it.

[cditr]

The Geneva Convention deals with treatment of uniformed soldiers it does not deal with terrorist who have no allience with any country.Government monitering of conversations with persons on known terror list is needed to protect its population......."Connect The Dots"

[patriotic9]

Saddam Hussain was a bad guy against those people of his country who wanted to establish a Radical Islamic Govt.He was good for catholic in Iraq because he didn't have any problem of power from them as he knew that in a muslim country nobody would like to see a catholic being president.By American Tax payer's money Saddam Hussain has been removed from power and those radicals have been brought into power whose elected prime ministers'll always practically be the Governors of Iraq from Iran.

[phijef]

The Geneva Conventions and the FISA law of 1978 were both conclusions based upon lessons from history. The Geneva Conventions arose from the horrible acts that occurred in WWII. The FISA law derived from the horrible acts of President Nixon. Yet, this administration insists on bypassing these laws. They don't want to be beholden to history. Yet, what they keep failing to understand is that they are SLAVES to history. By not following the lessons from the past they are doomed to repeat these errors, and at what cost to our great nation?

Please President Bush, follow our laws!

[phijef]

The Geneva Conventions and the FISA law of 1978 were both conclusions based upon lessons from history. The Geneva Conventions arose from the horrible acts that occurred in WWII. The FISA law derived from the horrible acts of President Nixon. Yet, this administration insists on bypassing these laws. They don't want to be beholden to history. Yet, what they keep failing to understand is that they are SLAVES to history. By not following the lessons from the past they are doomed to repeat these errors, and at what cost to our great nation?

Please President Bush, follow our laws!

[phijef]

The Geneva Conventions and the FISA law of 1978 were both conclusions based upon lessons from history. The Geneva Conventions arised from the horrible acts that occurred in WWII. The FISA law derived from the horrible acts of President Nixon. Yet, this administration keeps wanting to bypass these laws. They don't want to be beholden to history. Yet, what they keep failing to understand is that they are SLAVES to history. By not following the lessons from the past they are doomed to repeat these errors, and at what consequence to our great nation?

To President Bush: Follow the laws!

[phijef]

The Geneva Conventions and the FISA law of 1978 were both conclusions based upon lessons from history. The Geneva Conventions arised from the horrible acts that occurred in WWII. The FISA law derived from the horrible acts of President Nixon. Yet, this administration keeps wanting to bypass these laws. They don't want to be beholden to history. Yet, what they keep failing to understand is that they are SLAVES to history. By not following the lessons from the past they are doomed to repeat these errors, and at what consequence to our great nation?

To President Bush: Follow the laws!

[juliehg-2009]

And we thought Don Quijote was fiction, didn't we?

[juliehg-2009]

And we thought Don Quijote was fiction, didn't we?

[juliehg-2009]

And we thought Don Quijote was fiction, didn't we?

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!

[juliehg-2009]

Yes, folks. We now have our very own 21st century Don Quijote!