Bush Issues Signing Statements on Iraq, Afghanistan

[WeMustBeInformed]

I'm sure that most of you have heard or read a small snippet of information regarding President Bush's recent signing statements. I feel that this general issue of signing statements needs to be discussed and fully scrutinized. However, the more immediate cause for concern is the signing segments President Bush added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. These additional statements impact four sections of this legislation, that will dramatically affect the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First let's talk about signing statements in general. Here is what the wonderful world of wikipedia says about signing statements:

Quote:Signing statement (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements by President George W. Bush to modify the meaning of laws. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[1]

While it is in theory possible for other executives to issue signing statements, there is no record of notable signing statements by anyone other than an American president.

So, to state the obvious, there has been much controversy through these past seven years of the Bush Administration, as to the legality of his use of these signing statements. Here are some notable links to refer to:

Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: The Problem with Presidential Signing ...

FRONTLINE: cheney's law: analysis: signing statements | PBS

Now to the President's recent signing statements. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, was signed into law on January 28, 2008. Out of 2,887 sections in the bill, four sections were issued signing statements by the President. These sections are summed up as follows:

Quote:SEC. 841. COMMISSION ON WARTIME CONTRACTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

SEC. 846. PROTECTION FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FROM REPRISAL FOR DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.

SEC. 1079. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Requests of Committees- The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center, or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall, not later than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion relating to matters within the jurisdiction of such Committee, make available to such committee such assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion, as the case may be.

SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.

No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

As you can see, those sections cover four very important current wartime issues.

(1) Wartime contractors in Iraq & Afghanistan.
(2) Legal prosecution of wartime contractors who commit crimes in Iraq & Afghanistan.
(3) The national intelligence agencies being held accountable to the Senate & House Armed Services Committees.
(4) Needing authorization before being able to use US Taxpayer money on; (a) building permanent US military bases in Iraq, and (b) for the US to control the oil in Iraq.

So, these are the sections of the bill that the President took issue with. Here is what his statements were regarding those four sections:

Quote:Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Does the President mean to disregard those four sections in the name of national security? The most important question is, where is this course leading our nation to? The president has forcefully said again and again, "we must stay the course." What are the consequences going to be if we stay this course? Please read the statements made by Senator Jim Webb in response to the President's signing statements.

with respect to the Commission on Wartime Contracting and the President’s signing statement:

I am not a constitutional scholar. Even so, I can't help but have a sense that we are in dangerous territory in regards to the balance of powers. The founders of our great nation stated loudly and clearly, that this country was to be governed by the three branches equally. Thus enacting the all important checks and balances of power needed to keep our democracy strong, healthy and free.

Since the Executive Branch has chosen to arguably abuse its powers, it is up to the reaming two. We must use the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government to undo the damage. Use the two, to change our course, so to speak. Please write to your members of Congress. We all have a voice and a say in this nation. Voice your thoughts, concerns and opinions in regards to this legislation, and President Bush's signing statements.

Tell me what your thought's are on these important issues.

[sunken]

In the case of war, presidents do have a certain degree of power that does often tip the balance against Congress. The reason for this is because you can't win a war by committee and so for the sake of expediency and control, often the executive branch reserves the right to make these decisions. Whether that is unconstitutional as he says in the signing statement or not, based on those war powers, is beyond my knowledge.

Signing statements are supposed to be used to signify that the president is aware that a constitutional question about a provision may be in play, but it's not enough to veto the entire bill. It is not supposed to be in lieu of a line item veto, nor does it have any legal grounds, or can it be ignored. Especially seeing as though Congress granted Clinton the line item veto, and then the Supreme Court found them to be unconstitutional and he lost the power.

I don't think there is much that can be done at this point, as impeachment would take too long. He'd be out of office before they even get there. It will be interesting to see what happens once he leaves office. I just hope the new president will restore signing statements to their original intent and not continue on the same track.

[Logan]

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is that they think that a war against terrorism is fought with conventional weapons. These wars should be based on good intelligence. And this requires investing ressources to gather intelligence, increasing the cooperation between nations instead to not talking to them, reading and understanding intelligence reports before starting conventional wars.

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is due in part to arrogance; they believe that having a bigger stick (more weapons, ...) gives them more judgement for their decisions.

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is that it helped spreading the terrorism confined first in Afghanistan to the rest of the world. It increases dangers for the national security and for the world.

[aero91pk]

well i dont know where such policies would lead to.these Statements on Iraq, Afghanistan have made world a dangerous place. the whole fight is not against terrorism but over oil reserves. now there are other alternatives of crude oil like bio diesel and ethanol than what is the use of making such polices that leads towards an endless fight and make every american feel unsecure.

[lihen]

President is the supreme commander of the armed forces and in case of war and emergency, president has the full authority.
All the statements in Iraq will therefore need president's signature for execution as that's the power of authority.
I am not defending anybody but it's my point of view on how the system works.