Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Menu Guide Wedding Weather Subscribe Contact Us January 16, 2006 Case In Point: The unitary executive theory settles in Over the last several years politicians and talk show hosts have suggested that in order to understand causation of a certain event — 9/11, for example — we must connect the dots. In other words, establish relationships between events that seem, at first blush, unrelated. Okay, fine. Let’s try and connect some dots. In the 2000 Republican presidential primary, John McCain and George W. Bush were locked in a fierce campaign for the nomination of their party. McCain and Bush arrived in South Carolina with McCain surging after several significant primary wins. But suddenly a whisper campaign began, perpetrated by Bush supporters, wherein scurrilous allegations were made against McCain. It was rumored that he was mentally unbalanced after being a prisoner of war for over five years; that the small Bangladeshi daughter that he and his wife had adopted was really black and from a liaison McCain had had earlier; that his wife Cindy was addicted to drugs; that during the time that McCain was a prisoner of war, he had committed treason; and fringe veterans groups suggested that McCain was a “Manchurian Candidate,” meaning that he returned from North Vietnam sympathetic to the views of his captors. McCain lost the South Carolina primary, his momentum slowed, and Bush went on to capture the Republican nomination for president. To the surprise of many, during the 2004 presidential campaign, John McCain stood stage center with the president in support of his reelection. At one political rally, McCain gave a rousing endorsement speech. Bush embraced McCain, giving him a kiss on the cheek. For those with relatively good short-term memory, it was an astonishing moment, an indelible image. When McCain was asked by a reporter about his unequivocal endorsement of the president, in light of the South Carolina primary, he smiled and said that he had moved on. Now to the present. In mid-December of last year, after much debate over the issue of torture as a means to extract information from detainees, John McCain attached an anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. The White House was opposed, claiming that it would limit the president’s options in the war on terror and argued that, at the very least, the CIA should be exempt. McCain was adamant that torture was not only an ineffective means of extracting information, it was also contrary to America’s principles and in violation of our treaty commitments to other countries. Finally, Bush relented and with great fanfare, in a press conference with McCain, endorsed the language of the proposed bill. America would not torture. Period. When President Bush signed the bill into law over the New Year’s weekend, he quietly inserted what is known as a “presidential signing.” This is an official document in which the president lays out his interpretation of the new law. In Bush’s “signing” he stated that he will judge the new law within the context of what he views as his broader powers as chief executive and commander in chief and reserves the right to waive the restrictions on torture should he so choose. He stated, “The executive branch shall construe (the law just signed) in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President...as Commander in Chief” adding that this approach will “assist in protecting the American people from further terrorist attack.” By using the little known “presidential signing” Bush is, in sum, saying that he may decide not to follow the law he signed should circumstances warrant such circumvention. It is an astonishing assertion. Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, stated, “The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming.” McCain has made no comment. The rationale used when the White House made the decision to bypass the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act and not seek federal warrants to wiretap “U.S. persons” is the same language used in the “presidential signing.” We are at war and the power therefore accrued to the executive branch trumps the Congress and the judiciary. The events and aftermath of 9/11 have served this administration well in its attempt to reinstate the “imperial presidency” to the White House. This concentration of power is made manifest in the philosophy called “the unitary executive theory,” proffered by the White House, which advocates an extraordinarily powerful president. Tom Engelhardt, writing in Salon.com, has opined that focusing on the issues of wiretapping or torture or habeas corpus is to miss the point. This administration has pressed hard to concentrate power in the executive branch of government, accountable to no one, empowered to act as he sees fit. We are engaged in a war without end, the war against terror, and therefore, the White House argues, it must have unfettered power in order to protect the nation. Englehardt goes on to say that if you grant the president the right to torture, beyond the reach of law or oversight, “you’ve established a presidential right to do just about anything imaginable.” Though this attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch has been most evident since 9/11, it clearly harks back to South Carolina, where it became clear that this group — or “cabal,” as Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, called them — will do whatever they deem necessary, regardless of the parameters of law or ethics, or the Constitution, to achieve a certain end: power. We saw the fallout from such hubris during the apogee of the Nixon administration, which gives relevancy to the idea that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The Tidings gives priority to letters on local and regional topics of current interest. It seeks to encourage thoughtful, well-reasoned letters and to discourage personal attacks, repetitive messages and personal disputes. Form letters are not published in the Tidings, nor are letters identified as having been published in other publications. Contributions to the Opinion page should be e-mailed in text-only format to [email protected]. Please include your address and a daytime phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. Letters are limited to 250 words. At Length submissions are limited to 400 words. Submissions may be edited for length, content and clarity. See www.dailytidings.com for our expanded letters and opinion section. DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Deep Muscle Stimulator Ceramic Piggy Banks FREE Entertainment Guide Women's & Men's Slippers Accelerate Weightloss Products Backpacks Generic Viagra Vegas Travel Guide Search Engine Optimization Sportsbook Absinthe Supply Student Loans Hotel & Airline Reservations African Safari Hammocks Helzberg Diamonds Online Casinos Community Bonus Casino King of Spirits ink cartridges Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Mailing Lists Click Here Advertisement .:Advertisements:. Site Search: RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams