'It's My Government and I'll Torture If I Want To!"

President Bush recently signed the bill containing the 'McCain amendment' language which again asserts that torturing of detainees is illegal. Did he, as would a decent President in a country founded on liberty and human rights, applaud the opportunity to restate our fundamental American values by clarifying our opposition to the use of torture on detainees? Can we all relax, knowing that Mr. Bush has heard Congress' expression of the will of the people, and will abide by that direction?

Not so much.

The President issued a 'signing statement', which is a cunning device contrived by legal theorists intent on surreptitiously revising the Constitution to give the Executive more power. A 'signing statement' is an assertion of how the White House chooses to interpret the law it is signing, a way of saying, in effect, "well, I may be signing this, but only because I want it to mean x", regardless of what the language actually says, or that Congress meant it to mean y. In the bizarro world of His Majesty's legal braintrust, such a statement should have legal validity equal, if not superior, to Congress' product.

The statement released over the weekend provides a window into that bizarro world, and suggests that Senator McCain could have saved his breath. The McCain language was included as 'Title X' in the bill.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

That's a lot of legal verbiage that, when you boil it down, essentially says the President plans on doing whatever he wants to, and furthermore, butt out.

One particularly corrosive phrase refers to the "constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch," which takes a disputed and radical interpretation of the Constitution as well-agreed consensus. Those who remember Civics class may think that it is the people, through the legislature, that make the laws and decide the actions the government should take, the judiciary who make sure that those laws and actions are constitutional, and the executive who takes those actions and enforces those laws. "Unitary executive" theory claims that, despite what you may have been taught, the President has all those powers himself.

'Improvised explosive device' is a fancy way of saying 'homemade bomb.' A 'Unitary Executive' is a 'king,' and may be well on his way to 'tyrant.'

The White House did its damnedest to prevent the McCain language from passing, and it lost. The Congress said, 'this is the way it is', but the White House won't take no for an answer, and it doesn't really believe it has to. In view of White House statements about the NSA story, where it displayed a pathetic ignorance of what actually constitutes a 'check' in a system of 'checks and balances', this signing statement is chilling. The President is declaring, in writing, that he is not bound by the law.

It may be time to start worrying about we're going to do when his 'constitutional authority as the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief' give him the right to stay in office indefinitely, and to use the armed forces against Americans in the never-ending War on Terror? Because right now, I'm not seeing where that gets ruled out under this 'interpretation' of the Constitution.

How are we going to be able to convince this amped-up frat boy and his power-hungry gang that "no means no!"?