Torture Deal and Signing Statements
While a few bloggers have made snide references to Bush adding a signing statement to the compromise bill agreed to on Thursday, nothing I've read so far has discussed the serious possibility of just such an issuance.
In their editorial on Friday, the NY Times reported that the Bush administration seemed to be trying to back out of the concession regarding classified evidence. National Security Advisor Steven Hadley put the onus on the House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter, who as the Times says is unlikely to "take any action not blessed by the White House."
But what if Hunter does or for some other reason the secret evidence clause remains as is? Hadley makes it clear that Bush wishes to do an end run around it and a signing statement would be his best chance of doing it post ratification. And with how "under the radar" these statements have been up until now, we aren't likely to hear about it until after the elections. If the Repubs remain in power, I doubt they would be in much of a hurry to condemn Bush.
So would Bush do it if he didn't get his way? Probably. Which makes it all the more imperative that should the Dems take control of Congress*, the issue of just where these statements sit in the legislative process and how much authority is to be vested in them should be addressed. Because I have a feeling that their use and scope will be significantly increased should the opposition take over the legislature.
*I say should because that outcome now looks exceedingly in doubt. As others have noted, the Dems are the apparent losers in this. You'd almost think it were a setup to place them right where Rove wanted them: sidelined on a very important issue while Bush gets to look tough but amenable to compromise and the Repubs can make their White House leash alittle less noticeable.
In their editorial on Friday, the NY Times reported that the Bush administration seemed to be trying to back out of the concession regarding classified evidence. National Security Advisor Steven Hadley put the onus on the House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter, who as the Times says is unlikely to "take any action not blessed by the White House."
But what if Hunter does or for some other reason the secret evidence clause remains as is? Hadley makes it clear that Bush wishes to do an end run around it and a signing statement would be his best chance of doing it post ratification. And with how "under the radar" these statements have been up until now, we aren't likely to hear about it until after the elections. If the Repubs remain in power, I doubt they would be in much of a hurry to condemn Bush.
So would Bush do it if he didn't get his way? Probably. Which makes it all the more imperative that should the Dems take control of Congress*, the issue of just where these statements sit in the legislative process and how much authority is to be vested in them should be addressed. Because I have a feeling that their use and scope will be significantly increased should the opposition take over the legislature.
*I say should because that outcome now looks exceedingly in doubt. As others have noted, the Dems are the apparent losers in this. You'd almost think it were a setup to place them right where Rove wanted them: sidelined on a very important issue while Bush gets to look tough but amenable to compromise and the Repubs can make their White House leash alittle less noticeable.
Post a Comment