Ron Demarest – 7/24/06

This page was last updated on July 24, 2006.

Bush flouts the law; Ron Demarest; Beaver County Times; July 24, 2006.

This is the second letter from Mr. Demarest in two weeks telling us the U.S. isn’t being fair to terrorists. The only conclusion to draw from Mr. Demarest’s letters is that he considers President Bush to be the enemy.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In response to James Tompkins letter (‘Wrong again,’ July 16), in which he quoted Cornell Law’s website under ‘Annotated Constitution’ to criticize the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Ahmed Salim Hamdan and also your editorial on this president’s repeated power grabs, ironically the best rebuttal comes from some of the words he quoted: ‘As against an enemy in the field, the president possesses all the powers which are accorded by international law....’

“Part of that international law is common Article III of the Geneva Convention, which the court said applied to Hamdan, because the conflict occurred in a territory covered by the convention.”

[RWC] I’ve read Articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions and it’s clear they don’t apply to terrorists like Hamdan. “Interpretations” like that reached by the majority of the Supreme Court is what happens when we allow judges to read a law to say what they want it to say.

“To borrow further from Mr. Tompkins quotation: ‘In the absence of attempts by Congress to limit his power, he may establish ... military commissions ... in territory occupied by armed forces of the United States. He may employ secret agents ...to obtain information.’

“That isn’t what Mr. Bush did.

“He said he needed no authority, or advice, from Congress on military tribunals. He spurned Colin Powell’s advice on the Geneva Convention. After first threatening to veto the McCain anti-torture amendment, he signed it along with an unconstitutional signing statement, in which he reserved the right to ignore it.”

[RWC] Sen. McCain’s bill was not an amendment to the Constitution, only an amendment to a Defense Department appropriation bill. In any case, we already had anti-torture laws. Sen. McCain’s bill was nothing but a political stunt by a president want-to-be.

I don’t care what Colin Powell or anyone else claims, read the Geneva Conventions and it’s clear they do not apply to terrorists.

If signing statements are unconstitutional, why have they existed since almost the founding of the country?

Here’s an excerpt from the evil signing statement to which Mr. Demarest referred.

“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.”

The Boston Globe quoted a senior administration official as saying, “Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, (but) he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case. We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”

“In the 1978 FISA Act, Congress created a secret court to function in war and in peacetime to stop the practice of warrantless surveillance. Bush openly flouts this law.”

[RWC] Not exactly. President Bush and a lot of legal experts believe the FISA act doesn’t cover international communications. Lest we forget, every president since 1978 has also taken this position and even some past members of the FISA court agree and testified before Congress to that effect.

“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives to Congress the power to ‘make rules concerning captures on land and water.’ Apparently Mr. Tompkins, as well as Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, skipped over that part.”

[RWC] Actually, Congress did enact rules. In December 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. That act specifically prohibited the Supreme Court from hearing cases like that of Hamdan. Justice Stevens and the majority “skipped over that part.”

“Justice Stevens and the majority got it right.”

[RWC] Not unless you are a creative reader of the law.