The Inspector Generals of Justice, Defense, CIA, NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence released their report on the “President’s Surveillance Program.” This report was mandated by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Spencer Ackerman blogs his run through the report at the Washington Independent. He highlights the finding that Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before Congress was misleading, but not intentionally so. He also reports that the IGs determined that the majority of leads generated by the program had no connection to terrorism. Andy McCarthy has his own rundown, which includes notes that two 9/11 hijackers would have been identified through the program and that Congressional leaders were briefed about the program. The Washington Post keyed in on the report’s finding that only three lawyers at the Department of Justice were briefed on the program, noting that this structure allowed memos to evade “a rigorous peer review process.” And Jack Balkin reminds readers that most of the activities in the report are now legal. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald is irritated by the restrictions placed on the IGs in producing their report. And Ryan Singel warns that some criminal prosecutions might be tainted by information gained through the program but not shared with defense attorneys.
CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed that the CIA had actively concealed operations from Congress for years, including some outright lies. Eli Lake reports that one concealed program might have involved assassination. Later follow-ups suggest that former VP Dick Cheney might be behind the concealment. Steven Taylor has this takeaway from the whole situation: “The broader problem here is that the current congressional oversight process over intelligence doesn’t work very well (if at all).” Some Democrats agree and have sought to expand the number of congressmen that must be briefed on CIA activities; President Obama has pledged to veto any Intelligence Authorization bill that includes that requirement (see original link). Interestingly, one of the more prominent bloggers brought into the Obama administration was Marty Lederman, who, last year, proposed a measure remarkably similar to Congress’s (it is doubtful that this issue will involve OLC, however, which is where Lederman is now working).
Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson claims that the executive can detain people it claims as national-security threats even if they are acquitted in a criminal trial. Deborah Pearlstein claims that this is not as controversial as many have made it out to be, pointing out that prisoner-of-war detention has never been subject to the results of criminal trial. Jonathan Turley, by contrast, sees this as the “retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies.” And Michael Goldfarb, cheering the decision, calls the assertion of power “no different than it was under Bush.”
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a deal to reduce nuclear armaments in the two countries by a third. Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger hopes that this is not the first step towards a nuclear-free world. Dave Schuler has more from both sides.
Attorney General Eric Holder might appoint a prosecutor to investigate claims of torture and detainee abuse. The Washington Post reports that such a prosecutor would only investigate claims against interrogators who went beyond legal authorizations offered by the DoJ. Scott Horton claims, however, that the decision is not final and that the scope may include individuals who formulated “enhanced interrogation” procedures. Glenn Greenwald claims that Horton is the only source peddling that line and offers his own thoughts on the proposal.
(more…)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
President Obama’s Signing Statements and Congress’ Response: A Return to Separation of Powers Sanity?
July 21, 2009Among the more audacious displays of George W. Bush fantasies of executive power was the explosion in his use of presidential “signing statements” to interpose constitutional objections to congressional bills that he was actually signing into law.
Between 1789 and 1981, our first 39 presidents found a total of 101 provisions of 92 separate statutes worthy of this particular form of complaint. Bush, in just his first six years of office, objected to around 1000 statutory provisions, many on multiple grounds. Either the Republican-dominated Congress went haywire in trying to curtail the prerogatives of this particular Republican President – a pretty unlikely hypothesis – or other motives were afoot.
In his first six months in office, President Obama has also issued a fistful of these signing statements – five to be exact. They actually raise nine different constitutional objections, although the number of statutory provisions affected goes somewhat beyond that. In one such statement, for example, the President observes: “Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees.” Such provisions are plainly unconstitutional after Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha.
Some Obama critics or Bush defenders have been quick to say that the Obama signing statements duplicate the Bush Administration’s practices. But there are three hugely interesting things to note about the Obama statements, which suggest we are not seeing Bush 43 redux:
(more…)
Tags:checks and balances, george w. bush, obama, Signing Statements
Posted in Commentary, Executive Branch Power, Executive Watch, Signing Statements | 2 Comments »