By Peter Siedlecki
Buffalo, NY – Every now and then I get to feeling that I'm a character in a Kafka story, or in yet another remake of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," I don't have any special gift of perception, and yet it seems that I am appalled by things going on in the American political system that don't seem to be making much of an impact on other people. Yes, I've heard the frog in the pot metaphor, the one about how a frog will acclimate itself to the increasing heat until it boils to death, and how that metaphor is used to explain what is happening to American consciousness. Still, I find myself constantly wanting to yell, "Don't you see what's going on here? Jump out of the pot!" But then I'm not certain of whom to yell it to, since most of the people I speak to on any regular basis see things pretty much as I see them. So why aren't we clamoring for the removal of an administration that is shredding the fabric of our democracy?
Just the other day, I spoke to a person who calmly said she doesn't foresee a presidential election in 2008. She said that she expects this administration to engineer some sort of crisis that will lead to the suspension of the election and the granting of emergency powers to the president. That is a pretty far-fetched, Hollywood-style scenario, but the very fact that someone could imagine it speaks volumes about the lengths to which this administration might be expected to go before some of us would even be surprised by its most extreme tactics to maintain power. Unfortunately, we have much that provides a basis for our assumptions: the decision to declare an unfounded war and waste thousands of lives, the occupation of a country where we are not wanted, the willingness to invade the privacy of its own citizens, the practice of unjust imprisonment, the use of torture techniques on detainees, and the list goes on.
In a recent Boston Globe article, writer Charlie Savage points out that the current president has employed signing statements 750 times during his tenure. A signing statement is one attached by the president to a piece of legislation indicating his official disagreement. The existence of an attached signing statement to a piece of legislation can be a mere formality, or it may provide the foundation for subsequently overturning it because the legislation contradicts the president's interpretation of the constitution. In effect, this makes the constitution the personal property of a single individual. Signing statements have been employed very sparingly by presidents previous to Ronald Reagan. It was during the Reagan administration, however, that a young Justice Department lawyer by the name of Samuel Alito suggested the strategy of using signing statements, but he was aware that the president's positing himself as the last word on questions of interpretation might cause resentment in Congress, so Alito suggested that the Reagan lawyers concentrate on "points of true ambiguity, rather than issuing interpretations that may seem to conflict with those of Congress." No such caution has been displayed regarding their use in the past 6 years. Those 750 signing statements indicate a possible circumvention of the constitution's intention and its becoming nothing more than a political tool. Although some political observers regard any concern about signing statements an exaggerated fear, there are legal scholars who see the president's statements as signals to any of his followers who may involved in the promulgation of new laws. Moreover, in the application of new laws, as the Savage article points out, "The Federal Government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws."
Once such law was enacted on December 30th 2005. It stated that US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The attached signing statement reads that the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Another piece of legislation dated December 23, 2004 forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense, and caps the number of troops in Colombia at 800. To this Bush attached the signing statement stating that only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law as being only "advisory in nature."
And there are 748 other examples of laws to which the president has attached his official disagreement.
I notice as I continue this commentary how much difficulty I have referring to individuals. There are names, of course, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove; but I keep on referring to "the administration" as though it is some impersonal machine grinding onward inexorably and insensitively toward the establishment of some unnamable condition, crushing whatever stands in its path. That image is very interesting to me.
Listener-Commentator Peter Siedlecki is dean of the Division of Arts and Sciences at Daemen College.