Most reporters haven’t shown interest in the story, but the president’s “signing statement” on Congress’ prohibition of torture is still something the White House just can’t spin.
At yesterday’s press briefing, a reporter noted that Bush’s statement seemed to offer him some wiggle room around Congress’ ban, and asked Scott McClellan whether the president will abide by the law.
Q: My questions is, in the first place — I gather you can go on to the next question. Will the President abide by the ban on torture of prisoners of war that is very specified in the military spending bill? I mean, his signing statement does not seem to go along with that.
McClellan: Actually, I think you ought to look at the op-ed that was issued by Robert McCallum over at the Department of Justice yesterday — it was in USA Today — and he walked through this.
OK, so what did McCallum say in his op-ed? Not a whole lot.
When the president signed the McCain-Graham amendment concerning treatment of detainees, he issued a statement that he would interpret the law consistent with his constitutional authority. The recent claim by some that this reflects intent to “ignore” the law is wrong.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of “intent” is.
McCallum is right inasmuch as Bush’s signing statement said his administration would interpret the law consistent with his constitutional authority. But what does that mean, exactly? According to a top White House official, it means Bush wants the flexibility to ignore the law when he decides he should.
A senior administration official, who spoke to a [Boston] Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. […]
[T]he official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law’s restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security.
As David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, explained, the message is clear:
”The signing statement is saying ‘I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it’s important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.’ “
In other words, the administration is playing fast and loose with the truth. Again. How Scott McClellan maintains any credibility at all with the press corps is a total mystery to me.