posted March 08, 2006 12:19 AM              

quote:

---

This is just the kind of bullsh*t lies I've been talking about. White Phosphorus is not a "chemical weapon" and it's not WMD.

---

I don't care WHAT IT'S CALLED! If you looked at those pictures, you'd see that it's a helluva horrible way to die!!!!!!

posted March 08, 2006 12:23 AM              

Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons

An Iraqi human rights team has gone to the city of Falluja to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by US forces, a minister has told the BBC.
Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.

The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits a person's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

Britain's Defence Secretary John Reid said UK forces had used white phosphorus in Iraq, but not as "anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action".

The UK Ministry of Defence said its use was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area. GIVE ME A BREAK!!

But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at people.

He told the BBC: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

BUT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL OR A CHEMICAL WEAPON IF IT'S USED ON IRAQIS!

posted March 08, 2006 12:24 AM            

By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.

Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

"It's nothing short of breath-taking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and pre-empted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.

In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."

The White House says its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores the Constitution's careful balance of powers between branches of government.

"We know the textbook story of how government works. Essentially what this has done is attempt to upset that," said Christopher Kelley, a presidential scholar at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who generally shares Bush's expansive view of executive authority. "These are directives to executive branch agencies saying that whenever something requires interpretation, you should interpret it the way the president wants you to."

Other presidents have used similar tactics. For example, Jimmy Carter rebuffed congressional efforts to block his amnesty program for Vietnam-era draft dodgers. But experts say Bush has taken claims of presidential power to a whole new level.

In the case of the torture ban, Bush said he would interpret the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president," with the goal of "protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Because Bush has already claimed broad powers in the war on terror - including the right to bypass existing laws restricting domestic surveillance - legal experts and some members of Congress interpreted the statement to mean that he would ignore the torture ban if he felt it would harm national security.

Opponents of the ban say torture should not be ruled out in a case where abusive interrogation might prevent an imminent terrorist attack.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush was defending a principle, not signaling his intention to ignore the torture prohibition.

"The president has said that we follow the law. Of course we will follow this law as well," she said.

Some members of Congress aren't so sure.

"He issues a signing statement that says he retains all of the inherent power that will permit him to go out and torture just the way they've gone ahead and tortured before," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "That process is an arrogance of power."

Congress has clashed with Bush over signing statements before. In 2002, lawmakers from both parties vigorously objected when Bush offered a narrow interpretation of whistleblower protections in legislation on corporate fraud. After a series of angry letters from Congress to the White House, the administration backed down.

But monitoring the implementation of new laws is a complicated task, especially when Bush is ambiguous about his intentions. Cooper said Bush's assertion of his constitutional authority in dealing with the torture ban is typical of his approach.

"It doesn't explicitly say what he's going to do or not do, but it gives him the authority to do whatever he wants to do," Cooper said. "The administration has clearly concluded that the Republican-dominated Congress is not prepared to force a confrontation on a lot of these issues."

The roots of Bush's approach go back to the Ford administration, when Dick Cheney, then serving as White House chief of staff, chafed at legislative limits placed on the executive branch in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and other abuses of power by President Nixon. Now the vice president and his top aide, David Addington, are taking the lead in trying to tip the balance of power away from Congress and back to the president.

They may soon have an ally on the Supreme Court. As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote a 1986 memo outlining plans for expanded use of presidential signing statements.

Although Alito told his bosses that the aggressive use of assertive signing statements "would increase the power of the executive to shape the law," he acknowledged doubts about their legal significance.

Reagan adopted the strategy and used signing statements to challenge 71 legislative provisions, according to Kelley's tally. President George H.W. Bush challenged 146 laws; President Clinton challenged 105. The current president has lodged more than 500 challenges so far.

Bush and his legal advisers offer a variety of arguments to support their claims to power. In their view, the Constitution's directive that "the president shall be commander in chief" gives Bush virtually unlimited authority on issues related to national security.

They also rely heavily on the "unitary executive" theory to resist congressional directives to federal agencies. The theory rests on the Constitution's clause that says that "executive power shall be vested in a president."

Bush has cited the theory, which has not been fully tested in court, more than 100 times in his signing statements.

Skeptics say the president and his advisers overlook the Constitution's checks and balances, noting that the Framers had a deep distrust of excessive executive power, having rebelled against a king. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and shared power over executive spending, for example.

Lawmakers from both parties have questioned Bush's assertion of his wartime authority.

"If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"The Constitution says that if the president doesn't like it (a bill), he can veto it. And we have an opportunity to override the veto," Kennedy noted.

Some members of Congress from both parties also question the legal authority of presidential signing statements.

"He can say whatever he likes, I don't know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 2003, lawmakers tried to get a handle on Bush's use of signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm? template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
------------------------

posted March 08, 2006 12:30 AM              

out..

posted March 08, 2006 01:07 AM            

In regard to how it is used, that could be questioned and I would, but not on the grounds of legality.

posted March 08, 2006 01:23 AM              

quote:

---

If you don't care what it's called..White Phosphorus...then don't call it WMD..which it isn't. It is neither a "chemical weapon" nor is it a banned/illegal weapon.

---

...therefore...go ahead and burn women and children alive....after all it's not a banned/illegal weapon...have fun boys and girls...

posted March 08, 2006 01:31 AM              

I'm headed off for Neptune....this place is getting scarier and scarier...

posted March 08, 2006 02:23 AM            

quote:

---

Article 2 Section 3:

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

---

I don't think that this means he gets to reinterpret laws as he's signing them.

---------------------------------------

Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006; A11

As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

The Reagan administration popularized the use of such statements and subsequent administrations continued the practice. (The courts have yet to give them much weight, though.)

President Bush has been especially fond of them, issuing at least 108 in his first term, according to presidential scholar Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon. Many of Bush's statements rejected provisions in bills that the White House regarded as interfering with its powers in national security, intelligence policy and law enforcement, Cooper wrote recently in the academic journal Presidential Studies Quarterly.

The Bush administration "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress," Cooper wrote in the September issue. "This tour d' force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media, or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."

Bush may be acting without fanfare for a reason. As Alito noted in his memo, the statements "will not be warmly welcomed" on Capitol Hill.

posted March 08, 2006 09:49 AM              

quote:

---

I don't care WHAT IT'S CALLED! If you looked at those pictures, you'd see that it's a helluva horrible way to die!!!!!!

---

posted March 08, 2006 10:14 AM            

Any legislative act which infringes the constitutional authority of the president is not going to be implemented by the President.

The President cannot order the Congress to do a damned thing and Congress has no executive authority.

The objections to legislative acts which infringe the constitutional executive authority of the President are termed "signing statements".

A perfect example of a bungling, incompetent, brain dead moron president was James Earl Carter. The brain dead moron who signed the FISA LAW which was an infringement on the executive authority of the President as Commander in Chief.

Carter's bungling however is NOT binding on future Presidents, including George Bush.

When the president signs a bill into law and issues a signing statement for that bill, he is preserving the Constitutional authority and powers of the office of the President granted to the Executive Branch of government by the United States Constitution.
And, he is preserving that Constitutional Authority for future presidents as well.

Only brain dead leftist journalists and the zombie leftists who read their drivel don't know there are 3 branches of government with equal but different and separate powers and responsibilities.

Only the brain dead don't know that when Congress drafts legislation which infringes the Presidential authority in some way but is otherwise good, wholesome and needed, the President is going to sign it but take exception to the part which infringes his and future president's Constitutional powers.

And then, brain dead leftist journalists and the zombie leftists who read their crap start wetting themselves, whining, wringing their hands, moaning and screeching that the president is attempting to grab more power.

The opposite is true. It's Congress which is attempting to upset the Constitutional system of checks and balances by slipping little provisions into bills requiring the President..to do, to report, to refrain from, to account...to Congress, when in fact, the President doesn't have to tell the Congress a damned thing...not even that their hair is on fire. The lone exception is the State of the Union report specified in the Constitution at Article 2, Section 3.

posted March 08, 2006 11:14 AM              

quote:

---

It's already been proved Bush did not lie about Iraqi WMD. 3 bipartisan committees including Congressional committees looked at that issue… among others and found the intelligence information reported to Bush was wrong.

---

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation—stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.”

Caught on Tape: Bush Admits WMD Were Irrelevant

On day that the United States invaded Iraq, President Bush said that we were doing so “reluctantly” but that “our purpose was clear” — to get rid of Saddam’s “weapons of mass murder.” (Note: Bush did not say “purposes.” According to Bush, there was only one purpose.)
Yesterday on Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Wiretapping

The wiretapping has been seen by some Republicans even to be a direct breach of the 4th Amendment - “But the current debate over using the National Security Agency for domestic surveillance -- which the administration has defended as legal and necessary -- hit a rawer nerve because it pits national-security concerns against a core constitutional right, in this case, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

And…

” President Bush and his top aides argued this week that they were on solid legal ground in ordering -- without going through the secret court -- large-scale eavesdropping of communications between the U.S. and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks. They claim they had the authority to conduct the spying under the president's powers as commander in chief, as well as under a congressional resolution that approved the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001.

Yet some prominent conservatives reject that argument. Some even have accused the administration of treading on the Constitution and stretching the prerogatives of the presidency to the detriment of balanced government.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, described the spy program as a case of "presidential overreaching" that he said most Americans would reject. Columnist George Will wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that "conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections."

Bob Barr, a Georgia conservative who was one of the Republican Party's loudest opponents of government snooping until he left Congress in 2003, says the furor should stand as a test of Republicans' willingness to call their president to task. "This is just such an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws," Mr. Barr says.

(from the Wall Street Journal Dec 22 2005)

Now here is what George Bush said in a conversation on the USA Patriot Act at Kleinshans Music Hall in New York 2004. Thus proving that he knew about the court order aspect of wiretapping. This came straight from the White House webpage.

“So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords…
They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important…[b] These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs…

We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.”

So that was in 2004 – and the points about having the same law enforcement procedures available against terrorists as they do for mobsters and drug trafficker is a fair one. But now Bush has decided that he doesn’t need the court order. He’s decided to do away with observing the 4th Amendment because he feels he has supreme authority and can dispense with constitutional rights/laws. Even though, “The program that Bush described could easily be accomplished under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act using a provision that lets the government wiretap for 72 hours before going to the special court for a warrant.

He also backs torture which is illegal under the War Crimes Act of 1996 – “Another example of Bush’s assertion of his supremacy over laws enacted by Congress came in December 2005 when he signed Sen. John McCain’s amendment barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody… Bush then issued a so-called “signing statement” that reserved his right to ignore the law…”

Lotus I believe you asked who are the people being wiretapped – ”The reality is that Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to scoop up a vast number of calls and e-mails. The operation is so large that it has generated thousands of tips each month, which are passed on to the FBI.

But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, [b]led to dead ends or innocent Americans,” the New York Times reported. “FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. … Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.” [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]”

And…

Two groups sue over NSA wiretap program

"The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, lead counsel in the group's lawsuit.

"President Bush's claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate constitutional principles."

The ACLU lawsuit asks the court to find that the program violates the Constitution's First and Fourth amendments -- "free speech and associational rights" and "privacy rights" – as well as the "principle of separation of powers" of the executive and legislative branches of government.

And from [URL=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060217_brownstein.html]

Why the President's Defense of Executive Power to Wiretap Without Warrants Can't Succeed in the Strict Constructionist Court He Wants
By VIKRAM AMAR AND ALAN BROWNSTEIN

“The President's assertion of inherent executive power to conduct secret surveillance of telephone and e-mail messages of American citizens without prior congressional authorization or judicial oversight directly conflicts with both of these foundational principles.

Secret surveillance of private communications, by its very nature, is immune from political accountability; the people cannot use the electoral process to sanction clandestine government conduct of which they are unaware.

Similarly, and obviously, no direct checks and balances apply to executive conduct that, according to the Administration, need not be authorized by congressional legislation and is immune from judicial review.”

A Second Strict Construction Tool - Constitutional Text From Articles I and II

Of course, strict constructionists can and do look to the text of the Constitution for additional information. So let us examine carefully the relevant text.

Article II does state that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That is a formidable grant of power. Article II also vests the "executive power" in the President. But Article II does more than confer powers onto the President -- it also imposes obligations upon him. In particular, Article II mandates that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

For a strict constructionist, that last provision raises an obvious question. Who gets to make the laws that the President must faithfully execute? The very nature of this requirement strongly suggests that it isn't the President. It would be an odd turn of phrase to require the President to faithfully execute the laws he himself had created.

But the constitutional text is much more specific than that. Article I says: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress in the United States." From a strict constructionist perspective, the word "All" probably means "All" and "All" is a lot.

Moreover, there is something of a bittersweet irony here when this language is juxtaposed next to the President's language we quoted earlier - about making sure that the judicial branch does not usurp power by legislating from the bench. It is turns out that there is another branch of government that isn't supposed usurp authority by engaging in some impromptu legislating - the executive branch. As a textual matter, it sounds like legislating from the White House is just as off limits as legislating from the bench.

And from a different article on the same site December 30 2005

“On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau…”

“Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda. Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.”

“Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.”
“There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.”

quote:

---

Strange isn't lotus how some people think they can say anything, never be called to account for lying and that if they can convince enough people with the lie, then the lie becomes reality.

---

Thank you jwhop - you've just described the Bush administration perfectly

quote:

---

Now Cardinalgal, I want your concurrence that allegations of Bush lying about Iraqi WMD AND conducting illegal warrantless searches are off the table of charges against the President

---

posted March 08, 2006 11:42 AM            

I don't think you have a leg to stand on with regard to signing statements. His job is to approve or veto. You can't sign a torture ban, and then state that you'll treat detainees however the hell you want, because you're a President during wartime.

You're also in error with what rights the Legislative Branch have over the President. Is it not Congress who approves such things as war? Is it not Congress who moves to impeach a President?

Legislative Branch
Checks on the Executive

* Impeachment power (House)
* Trial of impeachments (Senate)
* Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
* May override Presidential vetoes
* Senate approves departmental appointments
* Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
* Approval of replacement Vice President
* Power to declare war
* Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
* President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address

So I reject your premise.

If the President doesn't agree with a bill, he's got the prerogative to veto it. That's all he's got.

posted March 08, 2006 11:59 AM            

Aziz Huq is associate counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is co-writing a book titled Unchecked and Unbalanced with Fritz Schwarz on national security and the separation of powers, to be published by the New Press.

Who writes the law of the United States?

For more than 200 years, the answer was clear. The first sentence of the Constitution’s first article tells us that “All legislative Powers herein granted” go to Congress. As the framers carefully explained, this means only the “Senate and House of Representatives”—not the president in the act of signing a bill into law.

But recent executive branch maneuvers risk shifting the traditional balance of power decisively toward the president’s side by snatching from Congress those very same “legislative Powers.” It is a dangerous development.

Attacks on legislative and judicial prerogatives are typically based on aggressive claims of executive power under the Constitution. Such claims played pivotal roles in the Justice Department’s justifications for torture and domestic eavesdropping. Now the Bush administration has gone even further. This newer, subtler and equally dangerous assault on Congress’ role came to public light during Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito: The use of “interpretative” presidential signing statements to change the basic meaning of a law. This under-the-radar innovation now risks compromising the basic function of Congress without any meaningful public debate—unless Congress puts up more of a fight.

Consider the process of drafting a law, putting it through both houses of Congress, and presenting it for signature to the president. The “interpretative” signing-statement gives the executive branch a third bite at the apple in shaping that law.

First, the executive branch gets far greater access than private parties to closed-door legislative negotiations. Wielding a threat of presidential veto, administration officials can force its preferred language through without fear of public scrutiny.

Second, presidents have stated when signing a bill that they will interpret the law so as to preserve their own constitutional prerogatives. While these objections have become more frequent and alarming in recent years, they are, at least, within a recognizable constitutional tradition.

The third bite at the apple, interestingly, was devised by Judge Alito in 1986 while he worked in the Department of Justice developing “Litigation Strategy.” This break with tradition suggested that a president’s signing statement be used not only to address a limited class of constitutional issues, but also mundane and frequently arising questions about what a law in fact meant. This argument required a radical leap in constitutional interpretation, which Alito delivered. Given that the president plays “just as important” a role in legislating as Congress, the Reagan Justice Department argued, federal courts ought to defer to these presidential interpretations. Exactly how this “just-as-important” role could be squared with the first words of the Constitution’s Article 1 went unexplained.

Such thrice-bitten apples leave Congress scant authority. As Judge Alito explained in 1986, interpretative signing statements “increase the power of the Executive to shape the law,” but only at Congress’s expense. This is because any law contains ambiguities, often on key issues. The president already controls how federal departments and agencies make decisions on these ambiguous points: The Justice Department can issue guiding memos that lay down a unified executive branch line. Now, though, the president can also resist Congress’s interpretation publicly, and has an extra tool for pressing the federal courts to ignore Congress in his favor.

This may seem small beans, but in 2006, with executive power seeking its zenith, Alito’s innovation could further stifle our system of checks and balances. More specifically, we can see how great the incursion is on Congress’s powers by examining the recently enacted Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The latter contained an anti-abuse provision sponsored by Sen. John McCain. It also included a measure introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham purporting to end judicial review over Guantánamo detentions. Through Senate negotiations, this jurisdiction-stripping provision was limited to only cases filed in the future. Hence, detainees who have been waiting for more than three years for a fair hearing in the courts would still be able to pursue their cases.

But the executive branch took its three bites: Vigorous lobbying by Vice President Cheney and senior aide David Addington against the McCain measure succeeded in limiting its effectiveness (bite one). President Bush’s signing statement indicated that he would not follow the anti-abuse rule if it intruded on his “constitutional authority” (bite two). Finally, the president’s signing statement announced that the act cut off judicial review in “past, present and future actions”—thereby contradicting the compromise achieved in the Senate (bite three). Relying on the president’s signing statement, the Justice Department has now sought the dismissal of hundreds of pending cases filed by Guantánamo detainees.

The president’s signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act is little short of a line-item veto: Taking advantage of inevitable drafting ambiguities, the president has shot down parts of a bill that he dislikes. Yet the Supreme Court in 1998 rejected a congressional attempt to accord the president power to “cancel” discretionary spending items and tax benefits embedded in larger bills. It’s hard to see how the president acting alone could take the equivalent of a power that Congress cannot even willfully give him.

This latest arrogation of power has sweeping reach. The administration’s use of “interpretative” signing statement would strengthen the executive’s hand in congressional negotiations, undercut the importance of legislation debates and distort the results of pivotal court cases. It would also supplement the existing executive power to shape a law through its implementation. And, if the Supreme Court accepted Judge Alito’s theory, Congress will be at a further disadvantage when its legislation faces challenge in the courts.

How will Congress react? In September 2005 confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., underscored “the Senate’s determination” to confirm justices who would “respect Congress’s constitutional role.” Specter also led a bipartisan group of senators on the committee in rejecting the efforts by the Rehnquist Court to curtail Congress’s power to remedy ongoing civil rights violations under the 14th Amendment.

The issue of innovative use of “interpretative” signing statements arose in the Alito hearings, but with inconclusive results. But the next three years will give Congress plenty more chances to react as the president scuppers carefully wrought legislative bargains across a range of issues.

posted March 08, 2006 12:03 PM              

we can't seem to get to one..

yes, what the President is doing is going beyond the power provided by his position..

posted March 08, 2006 12:09 PM              

we can't seem to get to one..

yes, what the President is doing is going beyond the power provided by his position..or not?

Are we safer for it, or not?

To me the Law is the Law..it is what we must abide by in our world..and we have checks and balances..will the scales ever be balanced?..

Hope..Faith..Love..Tolerance..Justice..Respect for ALL..equally

I believe we are in for alot of changes..change has to come..at this point..what will the change bring?

posted March 08, 2006 12:13 PM              

quote:

---

Are we safer for it, or not?

---

posted March 08, 2006 02:39 PM            

quote:

---

you'll treat detainees however the hell you want, because you're a President during wartime......acoustic

---

The fact the House and Senate can impeach and convict a president is not the same thing as slipping encroachments into bills which direct the president to do anything. Further, impeachment and conviction are both after the fact remedies.

Neither is giving advice and consent on judicial nominations telling the president what to do.

Neither is approving appointments telling the president what to do.

Further, having declared war, Constitutionally, Congress gets the hell out of the way and the President prosecutes the war. The only say in that matter is to first approve the war and then if they don't agree with the way it's being prosecuted, they can cut off funds to support the war effort.

What you don't seem to understand acoustic and it's something any one of my daughters would have fully understood when they were 10 years old, is that the president, by objecting to certain provisions in legislation is preserving both the constitutional authority of the office of president...AND laying a foundation of paperwork for any court challenge which might arise in the future.

Further acoustic, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and ANY provisions of any legislative acts which are not in compliance with the constitution is NULL and VOID, without authority and invalid. The President may or may not choose to carry them out. For instance, there is not one thing in the Constitution which requires the President to brief, either personally or by sending members of the CIA to Congress to brief members. Not only in intelligence matters but briefings on ANY executive branch functions by ANY executive branch employee. It's done as a courtesy to Congress and to facilitate cohesion between the branches. Congressional Hearings might be a different matter, however.

posted March 08, 2006 04:36 PM              

quote:

---

I have faith the American people would not allow that to happen..

---

posted March 08, 2006 04:51 PM              

Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

posted March 08, 2006 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality. See United States v. Morrison ('Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt.')."

---

--------------------------------

quote:

---

by objecting to certain provisions in legislation is preserving both the constitutional authority of the office of president

---

posted March 08, 2006 06:40 PM            

ToxFAQs™
for
White Phosphorus
(Fósforo Blanco)

CAS# 7723-14-0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions about white phosphorus. For more information, you may call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-888-422-8737. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGHLIGHTS: White phosphorus is a waxy solid which burns easily and is used in chemical manufacturing and smoke munitions. Exposure to white phosphorus may cause burns and irritation, liver, kidney, heart, lung, or bone damage, and death. White phosphorus has been found in at least 77 of the 1,416 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


What is white phosphorus?
White phosphorus is a colorless, white, or yellow waxy solid with a garlic-like odor. It does not occur naturally, but is manufactured from phosphate rocks.

White phosphorus reacts rapidly with oxygen, easily catching fire at temperatures 10 to 15 degrees above room temperature.

White phosphorus is used by the military in various types of ammunition, and to produce smoke for concealing troop movements and identifying targets.

It is also used by industry to produce phosphoric acid and other chemicals for use in fertilizers, food additives, and cleaning compounds. Small amounts of white phosphorus were used in the past in pesticides and fireworks.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens to white phosphorus when it enters the environment?

White phosphorus can enter the environment when it is made, used in manufacturing or by the military, or accidentally spilled during transport and storage.
It can be found in the water and bottom sediment of rivers and lakes near facilities that make or use it.
In the air, white phosphorus reacts rapidly with oxygen to produce relatively harmless chemicals within minutes.
In water, white phosphorus reacts with oxygen within hours or days.
In water with low oxygen, white phosphorus may degrade to a highly toxic compound called phosphine, which eventually evaporates to the air and is changed to less harmful chemicals.
White phosphorus can build up slightly in the bodies of fish that live in contaminated lakes or streams.
In soil, white phosphorus may stick to particles and be changed within a few days to less harmful compounds.
In deep soil or sediments with little oxygen, white phosphorus may remain unchanged for many years.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How might I be exposed to white phosphorus?

Breathing contaminated air near a facility that is using white phosphorus.
Eating contaminated fish or game birds from sites containing white phosphorus.
Drinking or swimming in water that has been contaminated with white phosphorus.
Touching soil contaminated with white phosphorus.
If you work in industries that use or manufacture white phosphorus or munitions containing white phosphorus.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can white phosphorus affect my health?
Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by white phosphorus. Most of what is known about the effects of breathing white phosphorus is from studies of workers. Most of what is known about the effects of eating white phosphorus is from reports of people eating rat poison or fireworks that contained it.

Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.

Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.

We do not know whether or not white phosphorus can affect the ability to have children or cause birth defects in people.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How likely is white phosphorus to cause cancer?
The EPA has determined that white phosphorus is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans. There are no studies available in people or animals that suggest white phosphorus causes cancer.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a medical test to show whether I've been exposed to white phosphorus?
There is no medical test that shows if you have been exposed to white phosphorus. However, the above health effects may lead your doctor to suspect that you have been exposed if you have a history of exposure.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant. The EPA requires that spills or accidental releases into the environment of 1 pound or more of white phosphorus be reported to the EPA.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have all set the inhalation exposure limit for white phosphorus in the workplace during an 8-hour workday at 0.1 milligram of white phosphorus per cubic meter of air (0.1 mg/m³).

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glossary
Carcinogenicity: Ability to cause cancer.

CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service.

Evaporate: To change into a vapor or gas.

Milligram (mg): One thousandth of a gram.

Sediment: Mud and debris that have settled to the bottom of a body of water.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for white phosphorus. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where can I get more information?
ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Their specialists can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.

For more information, contact:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-888-42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737)
FAX: (770)-488-4178
Email: ATSDRIC@cdc.gov

Those pictures are BullSh1T and the burns are NOT caused by White Phosphorus being released or used as a Chemical weapon. It BURNS TOO QUICKLY INTO A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL..thus making it inert (harmless) in too short of an amount of time.

posted March 08, 2006 06:44 PM              

White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."

Field Artilery Magazine, March 2005 edition... "We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."