Bush appears to contradict anti-torture pledge

Bush appears to contradict anti-torture pledge
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: January 5 2006 18:32 | Last updated: January 5 2006 18:32
Copyright by the Financial Times

President George W. Bush has asserted that he retains the right to authorise abuse of detainees under extreme circumstances, despite agreeing to legislation last month that explicitly prohibited such treatment.

In a statement attached to Mr Bush’s signing of a defence spending bill last week, the White House said it would construe the bill’s ban on “cruel, inhumane and degrading” treatment of detainees “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president” and his powers as commander-in-chief.

A senior administration official told the Boston Globe this week that while the administration intended to abide by the law, there might be extreme circumstances under which the president would have to waive the law to protect national security.

The language attached to the bill marks the latest attempt by the White House to assert that under the US constitution, Congress has no authority to tie the president’s hands in the “war on terror”. The administration is defending on the same grounds Mr Bush’s secret decision to authorise the National Security Agency to monitor communications inside the US, ignoring the legal requirements set by Congress nearly 30 years ago.

The “signing statement” of December 30 is an even bolder claim, however, because it appears to contradict directly the agreement between the White House and Senator John McCain, Republican sponsor of the anti-torture legislation. In an Oval Office meeting with Mr McCain last month, the president stated that the agreement had achieved “a common objective, and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture”.

Mr McCain and Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, are challenging the White House interpretation of the law, which has reintroduced the ambiguity that the legislation sought to end.

“We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” they said. “The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation.”

The legal force of such presidential signing statements is unclear. When Congress passes a law, it routinely attaches a statement explaining its interpretation of the law, which is later considered by the courts in determining how to enforce the law. Presidents since Jimmy Carter have taken to issuing on occasion similar statements intended to spell out the executive branch’s interpretation.

Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, said the White House statement “is an effort to signal to the Central Intelligence Agency that it should still consider itself authorised to engage in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment in extreme circumstances”. He said that given Congress’s clear intent to abolish such abuse under all circumstances, CIA officers would be taking an enormous legal risk in relying the president’s assertion of inherent constitutional authority.