Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

[Anahita]

Wow, this is even more sneaky than I thought. I see these 'signing statements' (as employed by the Bush Admin) as something akin to, "Yeah I signed the bill, ....heh heh heh, but I HAD MY FINGERS CROSSED."

Bush is signing bills passed by both the House and the Senate, but then adding 'his interpretation' to the signing, as a condition of signature. In the examples below (prohibition of torture, and the patriot act) his 'interpretation' is that he doesn't need to follow the law.

Today, there was a panel discussion on the long list of impeachable offenses committed by George Bush Jr. The panel spoke about an issue that caught my attention—signing statements—that I’m guessing most people have never heard about.

Bush uses ‘signing statements’ when he signs bills in attempts to further erode Constitutional checks and balances. If you get past the legal jargon, in some of these ‘signing statements’ Bush basically says I sign this into law, but I don’t need to follow this law. (e.g., with the McCain prohibition on torture and reinstatement of the ‘Patriot Act.’) Although Bush signed (for example) the torture ban bill sponsored by Senator McCain (R), Bush then added his ‘interpretation.’ “In this signing document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions.” (see below for details) So, while Bush ‘signs,’ he simultaneously proclaims that he is immune to the law that he signs into law. Disgusting! I am in support of Bush and Cheney, being impeached (and then tried for the numerous felonies they’ve committed.) Lots more people need to be held accountable in this administration, as well.

"A signing statement is a proclamation, normally written, issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch, to accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law. The term is mostly used by the United States Government... Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. *As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements.*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement

** Here are two examples (out of the 500+ signing statements Bush has done!) that are quite important. **



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to Republican Sen. John McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel. Story at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/



** BUSH signed, but with a ‘signing statement!’ (fingers crossed) Read on… **


Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

January 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said…
Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

Article at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...w_torture_ban/


Patriot Act: ‘signing statement’ by President Bush

“The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effect, Bush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relations, national security or his duties as President.”

More at: http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/27/1450205


What is your take on all of this?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

The very act of having to sign something is a indication of someones implicit untrustworthyness: their word is not good enough, so something has to be put in writing.
Once, maybe until 1500 years ago, all that was needed was to give an oath in public, and that would ensure that a person would never break their word, since it would be dishonourable. But soon some thought that dishonour didn't seem that big a price to pay for all the advantages deceipt could bring. So the oath had to be in the name of God, and even the dishonourable would never break that oath because it would lead to their damnation. But eventually even that didn't work - so it all had to be in writing and signed. And then came the lawyers.

[Sip]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

The very act of having to sign something is a indication of someones implicit untrustworthyness: their word is not good enough, so something has to be put in writing.

I don't think that is as much a reflection of one's character, as it is of the shortcomings of our languages. The difference is spoken words are subject to far too many interpretations, especially if one has to rely on human memory. It is a shortcoming (or strength) of our spoken languages, combined with what and how we remember things. Add the fact that our languages are mainly context sensitive and the problem gets much worse. If we spoke in context free languages, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

The act of putting something in writing, I think, is more to have a complete recording of a "contract" rather than something that is subject to much looser interpretations. But of course that's not to say the written word is always perfect.

[karoaper]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

If we spoke in context free languages, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

So you suggest we talk using push-down automata? OK, lets.

[Sip]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Ok let's what?

[karoaper]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Ok let's what?

Oh right, OK let's talk use context-free grammar.

[Sip]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Syntax Error.

Man, it's nice to have someone around who actually understands all this!!!

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Wow, this is even more sneaky than I thought. I see these 'signing statements' (as employed by the Bush Admin) as something akin to, "Yeah I signed the bill, ....heh heh heh, but I HAD MY FINGERS CROSSED."

Bush is signing bills passed by both the House and the Senate, but then adding 'his interpretation' to the signing, as a condition of signature. In the examples below (prohibition of torture, and the patriot act) his 'interpretation' is that he doesn't need to follow the law.

Today, there was a panel discussion on the long list of impeachable offenses committed by George Bush Jr. The panel spoke about an issue that caught my attention—signing statements—that I’m guessing most people have never heard about.

Bush uses ‘signing statements’ when he signs bills in attempts to further erode Constitutional checks and balances. If you get past the legal jargon, in some of these ‘signing statements’ Bush basically says I sign this into law, but I don’t need to follow this law. (e.g., with the McCain prohibition on torture and reinstatement of the ‘Patriot Act.’) Although Bush signed (for example) the torture ban bill sponsored by Senator McCain (R), Bush then added his ‘interpretation.’ “In this signing document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions.” (see below for details) So, while Bush ‘signs,’ he simultaneously proclaims that he is immune to the law that he signs into law. Disgusting! I am in support of Bush and Cheney, being impeached (and then tried for the numerous felonies they’ve committed.) Lots more people need to be held accountable in this administration, as well.

"A signing statement is a proclamation, normally written, issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch, to accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law. The term is mostly used by the United States Government... Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. *As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements.*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement

** Here are two examples (out of the 500+ signing statements Bush has done!) that are quite important. **



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to Republican Sen. John McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel. Story at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/



** BUSH signed, but with a ‘signing statement!’ (fingers crossed) Read on… **


Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

January 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said…
Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

Article at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...w_torture_ban/


Patriot Act: ‘signing statement’ by President Bush

“The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effect, Bush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relations, national security or his duties as President.”

More at: http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/27/1450205


What is your take on all of this?

The problem is not so much with Bush, since he's no better or worse than your garden variety politician. The problem is in the inherent nature of language and political systems.

There will always be a gap between reality and the words employed to describe it. As such, language is always subject to interpretation. And from this, it follows that words are often interpreted in self-contradictory ways that allows for nonsense to permeate reality. And hence, any notion on "constitutional checks and balances" supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution to ensure liberty and the limit of government and its powers, will always be mitigated with time and interpretation. Sadly, this is the cyclical process which leads governments to expand, grow and centralize and eventually on their entropic journey, destroy themselves.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Once, maybe until 1500 years ago, all that was needed was to give an oath in public…

But the conditions (especially the social ‘context’) were very different, then. 1500 years ago, an oath (or word) didn’t often, if ever, have the potential to affect the entire Earth. Now, law does (e.g., global warming, international treaties and trade, etc). Legalese at least TRYS to standardize language for the purpose of clearer law.

If we spoke in context free languages, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Had it not been brought up prior (push... etc, which I first thought was just a joke about typing), I would have thought 'context free' means some kind of language that is devoid of answer/response? Well, I still would need to ask....

I am not sure, but I’m guessing that you are talking about 'context free' in computer programming (not as much, linguistic semiotics? or maybe so, I don't know...)

I had to look up the some terms, some math ideas, and then more computer-jargon words used to define the computer-jargon words (e.g., reserve word, identifiers, etc) I read when trying to understand that one definition, i.e., 'context free,' in the computer-world 'context! I'm spinning, now...


Isn't binary even in a 'context' of the one who programs, though. ('quotes' meant to say that I am using the word context in a way different than I think you mean.

Add the fact that our languages are mainly context sensitive and the problem gets much worse.

Still, I think I understand that all ‘regular languages’ (like English) are 'context free' languages (these terms seem a bit counter-intuitive, to me, but anyway). Would you post a definition of 'context free' for me?

There will always be a gap between reality and the words employed to describe it. As such, language is always subject to interpretation.

I understand that there is always interpretation, bias, perceptions, connotations, and (much more) so on that factor into language and comprehension. The way verbal (spoken/written) language is used (for what purpose) matters, as well (expression of clarity of idea, poetry/symbolism/artisitic language, etc).

The word, ‘tree’ is not a tree. Furthermore, if I say tree, you might think of an Oak. Someone else might picture a Giant Sequoia. Some people might think of a family tree or a few might start thinking in terms of database structure, or something other than a woody plant. I would guess that most people would picture some form of a woody plant when they hear/read ‘tree.’ I'll call that 'common understanding' here.

Like my point with science (that science is not free from bias, but at least tries to be). It seems to me that language used in law is similar. Lawyers go to law school to understand specific legal terminology (some meant to reduce or eliminate ambiguity in meaning), procedures and process, etc. This could be viewed as somewhat analogous to the scientific method. For example, in the US system, our congressional branch doesn’t write a bill that says just, ‘Pollution is bad for people and other living beings. We may need to reduce pollution.” That leaves way too much open for ‘interpretation.’ Much effort is put into specific wording when writing law to avoid ambiguity or multiple interpretations. Still, different interpretations exist (despite efforts to create standardized language and such in law.) We have the judicial branch (and seperation of powers) to interpret the law.

With specific regard to this 'signing statement,' [though I think the general discussion of language/language use is VERY important... and please continue on that idea], it appears to me that the Bush admin is trying to take on the roles of all three branches (make law, execute law, interpret law.

I feel the Bush administration is manipulating 'common understanding' of words in a way that I feel is dishonest, at best. (And I would have to disagree Anonymouse that he’s no better/worse than others...) This is where the legislative branch comes into the US governance picture. Now that the congressional branch made a law, and the Executive branch has signed….if there is confusion, the legislative interprets the law. The Bush Jr. Executive branch appears to me to be trying to usurp all three branches power (in many ways, the signing statement being one.) Legislative makes a law (carefully debates, etc.). That law says that the President can’t do xyz. Then the President (takes on the judicial role of interpretation) to interpret that ‘he’ can. This administration also takes a word and applies a twisted definition of words (often opposite of what is commonly thought.) Maybe tree=money. The ‘healthy forests initiative’ is ‘healthy’ for? That isn’t about the health of forests. ...

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

I understand that there is always interpretation, bias, perceptions, connotations, and (much more) so on that factor into language and comprehension. The way verbal (spoken/written) language is used (for what purpose) matters, as well (expression of clarity of idea, poetry/symbolism/artisitic language, etc).

The word, ‘tree’ is not a tree. Furthermore, if I say tree, you might think of an Oak. Someone else might picture a Giant Sequoia. Some people might think of a family tree or a few might start thinking in terms of database structure, or something other than a woody plant. I would guess that most people would picture some form of a woody plant when they hear/read ‘tree.’ I'll call that 'common understanding' here.

That is not the point. The point is that no matter what, language is by its very nature, subject to interpretation. You just proved my point. All language, art, and movies are interpretations. Even journalism which supposedly claims to be 'objective' is interpretation. Because all these things are products of individuals and since individuals possess a subject sense of self and perception of the world, they ipso facto interpret all that they produce. That because we have different and subjective perceptions and understandings, two people confronted with the same idea will interpret it in different ways. That one thinks of a Ficus or an Oak when hearing the word 'tree' is irrelevent, no different than when someone when hearing 'religion' thinks of an organized institution, or someone who thinks an ardent belief is enough to qualify as 'religion'.

Like my point with science (that science is not free from bias, but at least tries to be). It seems to me that language used in law is similar. Lawyers go to law school to understand specific legal terminology (some meant to reduce or eliminate ambiguity in meaning), procedures and process, etc. This could be viewed as somewhat analogous to the scientific method. For example, in the US system, our congressional branch doesn’t write a bill that says just, ‘Pollution is bad for people and other living beings. We may need to reduce pollution.” That leaves way too much open for ‘interpretation.’ Much effort is put into specific wording when writing law to avoid ambiguity or multiple interpretations. Still, different interpretations exist (despite efforts to create standardized language and such in law.) We have the judicial branch (and seperation of powers) to interpret the law.

Everyone is trying to aim for clarity but that is not the way it goes, and certainly not with words. Science is no more trying to be more clear than religion. Do you think theologians, religious scholars, etc., want to read vague, ambiguous, illegible and ill-defined words and concepts?

As evidence of languages inherent ambiguity and vagueness the most obvious example we can point to is the U.S. Constitution and its statutes of limitations on the executive branch which as gradually over the centuries acquired powers that the framers could only dream of. Those of us who claim that the Federal Reserve as well as Social Security and every piece of Federal legislation that mitigates states' rights is unconstitutional, are correct. The Statists, or Federalists, who state that "times have changed" and we have "new threats" such as "terrorism" and "international relations" that didn't exist in the days of yore and so things must be interpreted with the times say they are correct. No matter who you point to, both sides are approaching from different perspectives. So, since language is inherently vague and the Constitutional experiment known as America has proven to be a failure, we may as well scrap the whole idea of the nonsense of government.

With specific regard to this 'signing statement,' [though I think the general discussion of language/language use is VERY important... and please continue on that idea], it appears to me that the Bush admin is trying to take on the roles of all three branches (make law, execute law, interpret law.

I feel the Bush administration is manipulating 'common understanding' of words in a way that I feel is dishonest, at best. (And I would have to disagree Anonymouse that he’s no better/worse than others...) This is where the legislative branch comes into the US governance picture. Now that the congressional branch made a law, and the Executive branch has signed….if there is confusion, the legislative interprets the law. The Bush Jr. Executive branch appears to me to be trying to usurp all three branches power (in many ways, the signing statement being one.) Legislative makes a law (carefully debates, etc.). That law says that the President can’t do xyz. Then the President (takes on the judicial role of interpretation) to interpret that ‘he’ can. This administration also takes a word and applies a twisted definition of words (often opposite of what is commonly thought.) Maybe tree=money. The ‘healthy forests initiative’ is ‘healthy’ for? That isn’t about the health of forests. ...

What makes you think it's just the Bush administration? Could it not very well be that the Bush administration is only doing what has been going on for years and many administrations prior. What prompted Wilson to interpret the Republic as somehow a "democracy"? What prompted the socialistic Roosevelt to somehow believe that because the Constitution stated "general welfare" that somehow it translated as creating massive social works projects, and bureacracies and a redistributive welfare state? What prompted people to somehow interpret "We are all created equal" as some sort of Marxian-lite ideal that we should, or that we are, all equal?

By focusing only on the Bush administration you are not seeing the bigger picture that this flaw of language, and the inherent vagueness of it has left it for different administrations to interpret it as they see fit. And in the process, America went from the notion of free markets, limited government and avoiding 'foreign entanglements' to being an Empire, a welfare-warfare state spreading 'Democracy'.