Torture and the Imperial Presidency

Tim Rutten, the LA Times media columnist, has perceived something important in the Bush administration's statements on waterboarding. Not only have they backed -- in the estimation of so many -- a morally indefensible position on torture, but this positioning of themselves is rooted in a deeper problem, the embrace of the imperial presidency or unitary executive. Rutten notes that Bush doesn't seem to have come into office with a strong sentiment on this, but his VP did. Dick Cheney and his crew have long been agressively pushing for a dominant executive.
Rutten writes concerning its loose legal standing:

Whether they're liberals or conservatives, most constitutional scholars don't think the unitary executive notion holds historical or legal water. Essentially, it proposes that the Constitution invests sole executive authority in the president and, therefore, neither the legislative nor the judicial branch can check his exercise of executive power, particularly when it comes to his activities as commander in chief.

The last George who thought you could run American affairs that way came from the House of Hanover rather than Bush.

Congress, in this view, and the courts, are to bend to the will of the executive. Note Bush's use of signing statements, which ultimately have come to mean -- you can pass this, but I'm not going to carry it out.
Rutten's column is entitled "Bush's Message for McCain." The message is simple. If you want my support, you have to support this view of the presidency. Rutten, doesn't believe this will happen. We'll have to see. Whatever happens with McCain, a rather dangerous precedent is being set, one that could wreak havoc with our nation's future.
This is an important column, that needs to be read -- click here to do that.

Comments

Popular Posts