It feels a little like when I was 5 years old and a friend’s big brother tried to tell me that there is no such person as Santa Claus. I knew all those weirdos in red suits at the mall couldn’t all be Santa Claus but if there was no Santa Claus how come everyone is lying to me?

Lots of us really do believe that international law is meaningless. I hope that will change in my lifetime, but I dunno.

It does not appear that the carrying of automatic weapons is at issue (although why a cook at a US marine base needs to carry one might be a good question.) The Iraqi concerns are more related to indiscriminate shooings of civilians, for one example among many refer to the September 16 massacre by Blackwater. So there seems to be an existing legal exemption from all crimes including murder in Iraq, so long as you are a truck driver, cook, laundry/housekeeper, or Blackwater mercenary working for a private contractor for Americans in Iraq.

If you want more specifics, try these:
www . jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/blackwater-iraq-killings-highlight-lack.php

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/249343/US_renegotiating_rights_for_military_contractors_as_UN_mandate_reaches_end

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14536388

It does not appear that the carrying of automatic weapons is at issue (although why a cook at a US marine base needs to carry one might be a good question.) The Iraqi concerns are more related to indiscriminate shooings of civilians, for one example among many refer to the September 16 massacre by Blackwater. So there seems to be an existing legal exemption from all crimes including murder in Iraq, so long as you are a truck driver, cook, laundry/housekeeper, or Blackwater mercenary working for a private contractor for Americans in Iraq.

If you want more specifics, try these:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/09/blackwater-iraq-killings-highlight-lack.php

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/249343/US_renegotiating_rights_for_military_contractors_as_UN_mandate_reaches_end

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14536388

Let me leave you with a couple quotes then if you wish to read more a link to the source article is also attached:

A recent report in the New York Times outlines new U.S. demands being made on Iraq. The article states, in part, the following: “the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law.” So much for Mr. Bush’s vision of a democratic Iraq.

and the second:

The second troubling point concerns the work of civilian U.S. contractors. One wonders why a ‘liberated’ Iraq needs to provide these contractors ‘legal protections from Iraqi law.’ Why, one might reasonably ask, should the businesses of a foreign nation be allowed to violate local law?

The concept seems extraordinary, except when viewed from the distorted perspective of its author. Mr. Bush has taken it upon himself to violate the Constitution and make himself exempt from U.S. laws. For example, …

“A Colony by any Other Name” from:

http://counterpunch.org/fantina02022008.html

So he went to Washington thinking, he actually said this at the beginning of his term, that he could get both sides to work together in passing legislation in a bipartisan manner. He thought that he could talk to Democrats and get them to not attach junk to bills and he wouldn’t have to make signing statements to nullify them, that they could all act like adults. He had Ted Kennedy write the education bill, invited him and the entire Kennedy clan over for dinner and a viewing of JFK, but in the end it was politics as usual in Washington, because it’s all the town knows and in either 4 or 8 years the new kid, whoever he or she is is going home, and the the town will just suck up to the new kid.

To the contrary, he puts on a good ‘ol boy cowpoke act (and I like that persona, truly he can present himself as charming and salt of the earth) but he can be ruthless to his opponents, (and there have been ample rumours from whitehouse staff that he can be a brutally verbally abusive boss). Examples? Kerry swiftboated - dya think maybe he could have played nice and pulled back on those dogs? Any person especially scientists who dared to suggest global warming is an extremly relevant issue, Joe Wilson, but .. these may not be very good examples, perhaps others here can help me out?

All in all though shcb, I’ve been impressed to witness perhaps for the first time that I’ve seen a relatively balanced line of comments from you. Now if only I can get you to view 911 with a balanced mind too. (that was a bit of a joke and a bit of a rhetorical statement.) Cheers.

I agree, but the only solutions I can see is for congress to only send bills to the president that don’t infringe on his rights, institute the line item veto, or only include one item on a bill (my personal favorite). I am under no illusion any of these will ever happen. I agree with Steve’s point, I just wish he would apply some of the blame to congress as well.

I’ll be fair here, when this subject came up in the you and 08 debates I read quite a few of Bush’s signing statements, not all, but quite a few. What I found disturbing was that most of them were things like “I am signing this bill into law that will make Jellystone park a safe place for Bubu”. This kind a made me angry at you guys for making such a big deal out of such a small thing. Then I realized this is just a typical politician’s trick. Sign hundreds of meaningless pieces of paper to disguise the five or six that have meaning. I didn’t look at past presidents but I’m sure they all do it. Don’t make it right though.

I did read the signing statement on the bill in question, it is pretty much boilerplate. I think Bush just doesn’t care to explain himself anymore. I can’t blame him really, I think he really went to Washington thinking if you’re nice to your opponents they will be nice to you, they haven’t been.

They support it for pure, partisan, ideological reasons. They are so ferociously consumed with not agreeing with the “other side” that they completely ignore fact and reason. For them, it’s all about loyalty to a particular person or a particular party, instead of loyalty to their country. Never mind what’s best for the country or for the world, if the “other guy” is against it, then it must be right, no matter what.

Far easier, emotionally, is to face the fact that the USA no longer resembles a Republic except in a ritualistic ceremonial sense, and is operating more like an Empire now, with a heavy handed aristocratic Commander who oversees hundreds (nearly a 1000?) formiddable military bases around most of the globe which can be used at will to support corporate interests, and thus America can “create reality” as they wish now. Work with that paradigm and life is smooth, try to resist and fight for “what’s right”, truth or justice and you will face the wrath of all the people with RWA mentality who seemed to predominate in public dialogues.

that is why I support R0nPau1 and perhaps Barrack Obama, they represent real change from the a growing …evil (for lack of a better word.)

We have altered our constitution in the past 8 years because we have allowed the president to break the law.

Why do people support lawbreaking by the president? It’s the ultimate anti-American position.

I’m going to address the first point even though you don’t contest it because it has a lot to with the other three points. A law forbidding taxpayer money to build permanent bases in Iraq is just silly on many levels. It is demagoguery on stilts and political grandstanding by Democrats to appease anti war types that base their decisions on emotions rather than logic. This war is going to go on way past this presidential term. Permanent bases in the area very likely may be needed. Why would you hinder future presidents with a law like this. Sure we can fly long range mission our of places like Diego Garcia but this isn’t a war that is going to be won with dropping bombs.

Strategic importance aside, my biggest problem with this is one of governance. Iraq is a sovereign country, we defeated it and turned it back to it’s people almost immediately. Establishing permanent bases there requires treaties. Treaties are handled by the Senate and the President, not the House (article 2 section 2) passing a law requires the House’s input, making passing a law in this matter inappropriate. This isn’t just my opinion, John Jay goes into it at length in Federalist 64, most of the paper is on this subject, I really can’t pick out a line or two and put it in block quotes. The House’s only oversight powers here are to defund the bases if they are built. Much thought was put into excluding a transitory body elected by uninformed voters from having a say in matters as important as treaties.

2) I would need to see what protections whistle blowers have now and what the new provisions were. I would also insist on protecting the rights of the corporations. Just not enough information here.

3) This ties into point 1 above, your arguments seem reasonable at face value, but there is a separation of powers, and there is national security. This bunch of Democrats and the press, namely the New York Times haven’t shown much maturity in this area. There are committees in both the Senate and the House that have oversight powers and are privy to the reports you are suggesting I believe, they are a small group that can be watched closely and have been selected because presumably they can keep their mouths shut. And what will be gained if the President just cites executive privilege all the time? Seems congress will get less information than they do now. Again I think this is just grandstanding, nothing will be gained and something may be lost.

4) Why do I think Bush opposes a contractor wrong doing commission?

a) he has something to hide
b) he knows it will be a witch hunt
c) congress already has the power to investigate

I would say he feels c) 80% b) 15% a) 5%

I don’t know if I answered everything, it’s been a long day, I certainly am not ducking anything here, let me know if I missed something.