AM Feed - July 25: Could Signing Statements Spark Lawsuits?
Hot Topics
- On the heels of a report issued by an American Bar Association panel condemning President Bush’s extensive use of signing statements, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced plans to introduce legislation that would allow Congress to sue the president over such statements. Bush has issued more than 800 signing statements, which usually outline sections of the new law he plans not to enforce. That is more than the number of signing statements issued by all other presidents combined. [link]
- Chalk up yet another failure for President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. A new government study has found that no state has reached the deadline for boosting the number of qualified teachers, and that only 10 states earned full approval of their respective standardized testing systems. The states who have not met the deadline could face fines – a proposition that only further aggravates an already tense situation. Many states have grumbled over the strict rules (but lack of federal funding) laid out by Bush’s plan. [link]
- It looks as though corruption related to Indian tribes might extend far beyond Jack Abramoff. A new report from the Interior Department reveals that senior officials who manage Indian trust funds (valued at $3.2 billion) have pressured lower-ranking officials to award government contracts to firms with which they share close ties. U.S. News has secured a copy of the report under the Freedom of Information Act, and has found that the questionable conduct took place at the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), where officials partied and played golf with executives at a nearby accounting firm. The firm, in turn, was granted $6.6 million over the same eight-year time period. [link]
Quote of the Day
“I overstepped my brief there.” – White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, backing away from his comments last week that President Bush believes embryonic stem cell research amounts to “murder.” Snow backtracked to say yesterday that the president “would not use that term.”
Morning Snark
- Tony Snow’s earlier career at Fox News probably helped him prepare for his role as White House press secretary in many ways, but here’s guessing that learning how to apologize for radical statements was not one of them.
Comment
- Eight hundered signing statements. A veto by any other name smells the same.
— Doyal Jul 25, 11:59 # - Bush and his cronies have provided many examples of impeachable offenses, but the threat to the checks and balances is an excellent one for congress to use, when the Republicans lose the majority come the November elections. Finally, a peak at the light at the end of the tunnel…. we can only hope!
— robin Jul 25, 13:10 # - Tony Snow’s “brief ”: a daily script directly from the desk of Karl Rove. Tony is a reader, Karl his writer and director. But Tony is accustomed to having a director and a script directly from Roger Ailes’ desk. When Tony ventures to express his own opinion, he fouls up – - another vestige of his FOX NEWS “training”.
— Francis Scalzi Jul 25, 15:12 # - No man is above the law ,especially G W Bush. Sue the pants of his nefarious signing statements !
— SAMUEL & MURIEL KIRSCHNER Jul 25, 16:19 # - Lewinsky Affair
On February 28, 1997, President Bill Clinton ejaculated on White House intern Monica Lewinsky, spilling his semen on her navy blue dress. Either that, or some other caucasian with the same set of genetic markers spurted on her, the odds of that being about one in 7.87 trillion.
— phil Jul 25, 19:44 # - Dear AMV,
When my client, Hospitalman Third Class Melson J. Bacos, enlisted in the United States Navy and deployed on two combat missions to Iraq to fight and die for our country, he never agreed to check his own constitutional rights at the boot camp door. Indeed, his oath to protect and defend the Constitution did not carry with it a forfeiture of his own constitutional rights.
If you know anything about the Constitution, which I know you do, you will be shocked to learn the details of an occurrence which transpired on June 21, 2006, at the Camp Pendleton Brig. This was the same day the Marine Corps announced murder and kidnapping charges against my client and seven Marines in connection with the death of an Iraqi National in Hamdania.
On that day, to my shock and disbelief, a high ranking military officer, cloaked with the authority of Chief of Staff to a Commanding General, walked into the Camp Pendleton Brig, proceeded to my client’s cell, made him stand at attention, and interrogated him about significant aspects of the case without my knowledge or permission. He did the same to several of the Marines, all of whom are represented by legal counsel. This was not a simple oversight by the General’s Chief of Staff – - this was a premeditated and malicious action.
It does not take a legal scholar to realize that for a government official to interrogate a criminal suspect who is represented by counsel, without that counsel’s permission, is an egregious violation of the Constitution. From what I have communicated so far, you would likely think the individual who perpetrated this injustice was an officer in the NVA or some Stalinist regime. You’ll be disappointed to learn, however, that this officer is a Colonel in the United States Marine Corps.
Sons and daughters of our country have fought and died for the individual freedoms and constitutional rights we enjoy. In view of these ultimate patriotic sacrifices, it saddens me deeply that there are still those who would thumb their noses at those rights. Even more saddening is the fact that, in this instance, it was a high ranking Marine officer – - the Chief of Staff to a Commanding General – - who has played fast and loose with the constitutional rights of young combat veterans.
On June 21, 2006, senior Marine Corps officials held a carefully calculated media event. On that afternoon, Colonel Stewart Navarre, Chief of Staff to the Commanding General of Camp Pendleton, announced to the world murder and kidnapping charges against the “Pendleton 8.” On that same day, he also made a desperate and illegal attempt to cover-up the shoddy work of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Just prior to announcing the charges, the Chief of Staff went to the Camp Pendleton Brig and interrogated my client and several of the Marines, unbeknownst to any of the attorneys involved in the case. When Colonel Navarre appeared on the solitary confinement tier of the Brig, my client and the other Marines were ordered to stand at attention inside their solitary cells. Colonel Navarre then, one by one, proceeded to each cell and used his superior rank to interrogate my client and several Marines. He specifically questioned each of them about the widely publicized coercive interrogation tactics utilized by NCIS in this case. Colonel Navarre did his best to forcefully suggest to the represented young men that these NCIS tactics were above-board and sought their assent to his false proposition that the conduct of the NCIS agents was not coercive or inappropriate. This outrageous government conduct amounted to a willful and illegal attempt by the Chief of Staff to the Commanding General to mitigate NCIS misconduct and shore-up the government’s case against these young combat veterans, at the expense of their fundamental constitutional rights.
The Marine Corps was rightfully concerned about the unlawful tactics of NCIS, but they had no right under any law to interrogate these individuals who were all represented by legal counsel. Instead of addressing the illegal NCIS tactics in a court of law, the Chief of Staff to the Commanding General compounded the constitutional violations already perpetrated in this case by conducting his own unlawful interrogation. It is tragic that the Marine Corps would stamp its imprimatur on such conduct while knowing full well that it would violate the constitutional protections of my client and the other Marines involved.
After I learned of this outrageous government conduct, I called Colonel Navarre to discuss what had happened and to request that he refrain from engaging in additional unlawful command influence. Colonel Navarre refused to speak with me. Ironically, Colonel Navarre had no problem cavalierly using his rank to inexplicably intimidate my client and the other Marines and trample on their constitutional rights, but, he could not muster the fortitude or courtesy to permit me to address the issue with him.
The Marine Corps lost control of these cases when they sent the Chief of Staff of the Commanding General to the Base Brig to interrogate young combat veterans in an effort to cover up their failed investigation. So, why do Colonel Navarre and the Marine Corps willfully ignore the constitutional rights of these combat veterans? Simply because they believe they can. The Marine Corps should be ashamed of the actions of Colonel Navarre and his conspirators. It is painfully clear that the Marine establishment has no interest in justice for my client. Any chance my client might have had for a fair trial disappeared when the Marine Corps decided that the United States Constitution would take a back seat to the political agendas and pressures involved with this case.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah J. Sullivan
Law Offices of Jeremiah J. Sullivan, III
501 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 578-5958
MEMO FROM ATTORNEY JEREMIAH J. SULLIVAN,
— Jeremiah Jul 25, 19:47 # - Wow, powerful stuff there Jeremiah. Thanks for the account of the abridgement of constitutional rights. Purely as a devil’s advocate, I’m curious as to the oath of allegiance Marines must swear to upon enlistment with the USMC. Do they foreswear their rights under the constitution in that they must blindly follow orders of their superiors? Is that an issue in this case? I’m not familiar with the military and always wonder how that oath plays out when a soldier objects to the policies that force him to wage war. Like it or not, he must obey orders and conduct such war actions as called for. It seems like this is an issue here.
— jen Jul 26, 12:58 #
Do you have any ideas for the AM Feed? Any stories or issues that you'd like to see highlighted? We'd love to hear your feedback. Drop us a line at afv@americanfamilyvoices.org.