text:
This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a012606bushtortureglobe
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event January 26, 2006: Bush: US Interrogators Prohibited from Torture 'Anywhere in the World'. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
Attorney General Edwin Meese receives a report, "Separation of Powers: Legislative-Executive Relations." Meese had commissioned the report from the Justice Department's Domestic Policy Committee, an internal "think tank" staffed with hardline conservative scholars and policy advisers.
Recommendations for Restoring, Expanding Executive Power - The Meese report approvingly notes that "the strong leadership of President Reagan seems clearly to have ended the congressional resurgence of the 1970s." It lays out recommendations for restoring the power taken from the executive branch after Watergate and Vietnam, and adding new powers besides. It recommends that the White House refuse to enforce laws and statutes that "unconstitutionally encroach upon the executive branch," and for Reagan to veto more legislation and to use "signing statements" to state the White House's position on newly passed laws. It also assails the 1972 War Powers Resolution and other laws that limit presidential power.
Reinterpreting the Separation of Powers and the Concept of 'Checks and Balances' - Perhaps most importantly, the Meese report claims that for 200 years, courts and scholars alike have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Founders' intentions in positing the "separation of powers" system (see 1787 and 1793). The belief that the Constitution mandates three separate, co-equal branches of government—executive, judicial, and legislative—who wield overlapping areas of authority and work to keep each of the other branches from usurping too much power—a concept taught in school as "checks and balances"—is wrong, the report asserts. Instead, each branch has separate and independent sets of powers, and none of the three branches may tread or encroach on the others' area of responsibility and authority. "The only 'sharing of power' is the sharing of the sum of all national government power," the report claims. "But that is not joint shared, it is explicitly divided among the three branches." According to the report, the White House should exercise total and unchallenged control of the executive branch, which, as reporter and author Charlie Savage will later explain, "could be conceived of as a unitary being with the president as its brain." The concept of "checks and balances" is nothing more than an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to encroach on the rightful power of the executive. This theory of presidential function will soon be dubbed the "unitary executive theory," a title adapted from a passage by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (Savage 2007, pp. 47-48) Charles Fried, Reagan's solicitor general during the second term, will later write that though the unitary executive theory displays "perfect logic" and a "beautiful symmetry," it is difficult to defend, because it "is not literally compelled by the words of the Constitution. Nor did the framers' intent compel this view." (Savage 2007, pp. 50)
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) sends a non-classified memo to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, offering the opinion that a policy allowing suspected al-Qaeda members to be tortured abroad "may be justified." (US Department of Justice 8/1/2002 ) This memo will later be nicknamed the "Golden Shield" by insiders in the hopes that it will protect government officials from later being charged with war crimes (see April 2002 and After). (Greenburg, Rosenberg, and de Vogue 4/9/2008)
Multiple Authors - The 50-page "torture memo" is signed and authored by Jay S. Bybee, head of OLC, and co-authored by John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general. It is later revealed that Yoo authored the memo himself, in close consultation with Vice President Cheney's chief adviser David Addington, and Bybee just signed off on it (see December 2003-June 2004). (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004) Deputy White House counsel Timothy Flanigan also contributed to the memo. Addington contributed the claim that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it is plainly torture. Addington's reasoning: US and treaty law "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." (Gellman and Becker 6/25/2007)
Statute Only Prohibits 'Extreme Acts' - Gonzales had formally asked for the OLC's legal opinion in response to a request by the CIA for legal guidance. A former administration official, quoted by the Washington Post, says the CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and re-learn old skills, but only with explicit assurances from the top that they were doing so with the full legal authority the president could confer on them." (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004) "We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole," Bybee and Yoo write, "makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts." Addressing the question of what exactly constitute such acts of an extreme nature, the authors proceed to define torture as the infliction of "physical pain" that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Purely mental pain or suffering can also amount to "torture under Section 2340," but only if it results "in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g. lasting for months or even years." (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004)
Torture Legal and Defensible - Bybee and Yoo appear to conclude that any act short of torture, even though it may be cruel, inhuman or degrading, would be permissible. They examine, for example, "international decisions regarding the use of sensory deprivation techniques." These cases, they notice, "make clear that while many of these techniques may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they do not produce pain or suffering of the necessary intensity to meet the definition of torture. From these decisions, we conclude that there is a wide range of such techniques that will not rise to the level of torture." More astounding is Bybee and Yoo's view that even torture can be defensible. "We conclude," they write, "that, under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A." Inflicting physical or mental pain might be justified, Bybee and Yoo argue, "in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network." In other words, necessity or self-defense may justify torture. Moreover, "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability." (Schmidt 6/8/2004) International anti-torture rules, furthermore, "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" of suspected terrorists. (Cannon 6/21/2004) Laws prohibiting torture would "not apply to the president's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants" in the "war on terror," because the president has constitutional authority to conduct a military campaign. (Priest 6/27/2004)
Protecting US Officials from Prosecution - In 2007, author and reporter Charlie Savage will write: "In case an interrogator was ever prosecuted for violating the antitorture law (see October 21, 1994 and January 26, 1998, Yoo laid out page after page of legal defenses he could mount to get the charges dismissed. And should someone balk at this strained interpretation of the law, Yoo offered his usual trump card: Applying the antitorture law to interrogations authorized by the president would be unconstitutional, since only the commander in chief could set standards for questioning prisoners." (Savage 2007, pp. 155-156)
Virtually Unrestricted Authority of President - "As commander in chief," the memo argues, "the president has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence information concerning the military plans of the enemy." (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004) According to some critics, this judgment—which will be echoed in a March 2003 draft Pentagon report (see March 6, 2003)—ignores important past rulings such as the 1952 Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which determined that the president, even in wartime, is subject to US laws. (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004) The memo also says that US Congress "may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." (Priest 6/27/2004)
Ashcroft Refuses to Release Memo - After the memo's existence is revealed, Attorney General John Ashcroft denies senators' requests to release it, and refuses to say if or how the president was involved in the discussion. "The president has a right to hear advice from his attorney general, in confidence," he says. (Lewis 6/8/2004; Bloomberg 6/8/2004; Allen and Priest 6/9/2004) Privately, Ashcroft is so irritated by Yoo's hand-in-glove work with the White House that he begins disparagingly referring to him as "Dr. Yes." (Shane, Johnston, and Risen 10/4/2007)
Only 'Analytical' - Responding to questions about the memo, White House press secretary Scott McClellan will claim that the memo "was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," but was "analytical." But the 50-page memo seems to have been considered immensely important, given its length and the fact that it was signed by Bybee. "Given the topic and length of opinion, it had to get pretty high-level attention," Beth Nolan, a former White House counsel from 1999-2001, will tell reporters. This view is confirmed by another former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer who says that unlike documents signed by deputies in the Office of Legal Counsel, memorandums signed by the Office's head are considered legally binding. (Allen and Priest 6/9/2004)
Memo Will be Withdrawn - Almost two years later, the OLC's new head, Jack Goldsmith, will withdraw the torture memos, fearing that they go far beyond anything countenanced by US law (see December 2003-June 2004).
Memo Addresses CIA Concerns - The administration, particularly the axis of neoconservatives centered around Cheney's office, has enthusiastically advocated the use of violent, abusive, and sometimes tortuous interrogation techniques, though the US has never endorsed such tactics before, and many experts say such techniques are counterproductive. The CIA, responding to the desires from the White House, hastily put together a rough program after consulting with intelligence officials from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where detainees are routinely tortured and killed in captivity, and after studying methods used by former Soviet Union interrogators. The legal questions were continuous. The former deputy legal counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, Paul Kelbaugh, recalls in 2007: "We were getting asked about combinations—'Can we do this and this at the same time?… These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature—can they be combined?' Or 'Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?'" The "torture memo" is designed to address these concerns. (Shane, Johnston, and Risen 10/4/2007)
Rene Lerner, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and Justice Department lawyer Adrien Silas send a memo to Assistant Attorney General William Moschella. The memo will remain classified, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will learn that it pertains to the so-called "McCain Amendment," later known as the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 15, 2005). President Bush will sign the bill into law, but will include a signing statement that states the administration will not follow the law because it impinges on the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations (see December 30, 2005). It is unclear whether Bush's signing statement is influenced by the memo. (Nguyen and Weaver 4/16/2009)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gathers a group of senior subordinates and warns them to stay away from three senators—John McCain (R-AZ), John Warner (R-VA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—who are drafting a bill to govern the handling of terrorism suspects (see December 30, 2005). A Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the meeting will later recall, "Rumsfeld made clear, emphatically, that the vice president had the lead on this issue." Though Vice President Dick Cheney has, as he so often has done in the past, ensured that his bureaucratic fingerprints are not on the issue, he has already staked out a hardline position for the White House. This time, it came as a last-minute insert in a July 2005 "statement of administration policy" by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where Nancy Dorn, Cheney's former chief of legislative affairs, is deputy director. Cheney's staff adds, without the required staff clearance, a paragraph to the OMB's guidance for the 2006 defense appropriations bill (see July 21, 2005). Among those surprised by the position is Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who for a year has advocated that the US issue clear rules about detention and interrogation of terror suspects. England attempts to clarify the issue (see Late 2005). (Gellman and Becker 6/25/2007)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduces an amendment to the annual legislation to fund the Defense Department. McCain's amendment, co-sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a former military lawyer, states that military interrogators cannot exceed the limits on detainee treatment set forth in the US Army Field Manual. In essence, the amendment would prohibit the use of harsh interrogation techniques that many, including McCain, feel constitute torture. The Field Manual limits were specifically written to comply with the Geneva Conventions. The amendment also prohibits US officials, including CIA agents, from inflicting not just torture but any form of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" on anyone in their custody, no matter where in the world the prisoner is being kept. The amendment, later known as the McCain Amendment or the McCain Torture Ban, becomes the subject of fierce, largely private negotiations between McCain and the White House. Vice President Cheney quickly lobbies friendly Republicans in Congress to oppose the amendment, and has private meetings with Warner and McCain. At Cheney's behest, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) withdraws the entire bill from consideration rather than allow it to pass with the McCain amendment attached. (Savage 2007, pp. 220-221)
The Army adopts a new, classified set of interrogation methods that some feel may change the nature of the debate over cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees in US custody. The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 30, 2005), which bases its definition of torture in part on Army standards, is currently wending its way through Congress. The new set of instructions are being added to the revised Army Field Manual, after they are approved by undersecretary of defense Stephen Cambone. The addendum provides exact details on what kinds of interrogation procedures can and cannot be used, and under what circumstances, pushing the legal limit of what interrogations can be used in ways that the Army has never done before. Some military observers believe that the new guidelines are an attempt by the Army to undercut the DTA, and many believe the bill's sponsor, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will be unhappy with the addendum. "This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official says. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this." McCain has not yet been briefed on the contents of the new guidelines. McCain spokesman Mark Salter says, "This is politically obtuse and damaging. The Pentagon hasn't done one molecule of political due diligence on this." One Army officer says that the core of the definition of torture—what is and is not "cruel, inhumane, and degrading" treatment—"is at the crux of the problem, but we've never defined that." The new Army Field Manual specifically prohibits such tactics as stress positioning, stripping prisoners, imposing dietary restrictions, using police dogs to intimidate prisoners, and sleep deprivation. The new manual is expected to be issued before the end of the year. (Schmitt 12/14/2005) The day after this is reported, President Bush agrees not to veto the DTA (see December 15, 2005).
The Bush administration relents in its opposition to the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which would ban torture of prisoners by US personnel (see July 24, 2005 and After and December 30, 2005). President Bush meets with the bill's primary sponsor, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, in a press conference to praise the bill. McCain says after the conference that the bill "is a done deal." The bill still faces some opposition from Congressional Republicans such as House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who says he won't vote for the bill unless it can be amended to ensure that the nation's ability to gather intelligence is not diminished. Both the House and Senate have voted by veto-proof margins to accept the bill, which is actually an amendment to a defense appropriations bill. McCain says after the conference with Bush and Warner, "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are." Bush says the ban "is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad." McCain has been the target of months of vilification and opposition from the White House over the bill, which argued that the bill would limit Bush's authority to protect the US from terrorist attacks, and that the bill is unnecessary because US officials do not torture. (CNN 12/15/2005)
Loopholes - But the bill contains key loopholes that some experts believe significantly waters down the bill's impact. Author Alfred McCoy, an expert on the CIA, notes that the bill as revised by White House officials does not give any real specifics. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will assert that the only restrictions on prisoner interrogations are the ban on "severe" psychological or physical pain, "the same linguistic legerdemain that had allowed the administration to start torturing back in 2002" (see August 1, 2002). Gonzales also implies that practices such as waterboarding are not prohibited. (McCoy 2/8/2006)
Legal Cover - A provision of the bill inserted after negotiation with White House officials says that CIA and military officials accused of torture can claim legal protection by arguing that they were simply following the orders of their superiors, or they have a reasonable belief that they are carrying out their superiors' wishes. McCain dropped the original provision that all military personnel must follow the stringent guidelines for interrogation laid out in the Army Field Manual; the bill now follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says that anyone accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a "reasonable" person could conclude they were following a lawful order. McCain resisted pressure from the White House to include language that would afford interrogators accused of torture protection from civil or criminal lawsuits. (CNN 12/15/2005; Associated Press 12/15/2005)
Controversial Amendment - Perhaps even more troubling is an amendment to the bill that would essentially strip the judiciary's ability to enforce the ban. The amendment, originally crafted by senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and added to by Carl Levin (D-MI), denies Guantanamo detainees the right to bring legal action against US personnel who torture or abuse them—effectively denying them the fundamental legal right of habeas corpus. It also gives the Defense Department the implicit ability to consider evidence obtained through torture or inhumane treatment in assessing detainees' status. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that the DTA marks the first time in history that Congress would allow the use of evidence obtained through torture. HRW's Tom Malinowski says, "With the McCain amendment, Congress has clearly said that anyone who authorizes or engages in cruel techniques like water boarding is violating the law. But the Graham-Levin amendment leaves Guantanamo detainees no legal recourse if they are, in fact, tortured or mistreated. The treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees will be shrouded in secrecy, placing detainees at risk for future abuse.… If the McCain law demonstrates to the world that the United States really opposes torture, the Graham-Levin amendment risks telling the world the opposite." (Human Rights Watch 12/16/2005) Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Judge Advocate General lawyer, agrees. In January 2006, he will write that the "recent compromise inclusion of an 'obedience to orders' defense… has effectively undermined the goal Senator John McCain fought so long to achieve. Instead of sending a clear message to US forces that cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of detainees is never permissible, the compromise has validated President Bush's belief that the necessities of war provide the ultimate 'trump card' to justify 'whatever it takes' in the war on terror." (Corn 1/6/2006)
Without the knowledge of many in Congress, Vice President Cheney and his allies in Congress manage to insert language into the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 30, 2005) that renders much of the bill nearly worthless. Some of the widest exceptions are inserted without the knowledge of all but a very few Congressmen. One is the exemption for the CIA, which instead of being bound by the interrogation techniques described in the US Army Field Manual, is only forbidden in general to employ "cruel" or "inhuman" methods. Those terms will be defined in light of US constitutional law. Because of the Supreme Court's decision that cruelty is an act that "shocks the conscience," Cheney's chief lawyer, David Addington, has argued that harsh interrogations would be much less shocking if performed on detainees suspected of planning or taking part in mass casualty terrorist attacks. What "shocks the conscience" is to an extent "in the eye of the beholder," Cheney has already said. (Gellman and Becker 6/25/2007)
After months of opposition and a recent, clandestine rewriting of the bill (see Before December 30, 2005), President Bush signs the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) into law, effectively outlawing torture by government and military officials (see December 15, 2005). However, Bush also inserts a signing statement into the record reserving for himself the right to ignore the law under his powers as commander in chief if he judges that torturing a prisoner is in the interest of national security (see December 30, 2005). Signing statements have no legal status, but serve to inform the nation as to how the president interprets a particular law. In this case, Bush writes that he will waive the restrictions on torture if he feels it is necessary to protect national security. "We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment," says a senior administration official, but under unusual circumstances—a "ticking time bomb" scenario, for example, where a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack, Bush's responsibility to protect the nation will supersede the law. Law professor David Golove is critical of the White House's position, saying: "The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.' They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on." Bush has issued numerous signing statements signaling his intent to flaunt the law in the areas of domestic surveillance, detaining terrorist suspects without due legal process, and previous legislation forbidding the torture of prisoners. Many legal and civil rights organizations believe that Bush's signing statement is part of his push for a "unitary executive," where the president has virtually unlimited powers in the areas of foreign policy and national security, and neither Congress nor the courts have the right to limit his powers (see April 30, 1986). Former Justice Department official and law professor Marty Lederman says: "The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole. The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism." Human Rights Watch director Elisa Massamino calls the signing statement an "in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress. "The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch. Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view." (Savage 1/4/2006; Boston Globe 4/30/2006)
Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, a former Justice Department official under both the Bush and Clinton administrations, notes the recent signing statement from the White House that essentially states President Bush will ignore the newly authorized Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005). "So much for the president's assent to the McCain Amendment" (see December 15, 2005), Lederman writes. Of Bush's signing statement itself, he writes: "Translation: I reserve the constitutional right to waterboard when it will 'assist' in protecting the American people from terrorist attacks.… You didn't think [Vice President] Cheney and [Cheney's chief of staff David] Addington (see December 30, 2005) were going to go down quietly, did you?" (Marty Lederman 1/2/2006; Savage 2007, pp. 225)
The three Republican senators who co-sponsored the recently passed Detainee Treatment Act prohibiting torture (see December 15, 2005) criticize President Bush for his signing statement indicating that he would not follow the law if he sees fit (see December 30, 2005). Senators John McCain (R-AZ), the primary sponsor of the bill, and John Warner (R-VA) issue a statement rejecting Bush's signing statement. "We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators write. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law." The third co-sponsor, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says he agrees with the letter, "and would go a little bit further." Graham says: "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any… law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same." The White House refuses to respond to the senators' comments. Law professor David Golove, a specialist in executive power issues, says the senators' statements "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the two branches of government. "The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove says. "The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'" Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First says the senators' statements should warn military and CIA interrogators that they could be subject to prosecution if they torture or abuse a detainee, regardless of Bush's signing statement. "That power [to override the law] was explicitly sought by the White House, and it was considered and rejected by the Congress," she says. "And any US official who relies on legal advice from a government lawyer saying there is a presidential override of a law passed by Congress does so at their peril. Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is illegal." Golove notes that it is highly unlikely that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would prosecute anyone for performing actions Bush had authorized. (Savage 1/5/2006; Savage 2007, pp. 225-226)
During the Senate hearings to confirm conservative jurist Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the questioning turns to Alito's views on the "unitary executive" theory (January 1, 1992). The theory seems to have originated in the Reagan administration's Justice Department (see April 30, 1986), where Alito worked in the Office of Legal Counsel.
Lawyer Testifies to Unitary Executive - Former Clinton White House counsel Beth Nolan testifies about the theory and its potential for dramatically revamping the power of the presidency: "'Unitary executive' is a small phrase with almost limitless import. At the very least, it embodies the concept of presidential control over all executive functions, including those that have traditionally been executed by 'independent' agencies and other actors not subject to the president's direct control.… The phrase is also used to embrace expansive interpretations of the president's substantive powers, and strong limits on the legislative and judicial branches." Nolan cites a November 2000 speech by Alito to the Federalist Society, where Alito said in part, "the president is largely impervious to statutory law in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and Congress is effectively powerless to act as a constraint against presidential aggrandizement in these areas." (Dean 2007, pp. 100-106) During the questioning session, Alito denies ever discussing the idea of inherent presidential powers during that speech.
Evasive Answers in Hearings - Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) says in his opening statement that he intends to press Alito on his support for what Durbin calls "a marginal theory at best… yet one you've said you believe." Durbin notes that the Bush administration has repeatedly cited the theory to justify its most controversial policies and decisions, particularly in conducting its war on terror. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) adds: "The president is not a king, free to take any action he chooses without limitation, by law.… In the area of executive power, Judge Alito, you have embraced and endorsed the theory of the unitary executive. Your deferential and absolutist view of separation of powers raises questions. Under this view, in times of war the president would, for instance, seem to have inherent authority to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, to ignore Congressional acts at will, or to take any other action he saw fit under his inherent powers. We need to know, when a president goes too far, will you be a check on his power or will you issue him a blank check to exercise whatever power alone he thinks appropriate?" (Savage 2007, pp. 271-272) However, Alito refuses to address the issue in the hearings, giving what one journalist calls "either confused or less than candid" answers to questions concerning the subject.
Failure to Recall - During questioning, Alito turns aside inquiries about his avowed support for the unitary executive theory, saying he was merely talking about the idea that a president should have control over lesser executive branch officials, and was not referring to the usurpation of Congressional power by the executive. Further questions elicit nothing but a dry definition of the term. Asked about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's stinging dissent in the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case (see June 28, 2004), where Thomas wrote that the authors of the Constitution believed a unitary executive was essential to the implementation of US foreign policies, Alito says he does not recall Thomas's mention of the phrase. Asked about Bush's signing statement that attempted to invalidate the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005), Alito merely recites the definition of a signing statement, and refuses to actually state his position on the issue (see February 6, 1986 and After). Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), disturbed by Alito's refusal to address the subject, says he will vote against him in part because of Alito's embrace of "the gospel of the unitary executive." Kennedy cites one of the authors of the theory, law professor Steven Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, who, Kennedy says, "acknowledged that, if the concept is implemented, it would produce a radical change in how the government operates." (Dean 2007, pp. 100-106; Savage 2007, pp. 271-274)
ACLU Opposes Alito - The ACLU, for only the third time in its history, formally opposes Alito's nomination, in part because of Alito's embrace of the unitary executive theory of the presidency, citing Alito's "expansive view of executive authority and a limited view of the judicial role in curbing abuses of that authority." In its 86-year history, the ACLU has only opposed two other Court nominees: William Rehnquist and former Solicitor General Robert Bork. (American Civil Liberties Union 1/9/2006)
Opposition Fails - However, none of this is effective. Alito is sworn in less than a month later, after Democrats in the Senate fail to successfully mount a filibuster against his confirmation. (CNN 2/1/2006)
In his column for the legal website FindLaw, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean writes: "Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, [George W.] Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.… Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed.… It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.… Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes." Dean writes that Bush's signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005) marks the first time that serious media attention has been focused on the statements. He writes, "Despite the McCain Amendment's clear anti-torture stance, the military may feel free to use torture anyway, based on the President's attempt to use a signing statement to wholly undercut the bill." (Dean 1/13/2006)
Former Vice President Al Gore delivers a long, impassioned speech on civil liberties and constitutional issues to the Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society. Gore joins former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) in speaking out against the Bush administration's infringement on American civil liberties. Gore and Barr have what Gore calls a "shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger."
Patently Illegal Domestic Surveillance - Gore's speech is sparked by recent revelations that the NSA has been spying on American citizens for years (see December 15, 2005), and in response, the administration "has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses." As the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) is perfectly sufficient, there was no need for the Bush administration to circumvent that law. "At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance," Gore says. "What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." Gore says he agrees with Bush on the threat of terrorism, but disagrees that the US has to "break the law or sacrifice our system of government" to protect itself, as this will make it "weaker and more vulnerable." In addition, he says, "once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger," and, "Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles." It is patently obvious that the Bush administration has broken the law in conducting and approving its warrantless wiretaps, Gore says, regardless of what arguments and defenses administration officials may put forth (see September 12-18, 2001 and Early 2002). So, Gore says, "When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if Congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as [Supreme Court] Justice [Felix] Frankfurter once wrote, 'To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the president and the Congress.'… And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties."
Illegal Seizure of American Citizens - Gore notes that Bush has declared that he has "a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person" (see November 13, 2001 and March 5, 2002). He says: "The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen—any American citizen he chooses—indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned." Gore then says: "No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution. It must be rejected."
Specious Authority to Torture - Neither does the executive branch have the right to authorize torture, Gore says. After citing horrific examples from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, he calls it "a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that you're nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, and our own laws against torture."
Unlawful Kidnapping of Foreign Citizens - The president has no right to have foreign citizens kidnapped from their homes and brought to the US for interrogation and imprisonment, or worse, delivered to other nations for harsh interrogations and torture, says Gore. The closest allies of the US have been shocked by such claims.
No Restraint in the Constitution? - Gore asks whether the president really has such powers under the Constitution and, if so, "are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?" He quotes the dean of Yale's law school, Harold Koh, who said, "If the president has commander in chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." Gore is "deeply troubl[ed]" that "our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power." He cites the numerous usage of "signing statements" by Bush that signal his intent "not to comply" with particular legislation (see December 30, 2005). When the Supreme Court struck down Bush's indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" (see June 28, 2004), "the president then engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected."
Historical Cycles - Since the founding of America, Gore says, the country has abrogated its citizens' rights in one circumstance or another, and cites numerous examples. But those abrogations were always rectified to some degree in a repeated cycle of what he calls "excess and regret." Gore is worried that the country may not be in such a cycle now. Instead, he says, the US may be on a path to permanent, state-sanctioned authoritarianism, with the constitutional safeguards American citizens have come to expect eroded and undermined to the point of irretrievability. Gore specifically cites the administration's support for the so-called "unitary executive" theory of government, which he says "ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive." That theory "threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the Constitution that the framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition."
Stark Authoritarianism - Why are Bush and his top officials doing this? Gore says that "[t]he common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. The same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all executive branch employees." Gore continues: "Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality."
Gutting Congress - Though serious damage has been done to the judicial branch, Gore acknowledges, "the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of Congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the executive to attain this massive expansion of its power.… [T]he legislative branch of government as a whole, under its current leadership, now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the executive branch.… [T]he whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization" (see February 1, 2004). Gore says each member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, must "uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country."
We the People - The American people still, for the moment, have the power to enforce the Constitution, Gore says, quoting former President Dwight Eisenhower, who said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America." Gore continues: "Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.… The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment's notice to completely annihilate the country?" (Congressional Quarterly 1/16/2006; American Constitutional Society 1/16/2006)
President Bush says that the recently passed Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 15, 2005) has no loopholes that would allow US interrogators to torture prisoners. "No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world," he says (see December 30, 2005 and January 2, 2006). (Ireland Online 1/26/2006)
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) file an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006) saying that because of the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 15, 2005), the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. Graham and Kyl argue their point by citing the "legislative history" of the DTA, in particular the official statements Graham and Kyl made during debate over the bill, and specifically an "extensive colloquy" between the two that appears in the Congressional Record for December 21, 2005. Graham and Kyl argue that this "colloquy," which argues that Guantanamo prisoners have no rights under the standard of habeas corpus, stands as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the DTA would strip the Court of jurisdiction over cases that involve Guantanamo detainees. (The Senate included an amendment written by Graham, Kyl, and Carl Levin (D-MI) to the DTA that would reject habeas claims in future court cases, but does not apply retroactively to cases already filed, such as Hamdan.) However, Graham and Kyl never engaged in such a discussion on the floor of the Senate. Instead, they had the text inserted in the Record just before the law passed (see December 30, 2005), meaning that no one in Congress heard their discussion. The brief indicates that the discussion happened during the debate over the bill when it did not. The Record indicates that the discussion that did take place concerning the Hamdan case comes from Democrats, and explicitly state that the DTA has no bearing on the case. C-SPAN video coverage of the debate proves that Graham and Kyl never made those statements, and Senate officials confirm that the discussion was inserted later into the Record. But in their brief, Graham and Kyl state that "the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet… or are underlined." The Record shows no such formatting, therefore, says the brief, it must have been live. The debate between Graham and Kyl is even written to make it appear as if it had taken place live, with Graham and Kyl answering each other's questions, Kyl noting that he is nearing the end of his allotted time, and another senator, Sam Brownback (R-KS) apparently attempting to interject a question. Lawyers for the prosecution will strenuously object to the brief, and Justice Department defense lawyers will use the brief as a centerpiece for their argument that the Supreme Court should throw the case out. (US Supreme Court 2/2006 ; Bazelon 3/27/2006; Dean 7/5/2006) Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean will call the brief "a blatant scam," and will accuse Graham and Kyl of "misle[ading] their Senate colleagues, but also sham[ing] their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the US Supreme Court.… I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign.… [Graham and Kyl] brazenly attempted to hoodwink the Court regarding the actions of Congress in adopting the DTA." (Dean 7/5/2006) Their efforts will not be successful, as the Supreme Court will ultimately rule against the Republican position in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006).
President Bush signs the Military Commissions Act (MCA) into law. (White House 10/17/2006) The MCA is designed to give the president the authority to order "enemy detainees" tried by military commissions largely outside the scope of US civil and criminal procedures. The bill was requested by the Bush administration after the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (see June 28, 2004) that the US could not hold prisoners indefinitely without access to the US judicial system, and that the administration's proposal that they be tried by military tribunals was unconstitutional (see June 28, 2004). (Mariner 10/9/2006) It is widely reported that the MCA does not directly apply to US citizens, but to only non-citizens defined as "enemy combatants. (Cohen 10/19/2006) However, six months later, a Bush administration lawyer will confirm that the administration believes the law does indeed apply to US citizens (see February 1, 2007).
Sweeping New Executive Powers - The MCA virtually eliminates the possibility that the Supreme Court can ever again act as a check on a president's power in the war on terrorism. Similarly, the law gives Congressional approval to many of the executive powers previously, and unilaterally, seized by the Bush administration. Former Justice Department official John Yoo celebrates the MCA, writing, "Congress… told the courts, in effect, to get out of the war on terror" (see October 19, 2006). (Savage 2007, pp. 319, 322)
'Abandoning' Core 'Principles' - The bill passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, and the House by a 250-170 vote. The floor debate was often impassioned and highly partisan; House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called Democrats who opposed the bill "dangerous," and Senate Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said this bill showed that the US is losing its "moral compass." Leahy asked during the debate, "Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do, and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed?" Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) had said he would vote against it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face," but then voted for it, saying he believes the courts will eventually "clean it up." Specter's attempt to amend the bill to provide habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants was defeated, as were four Democratic amendments. Republicans have openly used the debate over the MCA as election-year fodder, with House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) saying after the vote that "House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists," and Boehner decrying "the Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies." Democrats such as Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) say they will not fight back at such a level. "There will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats, to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans," Obama says. "While I know all of this, I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed, because what we're doing here today—a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused—should be bigger than politics." (Babington and Weisman 10/19/2006) After winning the vote, Hastert accused Democrats who opposed the bill of "putting their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America." Hastert said the Democrats "would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans' lives" and create "new rights for terrorists." (New York Times 10/19/2006)
Enemy Combatants - The MCA applies only to "enemy combatants." Specifically, the law defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as a person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents," and who is not a lawful combatant. Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch says the definition far exceeds the traditionally accepted definition of combatant as someone who directly participates in hostilities. But under the MCA, someone who provides "material support" for terrorists—whether that be in the form of financial contributions or sweeping the floors at a terrorist camp—can be so defined. Worse, the label can be applied without recourse by either Bush or the secretary of defense, after a "competent tribunal" makes the determination. The MCA provides no guidelines as to what criteria these tribunals should use. Taken literally, the MCA gives virtually unrestricted power to the tribunals to apply the label as requested by the president or the secretary. Mariner believes the definition is both "blatantly unconstitutional" and a direct contradiction of centuries of Supreme Court decisions that define basic judicial rights. (Mariner 10/9/2006) Under this definition, the president can imprison, without charge or trial, any US citizen accused of donating money to a Middle East charity that the government believes is linked to terrorist activity. Citizens associated with "fringe" groups such as the left-wing Black Panthers or right-wing militias can be incarcerated without trial or charge. Citizens accused of helping domestic terrorists can be so imprisoned. Law professor Bruce Ackerman calls the MCA "a massive Congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants," and warns that the law may "haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack" by enabling a round of mass detentions similar to the roundup of Japanese-American citizens during World War II. (Savage 2007, pp. 322)
Military Commissions - The MCA mandates that enemy combatants are to be tried by military commissions, labeled "regularly constituted courts that afford all the necessary 'judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions." The commissions must have a minimum of five commissioned military officers and a military judge; if death is a possible penalty, the commissions must have at least 12 officers. The defendant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions require a two-thirds vote. Sentences of beyond 10 years require a three-quarters vote, and death penalties must be unanimously voted for. Defendants may either represent themselves or by military or civilian counsel. The court procedures themselves, although based on standard courts-martial proceedings, are fluid, and can be set or changed as the secretary of defense sees fit. Statements obtained through methods defined as torture are inadmissible, but statements take by coercion and "cruel treatment" can be admitted. The MCA sets the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 15, 2005) as a benchmark—statements obtained before the December 30, 2005 enactment of that law can be used, even if the defendant was "coerced," if a judge finds the statement "reasonable and possessing sufficient probative value." Statements after that date must have been taken during interrogations that fall under the DTA guidelines. Defendants have the right to examine and respond to evidence seen by the commission, a provision originally opposed by the administration. However, if the evidence is classified, an unclassified summary of that material is acceptable, and classified exculpatory evidence can be denied in lieu of what the MCA calls "acceptable substitutes." Hearsay evidence is admissible, as is evidence obtained without search warrants. Generally, defendants will not be allowed to inquire into the classified "sources, methods, or activities" surrounding evidence against them. Some human rights activists worry that evidence obtained through torture can be admitted, and the fact that it was obtained by torture, if that detail is classified, will not be presented to the court or preclude the evidence from being used. Public access to the commissions will be quite limited. Many experts claim these commissions are illegal both by US constitutional law and international law. (Mariner 10/9/2006)
Secret Courts - The military tribunals can be partially or completely closed to public scrutiny if the presiding judge deems such an action necessary to national security. The government can convey such concerns to the judge without the knowledge of the defense. The judge can exclude the accused from the trial if he deems it necessary for safety or if he decides the defendant is "disruptive." Evidence can be presented in secret, without the knowledge of the defense and without giving the defense a chance to examine that evidence, if the judge finds that evidence "reliable." And during the trial, the prosecution can at any time assert a "national security privilege" that would stop "the examination of any witness" if that witness shows signs of discussing sensitive security matters. This provision can easily be used to exclude any potential defense witness who might "breach national security" with their testimony. Author and investigative reporter Robert Parry writes, "In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel 'star chamber' system for the prosecution, imprisonment, and elimination of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic." (Parry 10/19/2006)
Appeals - Guilty verdicts are automatically appealed to a Court of Military Commission Review, consisting of three appellate military justices. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has extremely limited authority of review of the commissions; even its authority to judge whether a decision is consistent with the Constitution is limited "to the extent [that the Constitution is] applicable."
Types of Crimes - Twenty-eight specific crimes fall under the rubric of the military commissions, including conspiracy (not a traditional war crime), murder of protected persons, murder in violation of the bill of war, hostage-taking, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, rape, sexual abuse or assault, hijacking, terrorism, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. (Mariner 10/9/2006)
CIA Abuses - The MCA, responding to the recent Supreme Court decision of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006) that found the CIA's secret detention program and abusive interrogation practices illegal, redefines and amends the law to make all but the most pernicious interrogation practices, even those defined as torture by the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions, legal. The MCA actually rules that the Geneva Conventions are all but unenforceable in US courts. It also provides retroactive protection under the law to all actions as far back as November 1997. Under the MCA, practices such as waterboarding, stress positioning, and sleep deprivation cannot be construed as torture. (Mariner 10/9/2006) The MCA even states that rape as part of interrogations cannot be construed as torture unless the intent of the rapist to torture his victim can be proven, a standard rejected by international law. The MCA provides such a narrow definition of coercion and sexual abuse that most of the crimes perpetrated at Abu Ghraib are now legal. (Goodman 10/4/2006) Although the MCA seems to cover detainee abuse for all US agencies, including the CIA, Bush says during the signing of the bill, "This bill will allow the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its program for questioning key terrorist leaders and operatives." International law expert Scott Horton will note, "The administration wanted these prohibitions on the military and not on the CIA, but it did not work out that way." Apparently Bush intends to construe the law to exempt the CIA from its restrictions, such as they are, on torture and abuse of prisoners. (Benjamin 5/22/2007)
No Habeas Corpus Rights - Under the MCA, enemy combatants no longer have the right to file suit under the habeas corpus provision of US law. This means that they cannot challenge the legality of their detention, or raise claims of torture and mistreatment. Even detainees who have been released can never file suit to seek redress for their treatment while in US captivity. (Mariner 10/25/2006)
Retroactive Immunity - The administration added a provision to the MCA that rewrote the War Crimes Act retroactively to November 26, 1997, making any offenses considered war crimes before the MCA is adopted no longer punishable under US law. Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean will write in 2007 that the only reason he can fathom for the change is to protect administration officials—perhaps including President Bush himself—from any future prosecutions as war criminals. Dean will note that if the administration actually believes in the inherent and indisputable powers of the presidency, as it has long averred, then it would not worry about any such criminal liability. (Dean 2007, pp. 239-240)
Aziz Huq, an author and the director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, writes that the Protect America Act (PAA-see August 5, 2007) came about as a result of what he calls "the most recent example of the national security waltz, a three-step administration maneuver for taking defeat and turning it into victory." Step one is a court defeat for the administration, for example regarding detainees at Guantanamo (see June 28, 2004), or the overruling of military commissions in 2006 (see June 30, 2006). The second step, which comes weeks or months later, is an announcement that the ruling has created a security crisis and must be "remedied" through immediate legislation. The third and final step is the administration pushing legislation through Congress, such as the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 15, 2005) or the Military Commissions Act, that, Huq writes, "not only undoes the good court decision but also inflicts substantial damage to the infrastructure of accountability."
Step One: FISC Refuses to Approve NSA's Surveillance Program - In January 2007, the administration announced that it was submitting the NSA's domestic surveillance program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the secret court that issues FISA warrants for surveillance (see May 1, 2007). This was due to pending court cases threatening to rule the program in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment; the administration wanted to forestall, or at least sidestep, those upcoming rulings. In June, FISC refused to approve parts of the NSA program that involved monitoring overseas communications that passed through US telecom switches. Since a tremendous amount of overseas communications are routed through US networks, this ruling jeopardized the NSA's previous ability to wiretap such communications virtually at will without a warrant. The administration objected to the NSA having to secure such warrants.
Step Two: The Drumbeat Begins - Months later, the drumbeat for new legislation to give the NSA untrammeled rights to monitor "overseas" communications, which not only traveled through US networks, but often began or ended with US citizens, began with appearances in the right-wing media by administration supporters, where they insisted that the FISC ruling was seriously hampering the NSA's ability to garner much-needed intelligence on terrorist plots against the US. The White House and Congressional Republicans drafted legislation giving the NSA what it wanted, and presented it during the last week of the Congressional session, minimizing the time needed for scrutiny of the legislation as well as reducing the time available for meaningful debate.
Step Three: Passing a Law With Hidden Teeth - The legislation that would become the Protect America Act was carefully written by Bush officials, and would go much farther than giving the NSA the leeway it needed to wiretap US citizens. Instead, as Huq writes, "the Protect America Act is a dramatic, across-the-board expansion of government authority to collect information without judicial oversight." Democrats believed they had negotiated a deal with the administration's Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, to limit the law to addressing foreign surveillance wiretaps, but, Huq writes, "the White House torpedoed that deal and won a far broader law." The law removes any real accountability over domestic surveillance by either Congress or the judiciary. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi says that the PAA provides "unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure." The law is part of the administration's continual attempts to "eviscerat[e]" the checks and balances that form the foundation of US democracy.
Ramifications - The law includes the provision that warrantless surveillance can be "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." Huq writes that this is a tremendously broad and vague standard that allows "freewheeling surveillance of Americans' international calls and e-mails." He adds: "The problem lies in the words 'directed at.' Under this language, the NSA could decide to 'direct' its surveillance at Peshawar, Pakistan—and seize all US calls going to and from there.… Simply put, the law is an open-ended invitation to collect Americans' international calls and e-mails." The law does not impose any restrictions on the reason for surveillance. National security concerns are no longer the standard for implementing surveillance of communications. And the phrase "reasonably believe" is uncertain. The provisions for oversight are, Huq writes, "risibly weak." Surveillance need only be explained by presentations by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to FISC, which has little room to invalidate any surveillance, and furthermore will not be informed of any specific cases of surveillance. As for Congress, the Attorney General only need inform that body of "incidents of noncompliance" as reported by the administration. Congress must rely on the administration to police itself; it cannot demand particulars or examine documentation for itself. The law expires in six months, but, Huq notes, that deadline comes up in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, with all the pressures that entails. And the law allows "the NSA to continue wielding its new surveillance powers for up to a year afterward." The law, Huq writes, "does not enhance security-related surveillance powers. Rather, it allows the government to spy when there is no security justification. And it abandons all but the pretense of oversight." (Huq 8/7/2007)
President Bush has abused his prerogative to issue "signing statements" that state the White House's interpretion of Congressionally passed laws (see Early 2005), according to former White House counsel John Dean and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe.
History - Signing statements have no weight in law, but presidents have traditionally used them to state their belief that a particular legislative provision is unconstitutional, and on rare occasion (before the current president) to state their refusal to enforce that provision. Since Jimmy Carter's administration, various Justice Department officials have said presidents can refuse to enforce a particular provision of signed, legally binding legislation. (Dean 2007, pp. 112-116) A group of young conservative lawyers in the Reagan administration decided that signing statements were a powerful, and stealthy, way to expand presidential power.
Dean: Bush's Use of Signing Statements 'Extraordinary' - However, Dean says that Bush has used signing statements far more extensively than any president before him. Dean notes that, while presidential signing statements themselves are not illegal or inherently wrong, "[i]t is Bush's abuse of them that is extraordinary." Dean writes there has been no concerted effort to find out if Bush is just saying he will not comply with the inordinate number of legislative provisions he has objected to, or if he is refusing to comply with them in practice. If the latter is the case, Dean writes, "he should be impeached immediately… because it would be an extraordinary breach of his oath" of office.
Tribe: Bush's Signing Statements 'Bizarre,' 'Reckless' - Dean cites Tribe, who said in 2006, "[W]hat is new and distressing [about Bush's use of signing statements] is the bizarre, frighteningly self-serving, and constitutionally reckless character of those views—and the suspicion that the president either intends actually to act on them with some regularity, often in a manner that won't be publicly visible at the time, or intends them as declarations of hegemony and contempt for the coordinate branches—declarations that he hopes will gradually come to be accepted in the constitutional culture as descriptions of the legal and political landscape properly conceived and as precedents for later action either by his own or by future administrations." (Dean 2007, pp. 112-116; Green 2007) Political science professor Christopher Kelley agrees. Kelley, who studied the Bush administration's use of signing statements, says: "What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House. That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration."
Signing Statements Supplanting Vetoes - In another disturbing trend, according to author and reporter Charlie Savage, Bush is using signing statements to supplant the traditional presidential veto. By mid-2007, Bush had vetoed just two bills. In contrast, Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, vetoed 37 bills. George H. W. Bush vetoed 44, and Ronald Reagan vetoed 78. Legal experts studying Bush's signing statements conclude that Bush and his legal team are using signing statements to function almost as line-item vetoes, a power the president does not have. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the Founding Fathers wanted the president to either accept a Congressional bill or reject it entirely, and if Congress overrode the veto, then the president had no other recourse than to follow the new law. But now, Savage writes, "the Bush-Cheney administration had figured out that if a president signed a bill and then instructed the government to consider selected provisions null (see December 30, 2005), he could accomplish much the same thing. Moreover, it was an absolute power because, unlike when there is a regular veto, Congress had no opportunity to override his legal judgments." (Savage 2007, pp. 230-231)
In a blistering editorial, the New York Times lambasts both the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership in the Senate for allowing Michael Mukasey, the new attorney general, to slide through the confirmation process with so little challenge (see November 8, 2007). The only thing left in the Senate's traditional responsibility of "advice and consent" is the "consent" part, the editors write. The editorial continues: "Once upon a time, the confirmation of major presidential appointments played out on several levels—starting, of course, with politics. It was assumed that a president would choose like-minded people as cabinet members and for other jobs requiring Senate approval. There was a presumption that he should be allowed his choices, all other things being equal. Before George W. Bush's presidency, those other things actually counted. Was the nominee truly qualified, with a professional background worthy of the job? Would he discharge his duties fairly and honorably, upholding his oath to protect the Constitution? Even though [he or] she answers to the president, would the nominee represent all Americans? Would he or she respect the power of Congress to supervise the executive branch, and the power of the courts to enforce the rule of law? In less than seven years, Mr. Bush has managed to boil that list down to its least common denominator: the president should get his choices." The Times observes that in the first six years of Bush's rule, he had an enthusiastically compliant set of Republican allies in Congress, but during that time, minority Democrats "did almost nothing… to demand better nominees than Mr. Bush was sending up. And now that they have attained the majority, they are not doing any better." The editors focus particularly on two issues: Mukasey's refusal to answer straightforward questions on whether waterboarding is torture, and the Democrats' refusal to filibuster the Senate vote. The Times notes that Mukasey passed confirmation with a 53-40 vote. Democrats have made what the Times calls "excuses for their sorry record" on a host of issues, and first and foremost is the justification that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. "So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes?" the Times asks. "Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush." The editors do not accept the rationale of Mukasey supporters like Charles Schumer (D-NY), who argued that by not confirming Mukasey, the path would be clear for Bush to make an interim appointment of someone far more extreme. The Times calls this line of argument "cozy rationalization," and by Mukasey's refusal to answer questions about his position on waterboarding, he has already aligned himself with the extremist wing of the administration. For the record, the Times notes, "Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005), the Convention Against Torture (see October 21, 1994), and the Geneva Conventions." Therefore, "[i]t is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer 'yes.'" The Times speculates that Mukasey was not permitted to answer the question by the White House because a "no" answer "might subject federal officials who carried out Mr. Bush's orders to abuse and torture prisoners after the 9/11 attacks: the right answer could have exposed them to criminal sanctions." All in all, the Times is appalled by "the Senate giving the job of attorney general, chief law enforcement officer in the world's oldest democracy, to a man who does not even have the integrity to take a stand against torture." (New York Times 11/11/2007)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) replies to a letter from the Justice Department that claims the CIA's detainee interrogation program is fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions and with US and international law (see September 27, 2007). Wyden challenges the legal rationale for the claims, noting that the cases cited do not directly apply to the question of whether the definitions of "humane treatment" and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" can vary depending on the identity of the detainee and the circumstances surrounding his interrogation. He also challenges the Justice Department's rather narrow interpretation of the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment and the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005). (US Senate 3/6/2008 )
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the presumptive Republican nominee for president, urges President Bush to veto an upcoming bill prohibiting waterboarding and other extreme methods of interrogation after himself voting against the bill. The bill passes the Senate on a largely partisan 51-45 vote. It has already passed the House on a similar party-line vote, and Bush has already announced his intention to veto the bill. McCain has won a reputation as an advocate of prisoner rights and a staunch opponent of torture; his five-year stint as a POW in North Vietnam is well-known. But McCain voted against the legislation when it came up for a vote in the Senate, and he opposes the bill now. McCain says he is opposed to waterboarding, but does not want the CIA restricted to following the practices outlined in the US Army Field Manual, as the legislation would require. McCain says: "I knew I would be criticized for it. I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture. "I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture. McCain has said he believes waterboarding is already prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (see December 30, 2005). And CIA director Michael Hayden has said that current law may well prohibit waterboarding; he claims to have stopped CIA agents from waterboarding detainees in 2006, and also claims that the technique was not used later than 2003. McCain's Senate colleague, Charles Schumer (D-NY) says that if Bush vetoes the bill, then he in essence "will be voting in favor of waterboarding." (Herszenhorn 2/13/2008; Quaid 2/21/2008) Bush will indeed veto the bill (see March 8, 2008).
John Yoo, the former Bush administration legal adviser who authored numerous opinions on the legality of torture, detentions without legal representation, and warrantless wiretapping (see November 6-10, 2001, December 28, 2001, January 9, 2002, August 1, 2002, and August 1, 2002, among others), writes an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal opposing the Obama administration's intent to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility (see January 20, 2009 and January 22, 2009)) and restrict the CIA's ability to torture detainees (see January 22, 2009). Yoo, now a law professor and a member of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, writes that while President Obama's decision "will please his base" and ease the objections to the Bush "imperial presidency," it will "also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks." Yoo writes that the Obama decisions mark a return "to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001." Yoo recommends that Obama stay with what he calls "the Bush system" of handling terror suspects. Yoo fails to note that the US law enforcement system prevented, among others, the "millennium bombing" plot (see December 14, 1999), the plot to bomb New York City's Lincoln and Holland Tunnels (see June 24, 1993), and Operation Bojinka (see January 6, 1995).
Obama Needs to be Able to Torture Prisoners Just as Bush Did, Yoo Declares - And by eschewing torture, Obama is giving up any chance on forcing information from "the most valuable sources of intelligence on al-Qaeda" currently in American custody. The Bush administration policies prevented subsequent terrorist attacks on the US, Yoo contends, and Obama will need the same widespread latitude to interrogate and torture prisoners that Bush employed: "What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al-Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)" It is noteworthy that Yoo refused to confirm that Bush ordered waterboarding of suspects during his previous Congressional hearings (see June 26, 2008).
Interrogations Must be 'Polite' - According to Yoo, in forcing the CIA and other US interrogators to follow the procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual, they can no longer use "coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America.… His new order amounts to requiring—on penalty of prosecution—that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country." (Yoo 1/29/2009) Yoo is incorrect in this assertion. The Army Field Manual explicitly countenances many of the "coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines" Yoo says it bans. Further, the Field Manual says nothing about requiring interrogators to be "polite." (Army 9/2006) And actual field interrogators such as the Army's Matthew Alexander have repeatedly said that torturing prisoners is ineffective and counterproductive, while building relationships and treating prisoners with dignity during interrogations produces usable, reliable intelligence (see November 30, 2008).
Shutting Down Military Commissions - Obama's order to stay all military commission trials and to review the case of "enemy combatant" Ali Saleh al-Marri (see June 23, 2003) is also mistaken, Yoo writes. Yoo fears that Obama will shut down the military commissions in their entirety and instead transfer detainees charged with terrorist acts into the US civilian court system. He also objects to Obama's apparent intent to declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, instead of following the Bush precedent of classifying terrorists "like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war." To allow terror suspects to have rights under Geneva and the US legal system, Yoo asserts, will stop any possibility of obtaining information from those suspects. Instead, those suspects will begin using the legal system to their own advantage—refusing to talk, insisting on legal representation and speedy trials instead of cooperating with their interrogators. "Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court," Yoo writes. (Yoo 1/29/2009) In reality, the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006), as well as the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 15, 2005) and the Military Commissions Act (see October 17, 2006), all mandate that detainees must be handled according to the Geneva Conventions.
Risk to Americans - Another effect of transferring detainees into the civilian justice system, Yoo claims, is to allow "our enemies to obtain intelligence on us." Defense lawyers will insist on revealing US intelligence—information and methods—in open court, and will no doubt force prosecutors to accept plea bargains "rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets."
Obama 'Open[ed] the Door to Further Terrorist Acts on US Soil' - Obama said in his inaugural speech that the US must "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Yoo calls that statement "naive," and writes, "That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al-Qaeda—a hardened enemy committed to our destruction—the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats." By making his choices, Yoo writes, "Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on US soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses." (Yoo 1/29/2009)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), a likely candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential candidacy, refuses to say whether waterboarding is or is not torture. Interviewed on Fox News, Gingrich calls the release of the four Bush-era Justice Department memos authorizing and defending torture (see April 16, 2009) "a big mistake," but adds, "I want to see the United States run the risk, at times, of not learning certain things in order to establish a standard for civilization." When asked if waterboarding is torture, Gingrich refuses to give a straight answer. "I think it's something we shouldn't do," he says, but then adds: "Lawyers I respect a great deal say it is absolutely within the law. Other lawyers say it absolutely is not. I mean, this is a debatable area." When asked if waterboarding violates the Geneva Conventions, Gingrich again demurs, saying, "I honestly don't know." He then says, "I think—I think that there—I am exactly where Senator [John] McCain was." McCain has long opposed the use of torture (see July 24, 2005 and After, October 1, 2005, November 21, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 15, 2005, and April 20, 2009). (Khanna 4/26/2004)
Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain (R-AZ), a strong opponent of torture (see July 24, 2005 and After, October 1, 2005, November 21, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 15, 2005, and April 20, 2009), says that the US must "move on" from the Bush era of torture and not investigate the Bush administration's torture policies. McCain refuses to support Democratic calls to impeach former Justice Department official Jay Bybee, who authored several of the torture memos (see August 1, 2002 and August 1, 2002), even as he acknowledges Bybee broke the law. McCain says: "He falls into the same category as everybody else as far as giving very bad advice and misinterpreting, fundamentally, what the United States is all about, much less things like the Geneva Conventions. Look, under President Reagan we signed an agreement against torture. We were in violation of that." McCain says that "no one has alleged, quote, wrongdoing" on the part of Bush officials such as Bybee, saying only that they gave "bad advice" to Bush and other senior officials. (Frick 4/26/2009)
Home | About | Timelines | Forum | Development | Donate | Contact
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike


text:
For over a year now we've been working on a mod manager to replace the ailing Nexus Mod Manager. The premise was simple, attempt to combine the simplicity of the Nexus Mod Manager with the advanced functionality of Mod Organizer and create something that is accessible to all types of modders. Back in May of 2017 we named this replacement "Vortex" and we aimed for a January 2018 release date.
With that in mind, the full release of Vortex is almost upon us. To give us a bit more time to polish things up (more on the web side than the application side) we're aiming for a full unlimited alpha release of Vortex on the week starting the 12th of February.
In the meantime, we would really like to do some limited testing of our software and do a small stress test of our brand new online API service. So today, Wednesday the 31st, we will be doing a very limited release of Vortex of around 1,000 users. I plan to spread out the release through the day to try and give a chance to people from different time zones, likely opening up downloads to 200 unique users every 3 hours or so from midday GMT until I go to bed.
After discussing this at length with Tannin and the web programmers we felt a limited release over the next couple of weeks would be the most beneficial for us, allowing us to test our all new API functionality in a controlled environment in an attempt to avert the issues of the past where we inadvertently managed to DDoS our own servers with NMM releases, while also providing additional feedback for Tannin on the software side.
Vortex will be offered up for download in our mod database as its own file page. It will be left visible until 200 unique downloads have been reached, then we'll hide it again for 3 hours before making it available to a further 200 unique downloads. And so on, and so forth.
For this limited release, you will only be able to use Vortex if you first login to the software and we will be limiting the number of users who can login to Vortex via our API so even if the Vortex installer gets shared elsewhere on the internet, we'll still only allow a limited number of users to access the online services Vortex provides. This limitation will not be in the full unlimited release in two weeks time and you will be able to use Vortex without first having to login in at that point.
You should never trust any download links provided for our software anywhere other than on Nexus Mods, so if you see Vortex on other sites I highly recommend you don't install it. Not just because you're potentially inconveniencing us (and the community) by overloading our services, but also because you cannot trust the file is safe to use.
We'll also know who is using the service without downloading it from Nexus Mods, as we can correlate our download information with API logins on the site. If you're logging in but the download stats show you haven't downloaded Vortex from Nexus Mods then you've been naughty!
With the full unlimited alpha release of Vortex less than two weeks away I please ask that you think of the community, and us, and only download Vortex if you're legitimately going to use it and test it extensively over the next two weeks. If you're not going to get around to doing that within two weeks, and you're not willing to troubleshoot potential issues both with the software and with your mod setups, then please just wait! If we can get 1,000 users who thoroughly use Vortex it will provide us with an invaluable source of feedback that will mean we can improve and iterate on the software, to the benefit of everyone, that much quicker. Thank you for your understanding.
Before you enter into this process please have a think about the type of user you are and whether being a first adopter of the software is right for you, and us.
Most importantly, this is alpha software. As such, our advice would be to try out Vortex, attempt to get it setup and working with your games, but do not switch over from your usual day-to-day modding setup straight away. If you're not comfortable with this or you're chomping at the bit to switch over completely, the software likely isn't ready for your use type and we do not recommend downloading Vortex until we do the full unlimited alpha release and you see the feedback coming from other users.
Vortex installs as a separate application on your computer. Any existing installations and setups you have of NMM and/or MO will not be affected by you installing and using Vortex. The only thing that will be affected is how NXM (download) links are handled on the site, e.g. what application starts and downloads files when you click the "Download with manager" button on the site.
Vortex includes an "Import from NMM" functionality that will attempt to copy your mod setup from NMM. This is non-destructive and will not impact your NMM setup. Because of the (now) archaic way that NMM handles files in the data folder, we recommend disabling any mods you have installed in NMM (or switching to an empty profile, that will in turn clear up any files NMM has placed in your game data folder) if your import to Vortex is successful. This is because Vortex and NMM both try to keep track of which files they've installed, and using multiple modding tools for the same game at the same time makes that difficult. If you need to revert back to NMM, you can simply disable Vortex and reapply your NMM profile to return your setup to how it was before.
As always, please backup your current modding setups in case the worst happens. Ensure you create a safe copy of your mod installations somewhere else so that you can restore from this backup in case of a problem.
Even though the file page has been added to Skyrim Special Edition Nexus, the software currently supports 28 different games and we are looking for as much feedback on how Vortex works with all of these games. The games are:
- Breaking Wheel
- Dark Souls
- Dark Souls 2
- Dragon Age
- Dragone Age 2
- Dragon's Dogma
- Factorio
- Fallout 3
- Fallout 4 VR
- Fallout 4
- Fallout: New Vegas
- Legend of Grimrock
- Morrowind
- No Man's Sky
- Oblivion
- The Sims 3
- The Sims 4
- Skyrim
- Skyrim Special Edition
- Starbound
- State of Decay
- The Elder Scrolls Online
- War Thunder
- The Witcher 2
- The Witcher 3
- World of Tanks
- X: Rebirth
We appreciate the patience most of you have shown over the past 18 months and hope we can hit the ground running with our official alpha release of Vortex in a couple of week's time. We're extremely happy with how the software has shaped up and its potential for the future, and we hope once you get to use it properly, you will be too.
When Vortex is available for download during this limited test run, it will be found on this page. We have also opened a new Vortex forum for users to discuss the software.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bren2010 wrote:Two words: file headers. If you've ever downloaded an mp3, in the headers it has the artist, album name, composers, etc.
Not always needed. I right now I can record any song playing on the radio simply by hitting record. I was just saying that rebroadcasting the same thing twice was kinda unnecessary.


text:
Here you can post titles or links of songs and musical tracks you enjoy listening to while playing Space Engine, or really emphasize the atmosphere and feel of Space Engine. Who knows; Maybe some will be added to the game!
I have a few songs in mind already, but this is a recent one I found today. I think it's really nice with it's ambiance.


text: Think of this as an online mix tape, designed to help you create a relationship with new music. A site that is less about opinion, more about listening, and focused on artists coming to town and their new releases. Like what you hear? Support the artists! Buy their music, attend a show, or both.


text:
Latif Yahia, an Iraqi exile who claims he was forced to become the body double of dictator Saddam Hussein's playboy son Uday, says he is "in a legal limbo" as his fight to secure an Irish citizenship enters its 11th year.
The former army captain is married to an Irish woman, and has an Irish child but despite this his application for Irish citizenship has been rejected twice already, according to The Belfast Telegraph.
Yahia has been waiting for more than five years for a decision on his application, which is his third citizenship application.
He was involved in the 2011 movie, 'The Devil's Double', about his experience as a "fidi" or body double, which were widely used by Saddam's regime. The 2011 movie starred British actor Dominic Cooper, who won critical acclaim for his portrayal of both Mr Yahia and Uday, Saddam's sadistic eldest son.
Yahia said that he finds it "hurtful and humiliating" that he has not yet received a decision and claims he has not been given a proper reason as to why his citizenship is being refused. He believes he has been refused because of an alleged claim, passed from the CIA to Special Branch, that he is an international arms dealer - a claim he dismisses.
READ MORE: Irish immigration
"Not knowing why is like a thorn in my brain," said Mr Yahia, who says that he cannot accept citizenship in another country until he knows why he has been refused the privilege here.
Yahia, an outspoken blogger, also believes he is being blocked by the authorities after criticising former Justice Minister Michael McDowell.
"I am not looking for sympathy, just a decision," said Mr Yahia, speaking from Belgium, where he is finalising a documentary, 'I Was Saddam's Son', which is due to be shown at the LA and Cannes film festivals.
"Even if he (the minister) refuses me, I will be thankful, at least it would be an answer," said Mr Yahia.
According to The Belfast Telegraph, Mr Yahia said that his life had been made difficult "in many ways" because not having an Irish citizenship meant that he was unable to travel to America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand to promote his movie.
Justice Minister Alan Shatter, who has absolute discretion whether to grant a certificate of naturalisation, is currently reviewing Ireland's citizenship regime after a Syrian lawyer won a Supreme Court appeal last December over a decision to refuse him Irish citizenship.
"If I had known then what I know about the West I would have stayed in Baghdad and taken a bullet from Uday Hussein," he said after explaining that he had lost faith in Western justice.
"At least I would have been buried in my country beside my family. If I die tomorrow here in Ireland, I will be a foreigner buried on foreign soil."
The minister's department does not comment on individual cases, according to The Belfast Telegraph.