Comments on: Congress, courts need to question signing statements http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/ The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:52 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: fleettwood http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55851 fleettwood Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:34:01 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55851 "“raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,”" Oh, brother. No exaggeration or nothin'. I say let the courts decide. All this whining about nothing. "Well said and scary!"This about sums you people up pretty well. Bush- scary! Global Warming - scary! Guns - scary. Terrorists - our friends. ““raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,””

Oh, brother. No exaggeration or nothin’. I say let the courts decide. All this whining about nothing.

“Well said and scary!”This about sums you people up pretty well. Bush- scary! Global Warming – scary! Guns – scary. Terrorists – our friends.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55849 Rage Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:48:35 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55849 Thanks, G! Thanks, G!

]]> By: gster http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55847 gster Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:44:45 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55847 Rage- Well said and scary! I don't have much use for liars or lawyers, or however it's spelled, but in this case, I would have far more faith in the ABA than Bush and his band of backroom thugs!! Our Democracy is at grave risk. Rage- Well said and scary! I don’t have much use for liars or lawyers, or however it’s spelled, but in this case, I would have far more faith in the ABA than Bush and his band of backroom thugs!! Our Democracy is at grave risk.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55845 Rage Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:38:17 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55845 Ah, long tiring day. Feel free to make fun of the typos. :) Ah, long tiring day. Feel free to make fun of the typos. :)

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55844 Rage Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:30:49 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55844 Paul,From the link that Rhonda posted (and you apparently didn't read):"While the White House has asserted that it only expresses reservations, the ABA has cited examples in which Bush has indicated his intentions not to follow provisions in: A bill requiring a report to Congress on the use of the USA Patriot Act to secretly search homes or seize private papers. The 'McCain amendment' forbidding any U.S. official from torturing a prisoner. While the administration insists it does not condone torture, the president's signing statement in December reserved the right to waive the torture ban if harsh interrogation might advance anti-terrorism efforts. The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 requiring regular reports to Congress. The signing statement called that requirement 'advisory' {An 'advisory law??!! --Rage} and asserted that it 'would be construed in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to withhold information' that could impair foreign relations or national security if released." The Boston Globe story (to which I linked) gave more specific examples of the wording of these statements. There is absolutely no question that they are using these statements to try to override and/or ignore laws they don't like. It may shock you to think about this, but the Legislative branch writes the laws, and the Executive branch is responsible for executive them. Oh, and by the way:From Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:". . .he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . ." To which I also linked. . . And by the way, when you claim "constitutional authority" for a president's actions, asked how the Constitution authorizes it is as about as basic and obvious a question as it gets. Paul,From the link that Rhonda posted (and you apparently didn’t read):”While the White House has asserted that it only expresses reservations, the ABA has cited examples in which Bush has indicated his intentions not to follow provisions in: A bill requiring a report to Congress on the use of the USA Patriot Act to secretly search homes or seize private papers. The ‘McCain amendment’ forbidding any U.S. official from torturing a prisoner. While the administration insists it does not condone torture, the president’s signing statement in December reserved the right to waive the torture ban if harsh interrogation might advance anti-terrorism efforts. The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 requiring regular reports to Congress. The signing statement called that requirement ‘advisory’ {An ‘advisory law??!! –Rage} and asserted that it ‘would be construed in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to withhold information’ that could impair foreign relations or national security if released.”

The Boston Globe story (to which I linked) gave more specific examples of the wording of these statements. There is absolutely no question that they are using these statements to try to override and/or ignore laws they don’t like.

It may shock you to think about this, but the Legislative branch writes the laws, and the Executive branch is responsible for executive them.

Oh, and by the way:From Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution:”. . .he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . .”

To which I also linked. . .

And by the way, when you claim “constitutional authority” for a president’s actions, asked how the Constitution authorizes it is as about as basic and obvious a question as it gets.

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55842 Paul F. Rosell Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:54:57 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55842 Rage,You still haven't proven that Bush is not allowed to make Constitutional points and reservations through signing statements.You can quote and paste and reference all you want, but you are claiming that Bush is doing something wrong.You have not proven your case at all.What exactly is the President doing that you are convinced he does not have the power to do?You yourself are being rather vague.You have yet to quote a signing statement and tell me what is illegal or even questionable about that statement.I would say that you, Sir, are the evasive one here. Rage,You still haven’t proven that Bush is not allowed to make Constitutional points and reservations through signing statements.You can quote and paste and reference all you want, but you are claiming that Bush is doing something wrong.You have not proven your case at all.What exactly is the President doing that you are convinced he does not have the power to do?You yourself are being rather vague.You have yet to quote a signing statement and tell me what is illegal or even questionable about that statement.I would say that you, Sir, are the evasive one here.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55840 Rage Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:35:22 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55840 I guess that's the closest thing to an answer I'm going to get.By the way, here's the Griswold case (ya know, the one you were blindly kinda-sorta citing to desperately excuse your own incompetence?): <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479</a> Agree or disagree, Douglas makes a pretty good argument. You've yet to do anything even close; All you do is make bald assertions. When you're called on them, you're consistenly evasive; you bob, duck, weave, and misdirect. Interesting how the relevant provisions of a Constitution that "clearly specifies duties for each branch" suddenly became too unclear to specify. This is no longer even entertaining. Yawn! I guess that’s the closest thing to an answer I’m going to get.By the way, here’s the Griswold case (ya know, the one you were blindly kinda-sorta citing to desperately excuse your own incompetence?):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=381&invol=479

Agree or disagree, Douglas makes a pretty good argument. You’ve yet to do anything even close; All you do is make bald assertions. When you’re called on them, you’re consistenly evasive; you bob, duck, weave, and misdirect.

Interesting how the relevant provisions of a Constitution that “clearly specifies duties for each branch” suddenly became too unclear to specify.

This is no longer even entertaining. Yawn!

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55838 Paul F. Rosell Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:37:51 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55838 The Constitution says nothing about political parties, abortion, gay marriage or any number of things.I find the right of the President to assert his authority in signing statement in "emanations from the penumbra" lol. The Constitution says nothing about political parties, abortion, gay marriage or any number of things.I find the right of the President to assert his authority in signing statement in “emanations from the penumbra” lol.

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55836 Paul F. Rosell Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:32:50 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55836 Rage;The burden of proof is on you.Show me where the Constitution states that the President CAN'T assert Constitutional exceptions in his signing statements?By the way, even if Bush quit using the signing statements to assert his authority, his Constitutional authority over National Security issues would still trump any legislation. Rage;The burden of proof is on you.Show me where the Constitution states that the President CAN’T assert Constitutional exceptions in his signing statements?By the way, even if Bush quit using the signing statements to assert his authority, his Constitutional authority over National Security issues would still trump any legislation.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55834 Rage Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:10:01 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55834 "The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts." Uh oh, look out, the Constitution's on the loose! Mere human beings don't stand a chance! Well, silly me, Paul, for thinking an inaminate object can't run the country. Please inform the Constitution it needs to wake up and assume its duties, because otherwise your scheme hands all those powers to the Executive branch. And you still haven't answered my question. Where in the Constitution is there any support for what you're saying? I even gave you a handy link to Article II. I suspect such issues are beyond your comprehension. “The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts.”

Uh oh, look out, the Constitution’s on the loose! Mere human beings don’t stand a chance!

Well, silly me, Paul, for thinking an inaminate object can’t run the country. Please inform the Constitution it needs to wake up and assume its duties, because otherwise your scheme hands all those powers to the Executive branch.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Where in the Constitution is there any support for what you’re saying? I even gave you a handy link to Article II.

I suspect such issues are beyond your comprehension.

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55833 Paul F. Rosell Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:35:35 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55833 The President does not even have the power to limit Presidential authority granted by the Constitution. By using "signing statements" the President might actually be protecting some legislation from being ruled "unconstitutional" since the signing statement clearly spells out that the President reserves constitutional authority over the matter.The "signing statements" dont ever say "I dont want to enforce this" they instead make clear that there are circumstances where Constitutional powers override legislation.If I see smoke comming out of the window of a house, I am free to kick the front door in and attempt to rescue those inside. I will not be charged for vandalism or breaking and entering. I also can't get sued, in Kansas, for rendering First Aid.Likewise, circumstances may arrise where legislation takes a back seat the the Constitutional Power of a President.To use the "torture" arguement, for instance: If someone planted an atomic bomb in the middle of Washington D.C. and we knew we had the guy in custody who planted it, I would not be opposed to torture to discover the location of that bomb.I believe that any President worth his weight would pardon anyone who was able to successfully obtain that information, which would save millions of lives.Of course, if that "torturer" was not successful, he or she might die anyway, from the nuclear blast. To me, that assures that torture will be considered in such an instance.The signing statement itself simply reminds Congress and the Courts and future Administrations that there are Constitutional exceptions to legislated law.The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts.By the way, The President, as well as Congress, do not swear an oath to the Supreme Court.Instead, elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution.The Courts have made several mistakes, Dred Scott perhaps being one we can all agree upon.The President is asserting his Constitutional Powers through signing statements. The President has a duty to assert his authority.The Congress is asserting its right to check and balance the Courts through Article III jurisdiction limitations.All of this is good. The President does not even have the power to limit Presidential authority granted by the Constitution. By using “signing statements” the President might actually be protecting some legislation from being ruled “unconstitutional” since the signing statement clearly spells out that the President reserves constitutional authority over the matter.The “signing statements” dont ever say “I dont want to enforce this” they instead make clear that there are circumstances where Constitutional powers override legislation.If I see smoke comming out of the window of a house, I am free to kick the front door in and attempt to rescue those inside. I will not be charged for vandalism or breaking and entering. I also can’t get sued, in Kansas, for rendering First Aid.Likewise, circumstances may arrise where legislation takes a back seat the the Constitutional Power of a President.To use the “torture” arguement, for instance: If someone planted an atomic bomb in the middle of Washington D.C. and we knew we had the guy in custody who planted it, I would not be opposed to torture to discover the location of that bomb.I believe that any President worth his weight would pardon anyone who was able to successfully obtain that information, which would save millions of lives.Of course, if that “torturer” was not successful, he or she might die anyway, from the nuclear blast. To me, that assures that torture will be considered in such an instance.The signing statement itself simply reminds Congress and the Courts and future Administrations that there are Constitutional exceptions to legislated law.The Constitution TRUMPS Congress and the Courts.By the way, The President, as well as Congress, do not swear an oath to the Supreme Court.Instead, elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution.The Courts have made several mistakes, Dred Scott perhaps being one we can all agree upon.The President is asserting his Constitutional Powers through signing statements. The President has a duty to assert his authority.The Congress is asserting its right to check and balance the Courts through Article III jurisdiction limitations.All of this is good.

]]> By: ksfarmgrrl http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55831 ksfarmgrrl Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:30:10 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55831 I thought they wanted to DESTROY the courts, not control them? Now they just want to control them? No wonder they call it republican spin. It must make them dizzy too. A few court decisions the r's disagree with = all court decisions are bad. Bad decisions = destroy the court destroy the court = king george Got it! I thought they wanted to DESTROY the courts, not control them?

Now they just want to control them?

No wonder they call it republican spin. It must make them dizzy too.

A few court decisions the r’s disagree with = all court decisions are bad.

Bad decisions = destroy the court

destroy the court = king george

Got it!

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55829 Rage Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:17:24 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55829 BTW, Paul, you just undermined your own argument. When there is a conflict between administrative interpretion and legislative intent, legislative intent invariably wins. At least until you succeed in completely stacking the courts with monarchists. BTW, Paul, you just undermined your own argument. When there is a conflict between administrative interpretion and legislative intent, legislative intent invariably wins.

At least until you succeed in completely stacking the courts with monarchists.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55827 Rage Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:11:38 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55827 "Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch." Uhm, right, Paul, but you seem allergic to specifics. MY reading of the Constitution doesn't support what you're saying. Is it so tough to cite the appropriate sections, if you think it's so cut-and-dried? Here, I'll even help. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii</a> Knock yerself out. “Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch.”

Uhm, right, Paul, but you seem allergic to specifics. MY reading of the Constitution doesn’t support what you’re saying.

Is it so tough to cite the appropriate sections, if you think it’s so cut-and-dried?

Here, I’ll even help.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleii

Knock yerself out.

]]> By: TRACY http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55826 TRACY Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:58:06 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55826 Wow Paulie, you mean there's something left that Georgie ain't been accused of? No wonder you like him so much.There's still an immoral/illegal act he hasn't done yet. You neo-cons have no argument here. Wow Paulie, you mean there’s something left that Georgie ain’t been accused of?

No wonder you like him so much.There’s still an immoral/illegal act he hasn’t done yet.

You neo-cons have no argument here.

]]> By: gster http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55824 gster Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:54:40 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55824 So we have some form of an elected monarchy? I don't think the founding fathers had that in mind! So we have some form of an elected monarchy? I don’t think the founding fathers had that in mind!

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55822 Paul F. Rosell Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:50:23 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55822 Clinton Did obtain the FBI files of his enemies, I dont recall Bush being accused of such a thing.Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch.No legislation can change the constituitional delegation and division of powers.Since the Courts routinely take a look at "congressional intent" --- meaning the debates in Congress --- when trying to determine exactly what some archaine law might mean, it is only natural that the Courts might also want to know the Presidents INTENT when signing the bill into law.You libs have no argument here.This is a non issue. Clinton Did obtain the FBI files of his enemies, I dont recall Bush being accused of such a thing.Also, Rage, the Constitution clearly specifies duties for each branch.No legislation can change the constituitional delegation and division of powers.Since the Courts routinely take a look at “congressional intent” — meaning the debates in Congress — when trying to determine exactly what some archaine law might mean, it is only natural that the Courts might also want to know the Presidents INTENT when signing the bill into law.You libs have no argument here.This is a non issue.

]]> By: Ed Friedemann http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55820 Ed Friedemann Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:28:44 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55820 Bush and Israel have no idea what they've started........."no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens" Abdullah Warns of Mideast War RiskArab News Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah receives Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the Al-Baha airport on Tuesday. (SPA)JEDDAH, 26 July 2006 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah called yesterday for the international community to press for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, warning that the crisis could drag the whole region into a war with no foreseeable results. “Patience cannot last forever and if the brutal Israeli military forces continue their killings and destruction, no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens,” said the Royal Court statement quoting the king. “The Kingdom also warns everyone that if the peace option is dropped owing to Israeli arrogance there would remain nothing but the option of war, and Allah alone knows what the region would witness in a war that would not spare anyone,” said the statement, released by the Saudi Press Agency. The statement continued: “The Arabs have earlier made public their strategic option for peace and submitted a fair and clear program involving the return of the occupied Arab territories for peace. However the world refused to respond because of the (Israeli) instigation.” The statement once again appealed to the United Nations “and to the United States in particular” to strive for a cessation of violence. The king highlighted his country's efforts to win a cease-fire, such as sending Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal and National Security Council Secretary-General Prince Bandar “to meet the US president in Washington in order to convey to him the Kingdom's view.” The king's stance on the Middle East crisis was lauded by people who said the time was right for diplomacy to succeed. Meanwhile, the king paused his tour of Al-Baha region yesterday to meet there with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in order to discuss the crisis. The two leaders met at Al-Baha's scenic Raghdan forest camp where the king hosted a lunch in Mubarak's honor. The two men discussed the developments in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and ways to expand the existing cooperation between the two countries. The king also announced yesterday aid and assistance to Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority totaling $1.75 billion, the Saudi Press Agency reported. One billion dollars will go directly to Lebanon's Central Bank to help stabilize the country's economy while $500 million will be earmarked for reconstruction. The Palestinians will receive $250 million. “The Kingdom has been shouldering the responsibility put on it by religious and national obligations toward the region to avert the consequences of the happenings in Lebanon and occupied Palestine,” said the royal statement. “The Kingdom has also strived since the first moment to stop the hostilities and has acted in various ways to persuade the international community to force Israel to a cease-fire,” it added. The royal statement also alluded to the public donation campaign that kicks off today to raise money to increase aid to Lebanon and the Palestinians. In London, Prince Saud said after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “I think we both agree that the real solution is to have Lebanon regain its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” “For that to happen there must be a first step, which is a cease-fire to stop the bombing that is happening.” Asked what he thought of the British support for the US position on the conflict, he replied: “I hope the support will be for the Lebanese people. This is what we are urging. The crisis is Lebanon's crisis, not Britain's or Saudi Arabia's or America's crisis.” Later Prince Saud and Prince Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to convey a message from King Abdullah on the present crisis. President Putin expressed his confidence that the efforts by the Kingdom, Russia and other parties will find an acceptable solution to the crisis. London-based Middle East analyst Mushtak Parker told Arab News yesterday that the king's statement would add to the pressure on Israel to stop hostilities. “King Abdullah rightly felt that if Israel's barbaric aggression was allowed to go on like this, the region would sleepwalk into a disaster,” said Parker. “What Israel is doing is reprehensible and there is no moral equivalent for it. You cannot kill an entire family and tell its only surviving member, 'Sorry, your family has been sacrificed to the war on terror.' The Israeli stance was hollow right from the start.” Parker also said that Israel's condition of not talking to Hezbollah was “idiotic”. “There have been instances where warring parties have talked to each other in search of a solution,” he said. “For example, West Germany was talking to East Germany at the height of the Cold War. Even today, the international community and South Korea are engaged in negotiations with the North Koreans. Basically, Israel is not interested in any peace.” Parker said the king's generous donation would bolster reconstruction once a cease-fire is in place. “The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and other institutions should immediately come forward to help in this reconstruction effort,” he said. Dr. Khaled Batarfi, managing editor of Al-Madinah Arabic daily, said he was happy at the position taken by the king. “I liked what he said, especially the part about Arabs no longer accepting to be on the receiving end while Israel lives in prosperity,” said Dr. Batarfi. “The king rightly mentioned that the flames of war that Israel ignited will eventually blow back and consume it.” Samar Fatany, a Jeddah-based radio journalist, said she was not surprised by the king's statement. “This is what we expected from our beloved king,” she said. “We were confident that he would not continue to be silent about what was happening in Lebanon. I am sure the outside world now knows Saudi Arabia's firm stance on the conflict. Israeli barbarity should stop.” Fatany said Saudi Arabia generally is guarded in its response to any crisis. “This is just the Saudi way of diplomacy,” said Fatany. “It should in no way create doubts in anyone's mind about the Kingdom's resolve in this matter. We are with Lebanon.” In Beirut, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said that the deposit of $1 billion with the central bank was to “strengthen reserves in a bid to back the government's efforts to consolidate the stability of the national currency.” He said Saudi individuals and institutions, both public and private, had also made significant donations. <a href="http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85870&d=26&m=7&y=2006" rel="nofollow">http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85870&d=26&m=7&y=2006</a> Bush and Israel have no idea what they’ve started………”no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens”

Abdullah Warns of Mideast War RiskArab News
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah receives Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at the Al-Baha airport on Tuesday. (SPA)JEDDAH, 26 July 2006 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah called yesterday for the international community to press for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, warning that the crisis could drag the whole region into a war with no foreseeable results.

“Patience cannot last forever and if the brutal Israeli military forces continue their killings and destruction, no one can foresee what may happen and no regret will be of any use when the forbidden happens,” said the Royal Court statement quoting the king.

“The Kingdom also warns everyone that if the peace option is dropped owing to Israeli arrogance there would remain nothing but the option of war, and Allah alone knows what the region would witness in a war that would not spare anyone,” said the statement, released by the Saudi Press Agency.

The statement continued: “The Arabs have earlier made public their strategic option for peace and submitted a fair and clear program involving the return of the occupied Arab territories for peace. However the world refused to respond because of the (Israeli) instigation.”

The statement once again appealed to the United Nations “and to the United States in particular” to strive for a cessation of violence.

The king highlighted his country’s efforts to win a cease-fire, such as sending Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal and National Security Council Secretary-General Prince Bandar “to meet the US president in Washington in order to convey to him the Kingdom’s view.”

The king’s stance on the Middle East crisis was lauded by people who said the time was right for diplomacy to succeed.

Meanwhile, the king paused his tour of Al-Baha region yesterday to meet there with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in order to discuss the crisis. The two leaders met at Al-Baha’s scenic Raghdan forest camp where the king hosted a lunch in Mubarak’s honor.

The two men discussed the developments in the Arab, Islamic and international arenas and ways to expand the existing cooperation between the two countries.

The king also announced yesterday aid and assistance to Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority totaling $1.75 billion, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

One billion dollars will go directly to Lebanon’s Central Bank to help stabilize the country’s economy while $500 million will be earmarked for reconstruction. The Palestinians will receive $250 million.

“The Kingdom has been shouldering the responsibility put on it by religious and national obligations toward the region to avert the consequences of the happenings in Lebanon and occupied Palestine,” said the royal statement. “The Kingdom has also strived since the first moment to stop the hostilities and has acted in various ways to persuade the international community to force Israel to a cease-fire,” it added.

The royal statement also alluded to the public donation campaign that kicks off today to raise money to increase aid to Lebanon and the Palestinians.

In London, Prince Saud said after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “I think we both agree that the real solution is to have Lebanon regain its sovereignty and territorial integrity,”

“For that to happen there must be a first step, which is a cease-fire to stop the bombing that is happening.”

Asked what he thought of the British support for the US position on the conflict, he replied: “I hope the support will be for the Lebanese people. This is what we are urging. The crisis is Lebanon’s crisis, not Britain’s or Saudi Arabia’s or America’s crisis.”

Later Prince Saud and Prince Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to convey a message from King Abdullah on the present crisis.

President Putin expressed his confidence that the efforts by the Kingdom, Russia and other parties will find an acceptable solution to the crisis.

London-based Middle East analyst Mushtak Parker told Arab News yesterday that the king’s statement would add to the pressure on Israel to stop hostilities.

“King Abdullah rightly felt that if Israel’s barbaric aggression was allowed to go on like this, the region would sleepwalk into a disaster,” said Parker. “What Israel is doing is reprehensible and there is no moral equivalent for it. You cannot kill an entire family and tell its only surviving member, ‘Sorry, your family has been sacrificed to the war on terror.’ The Israeli stance was hollow right from the start.”

Parker also said that Israel’s condition of not talking to Hezbollah was “idiotic”.

“There have been instances where warring parties have talked to each other in search of a solution,” he said. “For example, West Germany was talking to East Germany at the height of the Cold War. Even today, the international community and South Korea are engaged in negotiations with the North Koreans. Basically, Israel is not interested in any peace.”

Parker said the king’s generous donation would bolster reconstruction once a cease-fire is in place. “The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and other institutions should immediately come forward to help in this reconstruction effort,” he said.

Dr. Khaled Batarfi, managing editor of Al-Madinah Arabic daily, said he was happy at the position taken by the king.

“I liked what he said, especially the part about Arabs no longer accepting to be on the receiving end while Israel lives in prosperity,” said Dr. Batarfi. “The king rightly mentioned that the flames of war that Israel ignited will eventually blow back and consume it.”

Samar Fatany, a Jeddah-based radio journalist, said she was not surprised by the king’s statement. “This is what we expected from our beloved king,” she said. “We were confident that he would not continue to be silent about what was happening in Lebanon. I am sure the outside world now knows Saudi Arabia’s firm stance on the conflict. Israeli barbarity should stop.”

Fatany said Saudi Arabia generally is guarded in its response to any crisis. “This is just the Saudi way of diplomacy,” said Fatany. “It should in no way create doubts in anyone’s mind about the Kingdom’s resolve in this matter. We are with Lebanon.”

In Beirut, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said that the deposit of $1 billion with the central bank was to “strengthen reserves in a bid to back the government’s efforts to consolidate the stability of the national currency.”

He said Saudi individuals and institutions, both public and private, had also made significant donations.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=85870&d=26&m=7&y=2006

]]> By: Colonel Mustard http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55818 Colonel Mustard Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:20:32 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55818 And Paul has already gone on record that if the next president is a Democrat, he will DEMAND that our guy get exactly the same powers that W. has chosen to exercise. Spying on political enemies? VITAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY. Payback for criticism against people like Joe Wilson?NOT A CRIME. Signing statements that negate what he just signed.TOTALLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS. Thanks for your fair-mindedness, Paul. And Paul has already gone on record that if the next president is a Democrat, he will DEMAND that our guy get exactly the same powers that W. has chosen to exercise.

Spying on political enemies? VITAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

Payback for criticism against people like Joe Wilson?NOT A CRIME.

Signing statements that negate what he just signed.TOTALLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS.

Thanks for your fair-mindedness, Paul.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55816 Rage Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:44:15 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55816 Paul, you keep jumping up and down about the president authority but, curiously, you have not given any basis for these awesome which you would invest in one man. Why, yes, I'm sure that's what the Founders, who had fought a long, bloody war to throw off an autocratic leader, EXACTLY intended to do!. |/sarcasm| Simply repeating something ad naseum doesn't it make it true, dude. Paul, you keep jumping up and down about the president authority but, curiously, you have not given any basis for these awesome which you would invest in one man.

Why, yes, I’m sure that’s what the Founders, who had fought a long, bloody war to throw off an autocratic leader, EXACTLY intended to do!.

|/sarcasm|

Simply repeating something ad naseum doesn’t it make it true, dude.

]]> By: writerdog http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55814 writerdog Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:27:55 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55814 Paul there is a more sensible way to control this administration. Bush has spread the executive power far beyond those that effect the "war on terror" to the very fabric of this country. He is able to do more damage to this country then any terrorist group or any country that would harm us.Thank you for reminding us of that more sensible way, to quote you: "yes Congress can impeach" Paul there is a more sensible way to control this administration. Bush has spread the executive power far beyond those that effect the “war on terror” to the very fabric of this country. He is able to do more damage to this country then any terrorist group or any country that would harm us.Thank you for reminding us of that more sensible way, to quote you:

“yes Congress can impeach”

]]> By: J R http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55812 J R Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:24:03 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55812 Those in charge of that power are changing too! And pretty soon! Having progressives in power with all this new executive power should be very good for society! Alas, conservatives won't enjoy that too much! Good! Those in charge of that power are changing too! And pretty soon!

Having progressives in power with all this new executive power should be very good for society! Alas, conservatives won’t enjoy that too much!

Good!

]]> By: Paul F. Rosell http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55810 Paul F. Rosell Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:16:29 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55810 The Constitution gives the President powers that Congress can not take away, under any circumstances.Yes, Congress can cut funds, yes Congress can impeach, but Congress can't pass a law that allows Congress to pick all of the Generals in the military. Even if a President were to sign such a bill, no President would have to follow such an illegal "law."A Signing Statement simply makes clear that the President agrees to the provisions of the law he is signing that WOULD NOT infringe on executive power.----Remember the "line item veto" ?? The Supreme Court threw that out because Congress can NOT delegate its authority to the President, likewise the President's authority can not be passed to the Courts or to Congress.(There is a way to fix this, just have the line item resubmitted for an up or down vote without amendment. The Courts would probably accept that.)----As for Article III power, the Congress is increasing telling the Courts they have no jurisdiction in certain matters. That is a right of Congress. It only takes a simple majority in both houses and a Presidential signature.A fence on the Mexican border is being built, without lawsuits or federal court delays, because Congress told the Courts they had no Jurisdiction.-----The balance of power is changing, permanently, and I am happy about that. The Constitution gives the President powers that Congress can not take away, under any circumstances.Yes, Congress can cut funds, yes Congress can impeach, but Congress can’t pass a law that allows Congress to pick all of the Generals in the military. Even if a President were to sign such a bill, no President would have to follow such an illegal “law.”A Signing Statement simply makes clear that the President agrees to the provisions of the law he is signing that WOULD NOT infringe on executive power.—-Remember the “line item veto” ?? The Supreme Court threw that out because Congress can NOT delegate its authority to the President, likewise the President’s authority can not be passed to the Courts or to Congress.(There is a way to fix this, just have the line item resubmitted for an up or down vote without amendment. The Courts would probably accept that.)—-As for Article III power, the Congress is increasing telling the Courts they have no jurisdiction in certain matters. That is a right of Congress. It only takes a simple majority in both houses and a Presidential signature.A fence on the Mexican border is being built, without lawsuits or federal court delays, because Congress told the Courts they had no Jurisdiction.—–The balance of power is changing, permanently, and I am happy about that.

]]> By: Rage http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55808 Rage Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:38:03 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55808 Right now, the swing vote is Kennedy. If Stevens retires, there won't be one. . . Right now, the swing vote is Kennedy. If Stevens retires, there won’t be one. . .

]]> By: steve http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courts/#comment-55806 steve Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:04:03 +0000 http://blogs.varsitykansas.com/weblog/2006/07/congress_courtshtml/#comment-55806 Bush has been loading the S.C. for this kind of challenge. His Unitarist philosophy appointments will probably back the sack of shit. Bush has been loading the S.C. for this kind of challenge. His Unitarist philosophy appointments will probably back the sack of shit.

]]>