英语论文网

zed by the President and his administration as official policy…The President, besides bearing responsibility for authorizing the use of torture, also as Commander in Chief, bears ultimate responsibility for the failure to halt these practices and to punish those responsible once they were exposed.”[16]The Bush Administration, however has defended their position, and openly admitted to enhanced interrogation techniques. In a 2008 interview with ABC News George W. Bush revealed that “yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.'[17]In another interview with ABC News, former Director of Central Intelligence, George Tennet argued that the enhanced interrogation techniques were “authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States.'[18]In 2006, Congress disagreed with the President’s assertion and passed a bill, The Defense Authorization Act, which banned torture, but President Bush attached a signing statement that declared that he was not obligated to construe it.[19]President Bush argued that 'The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.'[20]Once again, Bush administration officials have also used the passing of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Resolution by Congress to justify unreviewable war powers. There is clearly a lack of accountability when congress specifically authorizes the president not to do something, yet is allowed to continue the practice.

Congress cannot be expected to make informed decisions if they are not in possession of key evidence that could influence their final decision. Bill H.R 104 is necessary to establish an oversight committee to check presidential power to use enhanced interrogation techniques or techniques not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is critical that the Bush Administration be accountable for its unreviewable war powers.

It is vital that the Bush Administration be accountable for allowing unreviewable domestic warrantless electronic surveillance. Overreaching executive power has precedent in American society. During the 1960s there was widespread misuse of government surveillance to spy on Civil Rights activists and Vietnam War protesters.[21]Such actions prompted the passing of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. In December 2005, however, the New York Times reported that “Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.”[22]Looking back at previous statements by George W. Bush reveal that he was well aware of the FISA law. In a press conference on April 20, 2004 he told reporters ' any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.'[23]In another situation President Bush accepted that a judge’s permission was necessary for wire