President attempts to globalize 'signing statements'

Long ago I criticized the Bush Administration's use of 'signing statements' to create some sort of legal cover for the Administration to fail to 'faithfully execute' the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I see the effort by the President to have the Congress 'clarify' the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of prisoners as a similar strategy to his use of signing statements and his redefinition of the word 'torture'.

Apparently President Bush believes that as the 'decider' of how best to protect the American people that our current understandings of justice and humanity are no longer good enough. He wants to be able to substitute definitions that are more suited to his immediate goals.

Moral leadership cannot be built of shifting rhetorical sands. If America wishes to spread freedom and democracy around the world, then this nation must demonstrate what is best and most moral about our institutions to the world. There is no better way to provide such a demonstration than to uphold the highest standards of justice for those who have declared themselves the mortal enemies of the US. We can provide moral clarity for ourselves and the world by extending to those individuals who are involved in terrorism the very protections they would deny to us.

When the Puritans came to America, they sought to be a 'City on a Hill.' Their goal was to provide leadership by example, not coercion. As they failed to live up to this goal- through their violence towards Native Americans, Quakers, Anglicans, and even each other- they failed also to be the shining example that would lead people in the direction they thought was right.

If we fail to shine forth as an example of the very best moral principles that democracy and freedom can offer, then our disappointment will be as great as that of the Puritans. Except the stakes are so much higher.

GP