Bush reserves right to himself to bypass torture law...

[kentuck]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF

<snip>
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

....more

[Loonman]

1. Only Kings rule by decree

And dictators.

[zann725]

2. A truly 'Teflon' Prez/King. NO law sticks/applies to him and his cronies.

n/t

[salin]

3. Frankly, the statement suggests he no longer

believes that congress has any meaning. He signs a bill into law and then says... but it doesn't really apply. This is very different than simply vetoing the original bill. Had he vetoed - he would be granting the right of congress to pass laws and applying his constitutional right to approve or reject those laws. Then, constitutionally, the congress could try to override the veto. By not going through the constitutional process - he is simply doing what dictators have done across time - nullifying congress/legislative bodies. In act, frankly, it is almost as if he is disbanding congress.

[Village Idiot]

8. I wonder when people will wake up?

Bushler has been doing this for six years now...You would think that someone in Congress would notice?

Spineless fucktards.

[Trevelyan]

4. Rep. Conyers noted the signing statement called it obnoxious on his blog

Please sign Congressman Conyers letter to support his bill to begin Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives now!!

http://www.johnconyers.com Conyer's Action Items

"Another Chapter The President As King

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the legal theory underlying the spying scandal. This is the theory that the Bush Administration is claiming justifies the President's abuses of power. As I mentioned, it is identical to the theory used by the Justice Department to justify torturing detainees.

In a nutshell, the argument goes, we are in a war on terror and America is the battlefield. The President, as Commander in Chief under Article II of the Constitution, according to the Administration's claim, has absolute and unchecked powers in the conduct of this war.

My last post on this zeroed in on the President's view that he is not subject to the laws passed by Congress. I also mentioned that he believes he is not subject to judicial action. Lest you think I was indulging in hyperbole, read today's Washington Post. "

Blogged by JC on 12.29.05
==
"Join PDA's National Call for Accountability January 9th

Support Censure and Investigation of Bush and Cheney

John Conyers writes, "This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds," adding, "I am taking steps against the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability. Join me to demand censure for Bush and Cheney in addition to the creation of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching the Bush Administration for its widespread abuses of power." Help PDA answer Rep. Conyers' call by participating in our National Call for Accountability Day on January 9th."

TAKE ACTION HERE:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=8342651&type=CO

[InternalDialogue]

I've never heard of a "signing statement" before.

Does anyone know if it's subject to any immediate legal challenge? Or is it like the law it's attached to, and it can be challenged only when it's brought to court by a suitor?

[Acryliccalico]

5. He is just disgusting

:puke:

[Loonman]

6. Democrats who won't impeach this asshole are not Democrats

They are scumlords living off the fat of our taxes.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

9. of course this assumes that a) torture is effective means

to get information; and b) only used in dire consequences where information to be gleened is likely to save American lives; and c) completely ignores that in both the first Iraq war and in Kosovo - international pressure due to the Geneva Conventions led to the release of captured US GIs. Those lives were saved because of the Geneva Conventions. Many people are against the torture policies because it is likely to make GIs less safe, rather than more safe.

The thing that irks me the most about the 'signing statement' - is that it essentially defies the constitution; Constitutionally Bush had an option to act to over-ride the bill - it is called a VETO. Instead he signs the law and then says - but it isn't really a law at all... it is meaningless because I say so - and publically say that an act of congress, signed into law by the president - has no meaning.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

11. Yes. Americans did come first...

Even before the beheadings... You are correct.

[salin]

12. I missed when the 'international community' flipped out

over lack of proper ethnic meals.

Americans do come first - and enacting policies that create more terrorists, rather than having stayed focused on the progress that was initially made in Afghanistan and instead pulling resources to a second and bigger war - and leaving the effort in Afghanistan where OBL and those who planned /staged attacks still were... Does not make America safer. The whole Iraq effort was Bush's folly - and sadly at America's peril for those concerned about national security.

Did you note that during the reelection campaign Cheney would say that there would be another attack on US soil IF Kerry was elected; and then a month after being reelected he began saying that another attack on US soil was inevitable - a "when" not an "if"...? Interesting that.