Please: FIND THE TORTURE BILL SIGNING STATEMENT, stat.

[elehhhhna]

I'll buy a star for you (or the DUer of your choice) for the first person to post it.

Thanks

[BelgianMadCow]

1. I think it's due to be signed today, so the statement is not online YET

I guess.

From the source of those other two, it also looks like these things are released in a weekly wad. SO beginning of next week?

[elehhhhna]

2. sort of true BUT ther's another site that posts them when they're signed..

I just can't find it.

It was signed this a.m. already. Gotta get that pen in his hand before the Jack Daniels kick in, ya know.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. Here's one that does tracking apparently

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/neweststatement.htm

that it?

[elehhhhna]

7. H.R. 4954, the "Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006"

LOL

Dubai Ports World STILL OWNS 21 (not 6, 21) of our ports. They are in negot. to sell to an American Co. If that co is Carlyle, the BinLaden Famiy will have a controllling interest in our ports. I predict this will be the next BIG scandal.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. Help Supress the Vote Act & Pollute Some More Act

I propose "Sellout to Pop's Company Act for the ports sale.

I read about that too on here this week, quite amazing after the flap that nothing has happened. I remember Duers predicting sale to Carlyle.

I'll have to get my clearinghouse.info link on Carlyle again...

[Marie26]

28. But they get it from the White House site.

I don't know of any place that independently posts signing statements - they all just seem to post what's released on the White House site.

[Taoschick]

35. Tony Snow

Told reporters earlier there would be no signing statement issued for this bill.

I guess that means it's sufficiently vague for the WH lawyers to twist whichever way they choose.

<<edit to add link>>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-3.html

[KyndCulture]

3. It was signed 45 minutes ago.

I'm looking for pics and the text but nothing so far.

Give it an hour or so and it'll be on yahoo I'm sure.

[goclark]

4. I saw the damn thing and it was pathetic

The generals standing behind Bush were blinking their eyes a thousand times a minute.

The tall one looked so ashamed that he was standing there - how I wish he would have had the guts to say ~" Give me the Mike and let me tell the world this is WRONG."

[elehhhhna]

8. I wish they'd been a bit more proactive than that, even.

[goclark]

10. I just got your message

and I spilled my coffee ~ LOL

[Marie26]

37. They all looked so guilty

The body language was really telling. Gen. Peter Pace did look ashamed, and he should be.

[Solly Mack]

5. So far..nothing. I keep up with all the government publishing sites

The bill, once signed, has to be assigned a Public Law Number then added as a Slip Law to the Federal Register, where any signing statements will also appear. Once it has a Public Law number, it will appear on line at the Federal Register.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/current.html

Whitehouse.gov also will post signing statements...but not always. And they do have the bill signing speech and "fact" sheet up already.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/


The Weekly Compilation won't come out until Monday.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2006.html#October

[elehhhhna]

9. See video of the Bastard signing his Torture law, here, if you can bear it

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

He's very slurry today. Proably drank his ass off celebrating this bill last night.

[Solly Mack]

11. I watched it as it happened

the knot is still looming large in my tummy

[BelgianMadCow]

13. Do you think the statement will bring much? Cause for me the bulk of the

law is already abhorrent enough.

I find there has been little focus on the retroactivity. Or did I miss that?

[Solly Mack]

14. Well, I agree the law is bad enough as it stands but then we are

talking about Bush.

I wondered about the retroactive aspect of the bill - now law- too...and I'm thinking any signing statements will address that for sure. To broaden it.

[BelgianMadCow]

15. Curious kick

[BelgianMadCow]

16. BOINK

still every bit as relevant a question!

[Cerridwen]

17. Apparently, no signing statement was needed.

He got what he wanted in the MCA (Military Commissions Act) as it was delivered.

Freedom from prosecution for previous acts of torture (committed by the * cabal and friends) and the right to torture "enemy combatants" however he chooses to define them.

[lonestarnot]

18. Start repealing on November 8th.

[Cerridwen]

19. 2/3 to repeal....oh yeah, here's hoping....n/t

[lonestarnot]

22. come on baby 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3!

[Eric J in MN]

23. It would be an important moral statement to send a repeal to Bush,

...even if he vetoes it.

[lonestarnot]

30. I say don't give the fucker time. IMPEACH, CONVICT, IMPRISON.

torture? no, no torture.

[Marie26]

21. He wanted to do it to citizens, too.

I heard that the original bill didn't make a distinction bewteen citizen & alien enemy combatants (as the current bill does), so that's one thing that Bush might want to modify in a signing statement.

[Gwerlain]

25. It appears that...

the House version used "person" in a number of places where the Senate version uses "alien." Details over http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2434725&mesg_id=2434725>here.

[davekriss]

31. I agree

Did you see the smirck on his face when he signed it? Awful. :(

[Liberal In Texas]

38. Correct. Why sign a statement when you get the whole kahuna.

He got what he wanted. Dictatorial powers. Nuff said.

[Marie26]

20. I've looked and looked

Apparantly, there's no signing statement to this law. None has appeared on the White House website, where they would usually be posted. But I find this a little suspicious, because Bush has been on a signing statement tear lately, appending one to almost every law he signs. And he passed up the chance on this one? Somehow I find that hard to believe. I'm a little worried that he DID attach a signing statement to the law & just didn't allow it to become public.

[lonestarnot]

24. Maybe he classified it.

[BelgianMadCow]

26. Yeah, for National Sekurity reasons

as in : revolt would break out if people knew hat he put in.

Seriously though, are they not required to be made public? And as the WH itself doen't publish them all, maybe the weekly roundup posted above WILL have it - will definitely check that one on monday.

[lonestarnot]

27. The secrecy involved with this team of nazis is beyond reproach. It is

time to break it out as in v or whatever it takes. I'm sick to death of them ruining my democracy. Waiting and watching.

[kestrel91316]

32. I think you are right. I bet he has a classified signing statement

that says he doesn't intend to differentiate between citizens and aliens.

[lonestarnot]

33. Wish someone who loves the United States like we do would leak.

[Marie26]

36. Could be

Making the signing statement public would allow the enemy to adapt!

[Jcrowley]

29. No need

Q And the interpretations that were required by the law, that are to be published in an executive order –

MR. SNOW: What it says is the President is authorized to do an executive order. I’ll read you the language in a moment. The President’s senior advisors are going to make recommendations as to the appropriate steps. Once you have a law passed, then you have the people in the executive branch try to interpret how to make it happen. So there will be further consultations with Congress and consideration of additional legal guidelines in issuance of an executive order. So they’re going to try to walk through all the –

Q It says the executive order is published in the Federal Register, right? Your intention is —

MR. SNOW: Let me just — let me read to you, because — I’ll just read you the language. It sort of speaks for itself, but it’s worth going through, with your forbearance. It says: “As provided by the Constitution in this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

“The President shall issue interpretations described by Sub-paragraph A” — which I just read to you — “by executive order published in the Federal Register. Any executive order published in this paragraph shall be authoritative except as to grave breaches under Common Article III,” and so on. So that’s the language.

Q So he does have to, then, publish an executive order, isn’t that right?


MR. SNOW: Well, again — well, we’ll see. This says he’s authorized to do so.
What you have there is the president’s chief spokesman standing up in front of a bunch of reporters and telling them that “shall” means “can if he wants to.” The attorney general, who is responsible for enforcing the law of the land and leads the exercise of gutting bills through signing statements, will no doubt put the matter in more legalistic terms, perhaps something like this.

Read on:
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1472

Apparently the president’s lawyers are satisfied that the president can do what he pleases under the law as written. That’s worse than I thought.

[lonestarnot]

34. No need, no need, no need. He's been torturing people since before

he was allowed to torture so why should law make anything any different.