in which he reserved the right to torture anyway.
The Democrats in Congress (with the help of some Republicans did speak out about torture in the way that they could.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132572/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_ActHere is the text of the bill that was passed.
TITLE X--MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINEES
. . . .
SEC. 1002. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) In General- No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
. . . .
SEC. 1003. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
. . . .
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term 'cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
Bush signed a signing statement retaining the right to torture.
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006
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."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/b...Congress did its job -- in 2005. That was the response to Bush's admissions that they were torturing. Was it too late? No, not considering that the wheels of Congress move slowly. Please remember, this was a controversial issue, and the law had to be passed during the administration of the torturers when the party of the torturers were in the majority of Congress. Without the support of McCain and other Republicans who courageously stood against the president on this issue, no bill would have been passed. (It was known as the Graham-Levin-Kyle amendment to a military funding bill as I understand it.)
The only way to make it clear to future presidents that torture is illegal and the Bush signing statement does not make it legal is to prosecute George W. Bush.
Will torture prosecutions divide the country? Not really. They will merely expose the fissure in the country between those who believe in an imperial presidency, those who believe that the president becomes a virtual dictator during times of war, and those who do not. I trust that in the end, a vast majority of Americans will agree that the Constitution severely restricts the president's special wartime powers and that the president may set violate the rights of the people or disobey laws even during war. George W. Bush must be prosecuted for his violations of his oath of office, for abusing his authority and for the war crime of torture.
Why should Bush be tried? The claim is that the president had the authority to order the torture based on the interpretation of the president's powers under the Constitution. While Bush's aides and the vice president encouraged the torture and carried it out and could be tried for their assistance, under George W. Bush's theory of government, he was acting as a provisional sort of dictator with nearly unlimited rights at the time he ordered the torture. Therefore, he took the responsibility on himself. He made the decision to torture and claimed that he alone had the authority to make that decision. They should all be prosecuted, but George W. Bush must be prosecuted first and foremost. He asked for this. He should get what he asked for. Otherwise future presidents could declare war and then do whatever they wanted. We could end up with emperors instead of a Constitution.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
