Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Bush signs torture ban, then immediately vows to break it.

I just don't even know what to say at this point. He's edged from buffoonish evil to cartoon evil. How long until he attempts to raid Castle Greyskull?

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
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 [the law] 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.

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

''We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. ''We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."

But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

''Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. ''We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Posted by crimnos @ 7:56 AM

Read or Post a Comment

Amazing isn't it? This sets up a system where only a lawsuit or further legislation would challenge these letters. How long is that gonna take? Is congress gonna sue the presidency?

Would legislation redeining the intent really pass quickly?


Posted by Blogger mikevotes @ 10:56 AM #

Exactly! I love how the President has any power he chooses to. Must be nice.

Posted by Blogger crimnos @ 2:52 PM #

Don't be silly Crimnos. Read your history books again. Bush's signing statement only says, "The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief". It's not a power Bush has "chosen", but one granted to him by the Founders. Take it up with Washington and Adams if you have a problem with that.

Posted by Blogger Richard @ 7:23 PM #

Yeah, and how about that open-ended war that could theoretically go on forever, thus allowing himself to apportion more and more powers to himself in the all-mighty, mystical name of National Security? Awful convenient.

Posted by Blogger crimnos @ 8:00 AM #
<< Home