BTW, King George Doesn't feel like obeying the Torture Ban

[TayTay]

This was the lead story in the Boston Globe today. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=1

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 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.

SNIP

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."

[karynnj]

1. Is this legal?

If it is,can't Bush amend anything that makes it past the Republican legislature? Does anyone know if Congress or the Supreme Court has any way of changing this? (It's not what I learned in high school civics.

[TayTay]

2. That's where it gets interesting: This is Alito's idea.

The pending nominee to our Supreme Court came up with the idea of attaching codicils to the laws the King signs stating that he will interpret them the way he feels like interpreting them. King George doesn't want to give up torturing people in the name of National Security and pure fun, so he won't.

There is a pending Constitutional Crisis brewing and a lot of Repubs are going to come down on Our Side. This is gonna get good.

[ProSense]

4. This is why Bush and his cronies

should be driven from government. They spit on the rules and have no regard for law.

[ginnyinWI]

7. which, incidentally, violates his oath of office

to uphold the Constitution!

Ok then, I think it should only be allowed if Georgie does the torturing personally, attended by and filmed by the media, and takes the political consequences that result. :nuke:

[whometense]

9. I like that idea,

and he might even go for it, since he apparently takes such pleasure in the act of torture.

Can't you just picture him as the kind of boy who enjoyed frying flies with a magnifying glass?

God, I loathe that man.

[TayTay]

11. Sorry, but The Lord High Inquisitor Cheney

gets to do the actual torture. (It's a Torturer's Guild thing.) He would not appreciate the King coming down and interferring in his work. (The Lord Dick takes such pleasure in his work. He just loves being the Inquisitor.)

The King can watch and hand The Lord Dick the hot pokers and things to be inserted under the fingernails, but that's it. Guild rules, you know.

[karynnj]

13. Well he did brand students at Yale

this was real and a scandal covered in the Yale papers and brought up in 2000. It's hard to believe the facts. At the same college, Kerry made the papers by winning debates, being head of the student union and his various sports. How all American can you get? (all before he went off and became a war hero) But America thinks a guy who brands others is the one they want to have beer with - that's pretty scary.

[TayTay]

16. Geez, I never thought of it that way.

I'm not having a beer with That Friggin Idiot anytime soon. Hot Toddy's, maybe, but not a beer. (And JK is fine to have a beer with, as are the staffers who came with him.)

Geez, that's scary as hell.

[karynnj]

27. It is scary that are President probably would be

classified if he were in grade school or high school now. There is really something that is mean about him. I really hope the eyes of more people are openned.

The story of the "beers with Kerry" that all of you told were great.

[whometense]

18. I remember that story.

Hunter Thompson mentioned it in his Rolling Stone endorsement of JK:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6562575?rnd=1099009920793&has-player=true

At least thirty-three percent of all eligible voters in this country are confessed Fun-hogs, who will cave into any temptation they stumble on. They have always hated George Bush, but until now they had never made the connection between hating George Bush and voting for John Kerry.

The Fun-hogs are starving for anything they can laugh with, instead of at. But George Bush is not funny. Nobody except fellow members of the Petroleum Club in Houston will laugh at his silly barnyard jokes unless it's for money.

When young Bush was at Yale in the Sixties, he told the same joke over and over again for two years, according to some of his classmates. One of them still remembers it:

There was a young man named Green
Who invented a jack-off machine
On the twenty-third stroke
The damn thing broke
And churned his nuts into cream.

"It was horrible to hear him tell it," said the classmate, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. He lifted his shirt and showed me a scar on his back put there by young George. "He burned this into my flesh with a red-hot poker," he said solemnly, "and I have hated him ever since. That jackass was born cruel. He burned me in the back while I was blindfolded. This scar will be with me forever."

There is nothing new or secret about that story. It ran on the front page of the Yale Daily News and caused a nasty scandal for a few weeks, but nobody was ever expelled for it. George did his first cover-up job. And he liked it.

[TayTay]

21. What a head case.

He ought to be on medication, not running a country. I have seen his mother, so I do understand some of this behavior, but honestly, what a scumbag.

[ProSense]

22. Now that's an interesting statement.

Bush has been in training to break the rules, steal the country and take over the world since birth. I do remember seeing a satirical photo of him with horns protruding from his forehead as a baby.

[karynnj]

5. Alito's idea - ok, I am now 100% sure where I stand on Alito!

This really is a battle for democracy. (Kerry said the election was - that obviously wasn't over the top campaign rhetoric.)

[TayTay]

8. In ways we still haven't even seen yet

2004 was the election of my lifetime. This does not change because Kerry didn't win. (That one) If fact, the reprecussions of that election and the fact that a lot of Americans 'woke up' and continue to wake up to what the Bush Agenda really is will affect this country for years and years to come.

I haven't seen a press release on this yet from any Senators, but I'm sure it's coming. (David Wade, don't disappoint me sir.)

[whometense]

3. Rachel Maddow

had Ralph Neas from PFAW on this morning. He was talking about this huge new dossier they'd dug up on Alito, and which is to be released today (hearings start next Monday).

One of the biggest things going against him (and it's BIG) is his long-standing willingness to sign off on virtually anything that increases the power of the president and decreases the oversight capability of congress and the courts.

File here: http://www.savethecourt.org/PreHearingReport
Neas recommended reading the Executive Summary if you don't have time to look at the whole thing. It's pretty incendiary.

According to Neas, this may line up a number of principled (and libertarian-leaning) conservatives against Alito. Should be an interesting hearing. Here's hoping the dems come loaded for bear.

[karynnj]

6. Thanks for the link

[beachmom]

10. Not to undercut the Globe, but the blogs caught this earlier

I read it on andrewsullivan.com (yes, I'm back reading Sully -- his blog is too valuable not to read), and here is an interesting link:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/01/so-much-for-presidents-assent-to.html

Scarey quote:

Translation: I reserve the constitutional right to waterboard when it will "assist" in protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. UPDATE: Or, as Matthew Franck eagerly puts it over at the National Review, "the signing statement . . . conveys the good news that the president is not taking the McCain amendment lying down."

Maybe we should flood McCain with complaints about this. After all, this is his amendment, and it was obviously from the heart that he fought for it. Just like in '00, the president has one-upped him again. What must he be thinking now, realizing that that asshole has screwed him over again. Do all the Schadenfreude you want for McCain. But in the end, on this issue, McCain was fighting for the good, and yet again, evil has won out.

[TayTay]

12. That Amendment passed 90-9

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249

We should e-mail everyone (and I will e-mail both of my Sens and talk to my Rep about it tomorrow at his town meeting.) This is blatantly illegal. Bush is NOT a King, he is a petty little tyrant and he needs to be put into his place.

[jillan]

14. What is it going to take to put him in his place? Lately, I've--

been feeling like this:




What is it going to take:mad: ??

[beachmom]

15. This is actually worse than the NSA thing, because it shows such

a blatant disregard for the law, but also for the Congress in full daylight. He's basically saying the legislative branch of government doesn't exist, except when it rubber stamps his will. I mean, why doesn't he just get rid of Congress altogether, since they're becoming so much trouble and serve no purpose anymore? Why not declare himself emperor, dissolve the Congress, and rule by decree? And this is the same guy who wants to export democracy for the world, when he obviously has no respect for it?

Okay -- my rep. voted against the amendment in the House. So what's the point in calling her, when she is obviously walking in lock step with the president? Did Sen. Allen vote yes or abstain from the torture amendment? Can't remember. I guess I'm wondering who that 100th senator is who didn't vote.

[TayTay]

17. Allen voted FOR the curb on Torture

These cretins voted no (and should be marched into hell forthwith:)

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

(Poor Oklahoma. Both of their Senators voted to keep torturing people. What a disgrace.) Corzine didn't vote, cuz of his race in NJ. (He would have voted FOR the curbs, of course.)

This is what we fight. This is why we show up here and on DU. Cuz we really, really hate these friggin power-grabbing bastards. And this will not stand. It will not stand. I don't care what it takes or how long it takes, this will not stand. I am not leaving a dictatorship to my kids. No. Fucking. Way. So, we fight.

[whometense]

19. Do you know anything about this bill

the preznit signed Monday - Rachel Maddow was talking about it this morning - sponsored by Lindsey Graham and - GASP - Carl Levin - that decrees that the courts no longer have jurisdiction to impose habeas corpus rules re Gitmo detainees.

According to Rachel, Levin agreed to cosponsor because they promised him this wouldn't apply to current detainees (du-bi-ous reasoning there, IMHO). THen of course they turned around and said it would apply to current detainees.

Oh I am so shocked. Not. What the hell was Levin thinking? And when will these people get it through their heads that this administration is MORALS-FREE?

[karynnj]

25. I feel sorry for Levin though

Just as when Kerry has said, talking about IWR, that you should be able to take the President at his word - Levin clearly though the same. It really shows how the country has changed that there WAS NO public outcry when Bush invaded even though the IWR wasn't met.

I think a lot is lost when you can't trust the government - what's the point of even negotiating when whatever they "give up" is not really given up. Meanwhile they've used your name.

[whometense]

28. I have a lot of respect for Levin,

but to me this seems like a true what-the-hell-was-he-thinking? moment. He's a smart man. Sure, we should all be able to trust that the president is a man of his word. But at this point could it be any clearer that this president is not? I just don't get it.

[fedupinBushcountry]

20. Ah, but

this is good to use against her in the election coming up when she runs agaist David Ashe (ex-Marine Iraq war veteran). I was thinking of making a flyer of what she has voted for and what she has voted against.

I'm thinking of having two columns of what she voted against with a picture of people at the start of that column and what she voted for with a picture of Bush.

[beachmom]

23. Hey Fedup, did you know that there is now a primary opponent to Ashe?

Kellam, I guess the grandson of THE Kellam who founded Princess Anne or something or other (don't you love my wonderful VB knowledge). Now I'm confused. Do you know anything about this Kellam guy? Do you still think Ashe is way better?

And, finally, do you think that Thelma Drake has got to be the most nightmarish representative one could possibly have the bad luck of being stuck with?

[fedupinBushcountry]

24. Your confused

Heck I thought the mayor of VB was Republican when someone informed me that she was a Dem, I actually voted for the Libertarian who was running.

Wasn't there a Kellam running for City Treasurer? I have heard that name before, I'll have to do some research.

Drake is a suck up for this administration. Before she agreed to run she wanted a seat I think on the Intelligence committee (I think), which she has no experience. Everytime I get her LIAR flyer in the mail I put it right back in the mailbox with return to lying sender.

[karynnj]

26. Well, he did say a dictatorship would be easier.