WTF? Bush "reserves the right" to violate ANOTHER law?

[LuckyTheDog]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Why doesn't he just save us some time and list which laws he thinks DO apply to him?


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Added on edit (per request below):

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.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Yes, another law that he thinks doesn't apply to him and

yes :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[mattomjoe]

2. Why doesn't he just announce himself as dictator and get it over with?

[LuckyTheDog]

23. RIGHT!

Bush basically is asserting the right to set aside virtually any law if he thinks those laws hinder his "commander in chief" powers. If that holds up, the path to dictatorship will have been cleared.

[bif]

3. WWHD?

What Would Hitler Do?

[rustydog]

4. He can reserve the right as president...Doesn't make it LEGAL!

Shit, a rapist reserves the right to rape wherever he wishes...doesn't make it legal.

Americans reserve the right to flush this turd out of the Oval office. that Is legal and Constitutional.

[acmejack]

5. I thought he had made it clear

Laws are for the subservient class of people, not the overlords, who are free to disregard them, exactly as they have done. * is the Commander in Chief and no man made law can limit his discretion, which is guided by the voice of God.

If you choose to object, there is a snug little kennel in GTMO waiting for you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. OMG. He's declared himself to be DICTATOR!

SOMEONE stop this SOB! Would you PLEASE?!*&^%$#@:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Marr]

7. I am so sick of these people.

Just impeach the little fascist, please.

Christ- congress would only be defending their own jobs. The Bush Administration is basically saying over and over again that the Executive trumps the Legislative. Fucking morons. Historians will look back at this period and wonder why politicians didn't use any of the mechanisms at their disposal to simply cut this fascist cancer out of the political body and save it.

[Inland]

8. Well, at least he's now OPEN about violating the law.

Before he would just do it without telling anyone.

But now that he's been found out, is making him go for broke and expressly declaring himself in the hopes that he can get the country to acquiesce to his strong leadership.

It's either going to be fascism or impeachment.

[underpants]

9. WOW-why did he even sign it then?

Is he that afraid of using the veto?

What the

[Inland]

12. Why shouldn't he sign it? IHO, every law has an implicit exception

for whatever he thinks is best. His inherent power allows him to simply ignore the text in those special situations. So there's no reason for him to not sign any law. Laws don't matter. It's easier to sign the law and pretend to be generally against torture and hope everyone allows him his discretion to be for it, sometimes.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. To get it off the front page

I'll bet McCain had NO idea he was going to do it like this.

[Marr]

11. Pretty much.

He's put it right out there. So far, this disgusting 'party-before country' group of traitors hasn't even seen fit to defend their own jobs, let alone the Constitution. It can't be any more clear- this is either a nation of laws or it is a dictatorship.

[BushOut06]

10. Please don't tell me you're surprised by this

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. I wonder what McCain will say about this

The talking heads were going into the holiday break saying this was a Bush loss/McCain win. It sounds like Bush just wanted the news to go away so he agreed to sign...all the while knowing this 'signing statement' was the card up his sleeve!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Ezlivin]

14. Obeying the law is HARD WORK

Not quite as hard as clearing brush from your property, however.

[Marnieworld]

16. Ok here's the list

[kiteinthewind]

17. OMG!! This is sickening.

:puke:

[hedda_foil]

18. It would be nice to post a couple of paragraphs, ya know.

To give folks an idea of what's behind the link?

<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."

<snip>

[dusmcj]

19. we'll see what happens. nt

[Xenotime]

20. Hey should be impeached...

he thinks he's above the law.

[ComerPerro]

21. Wow. Such arrogance

signing a law that you have no intention of following...

[Stephanie]

22. I think this is the signing statement >

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html