Bush: I'll torture when I need to

[Generator]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF


From the I'm not shocked anymore and well duh! department of the little shell game of "we don't torture" comes this...

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.



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."


~
so much for McCain's stand. Punked again by a two bit punk, McCain..aren't you tired of it yet?

[Loonman]

1. Sounds like a fascist dictator to me

McCain got taken for a chump.


Again.

[CJCRANE]

2. Another innovation: "a signing statement" nt

[barbtries]

3. when do i get enough posts to

kick one?

[louis-t]

5. Kick one what? Republican liar?

Hee-hee.

[Christa]

6. Dunno

I think you have to make 50 posts - I posted like mad as I wanted to k & R ;-)

[CJCRANE]

7. You just did nt

[MnFats]

16. keep trying, barb. you'll get there. (l'il humor there)

very little. humor, that is.
Welcome. have fun & get angry all at once....

[ninkasi]

25. When you respond to a post...

it is automatically kicked. No number of posts required. A minimum number is required to start a thread, I believe.

[BurtWorm]

4. Actually, Bush is reserving the right to ORDER torture.

He's not going anywhere near torture himself. He's just going to order people in the military and CIA to do it.

[madokie]

9. when you're pissing down both legs its hard to convince the tortureie

you're a tough cookie.

[Generator]

18. You are correct sir!

We know Bush is only capable of sneering and ordering destruction of lives.

I always seem to find something that I feel compelled to post right before I have to leave..the implications of this are the same as the spy scandal..I can do it because I'm president..and I will darn it!

Who is stopping King George?..awaiting an answer from those that still can.

[Fridays Child]

8. For chrissakes, give the man some frogs to blow up, so he'll leave...

...humans alone.

[DinahMoeHum]

10. Better yet, somebody please give the guy a blow job so can IMPEACH!!

Where's Monica when we need her??

:evilfrown:

[Time for change]

11. So, what Bush appears to be saying, once again, is that

he has the right as President to ignore any law that he chooses.

It seems to me that that stance with regard to ANY law should be grounds for impeachment. The alternative to that statement is that there is no grounds for impeachment under any circumstances because whatever the president does is by definition legal.

[Double T]

12. bush's presidency is torture everyday he remains in office........

how much torture can one country stand??

[politicaholic]

13. Is the "signed statement" thing part of the Line Item Veto bill?

Look at McCain, introduce a torture bill and become the whipping boy.

How quaint.

Hey McCain. Still republican? Now? How about now?...

[Frank Cannon]

29. I think it's another crooked Bush Administration innovation...

that "allows" them to do whatever the fuck they want to do, regardless of Congress or the law.

[november3rd]

14. Bush issues signing statement equivocating torture law's force

We have to get this guy the f*** out of there.

[pinto]

15. Guess who wrote an '86 memo about "power of the Exec. to shape the law"

February 5, 1986

TO: The Litigation Strategy Working Group

FROM: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

SUBJ: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

At our last meeting, I was asked to draft a preliminary proposal for implementing the idea of making fuller use of Presidential signing statements. This memorandum is a rough first effort in that direction.

<snip>

The novelty of the proposal previously discussed by this Group is the suggestion that Presidential signing statements be used to address questions of interpretation. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes law only when passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or enacted over his veto). Since the President's approval is just as important as that ofthe House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress. Yet in interpreting statutes, both courts and litigants (including lawyers in the Executive branch) invariably speak of "legislative" or "congressional" intent. Rarely if ever do courts or litigants inquire into the President's intent. Why is this so?

<snip>

From the perspective of the Executive Branch, the issuance of interpretive signing statements would have two chief advantages. First, it would increase the power of the Executive to shape the law. Second, by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars,and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.

<complete memo at link>

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BE5iZZr20dUJ:www.archives.gov/news/samuel-alito/accession-060-89-269/Acc060-89-269-box6-SG-LSWG-AlitotoLSWG-Feb1986.pdf+Presidential+%22signing+statement%22&hl=en

[fasttense]

17. Are you scared by bush now? How about now?

Were you scared when he lied us into war? Did he make the hair on your arms raise when he got Homeland Security their little un-Patriot Act? How about when he let 4,000 New Orleans poor drown? How about when he got those secret prisons? Did it bother you when he said he would spy on you even if the law and the Constitution said otherwise. How about this signed statement saying he will torture when he wants to. Are you afraid of the crazy man with his finger on the button? How about his worries over Iran? Do you trust the crazy man to tell you the truth about Iran? Are you scared of the crazy King George yet? You should be.

[tuvor]

19. He's a sadist. I can't think of any other rational reason.

Play devil's advocate and give me a reason that makes sense.

[mogster]

28. Agree. Torture don't work

It produces faulty intel.

The only reason (besides sadism, and we shouldn't rule that out) for torturing people would be to knowingly drag the name and 'trademark' of USA, the fair democracy, into the dirt.

Basically; make people hate you.

[Marie26]

31. It's so bad it makes anything else look good.

Torture completely goes against the principles of the Constitution, the law & American ideals. Once we give Bush the right to do this, all bets are off. It's sort of like drawing a line in the sand - Bush wants to draw it all the way over into allowing torture. Once the line is drawn there, almost everything else falls within his power. In defending the NSA spying, Gonzales said that the Congress allowed Bush to use his war powers to create "enemy combatants," which is much more serious than wiretaps, so why are they complaining now? And he's right. It's hard for Congress, or the people, to complain about other outrages when we've already been complicit in allowing the President to commit the ultimate outrage.

[tyedyeto]

20. McCain knew exactly what * was going to say and do when he signed

He wasn't punked, he was a part of it.

[fooj]

21. Little Lord Pissypants ALWAYS gets his way!!

From the I'm not shocked anymore and well duh! department of the little shell game of "we don't torture" comes this...

No fricking kidding!!!

Peace.

[CoffeeCat]

22. What a petulant child...

...most great leaders fight for what is right, and they fight for higher causes to make the world better and more just.

Not this scum-sucking piece of poop on a slimy amoeba.

He fights to hurt and torture people.

What a sick, moronic, shameful, sad sack of shit we have sitting in the Oval Office.

He makes me want to puke out a lung.

He gets off on going around the law--because he's nothing but a maladjusted misfit from the planet of spoiled children on steroids.

How did this immature, embarrassing buffet of mental disorders ever make it into cheerleading camp--let alone to the White House?

I could hurl. Seriously. The man is so far gone---it's unimaginable.

The man fights tooth and nail--to hurt and maim. He'll go to the mat--and he'll fight, by God!!! When it comes to torturing other human beings, the man is a tiger!!! Whooo hoooo...watch the psycho work it!

It's just beyond comprehension.

How did we get here?

The man is outer limits.

[ninkasi]

26. You're right

He'll fight tooth and nail to torture, kill, maim, or destroy anybody he pleases. What he WON'T do is fight with the same zeal to make life better for average citizens. He won't fight to keep jobs in this country, or to keep the rich from earning profits at the expense of the poor, or to see that every citizen has decent health care. No, these are not things which interest him. Ahh...talk about inflicting pain, maiming, and causing death, and our prez is front and center, always willing to fight for those causes.

[Ksec]

23. Ill do anything I want to ...

And you cant stop me.

Ive always got everything Ive wanted.

My Daddy will fix it if you dont like it.

George McCokespoon Boosh

[Nikki Stone 1]

24. Evil and arrogance all in one.

..

[tavalon]

27. I'm glad this is on the Greatest Page

It desperately needs to be.

[Theduckno2]

30. As long as the War on Terra continues, U.S. security is theatened.

Does anybody see Bush declaring an end to the War on Terror anytime soon? I don't! So, it would seem as though, for the foreseeable future, Bush could go on torturing as he deems necessary in order to protect national security.

The only silver-lining I see in this, is that Bush had to make public record of his actions, as opposed to his usual policy of sneakiness (insert picture of Snidely Whiplash) and deliberate stonewalling. I only hope the sunlight of truth makes things uncomfortable for the germ that is George Bush.

[greiner3]

32. So that means the Dem who wins in '08;

Can use torture on b*** who will be inprisoned by then in some federal joint where the inmates make the rules and the guards call the inmates 'sir.'