Bush Issues 'Sighning Statement' To Bypass Torture Ban

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0104-02.htm

Published on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 by the Boston Globe

Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban
Waiver right is reserved

by Charlie Savage

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.


..more..

[bryant69]

1. Well it's a good law but just doesn't apply to me

Because the Executive Branch gets whatever it wants. All the time.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Stephanie]

2. This is OUTRAGEOUS

I am trying now to find the order at the WH site. I want him IMPEACHED. Enough is enough.

[Cassandra]

3. This is what Alito wants him to do.

Which is why they want Alito there. Anything else they get out of him is just gravy.

[texpatriot2004]

15. I agree, IMPEACHMENT NOW! nm

[Stephanie]

4. Is this it? >

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

[G_j]

6. seems to be

meanwhile, the public thinks Bush is onboard with the "no torture" policy.

yea right...

[IndyOp]

12. My opinion: McCain knew he was delivering an empty promise to

Congress & US citizens. McCain and WH both *win* - and the torture continues.

:nuke:

[stevedeshazer]

13. That is GOBBLEDYGOOK

I've read it three times, and I still don't know what it means. If it's confusing enough, I guess Bunnypants can do whatever he wants.

Impeachment Now!

[jimshoes]

5. Let's hold this one up

to the "If Clinton did this" test. (Bill or Hillary) See what kind of reaction we get.

[G_j]

7. ~~

[librechik]

8. good--so he has to torture them personally now!

as if...

what did we expect? We have to grow up and realize that he really is what he looks like, and we really do have to stop him.

[underpants]

9. So now the Executive branch has judicial review powers?

and the Judicial branch is supposed to give up such powers?

(knocks on pod door) YOU GUYS ARE JUST MAKING THIS SHIT UP NOW AREN'T YOU????

[Rob H.]

10. Bastard!

The fact that he issued that "signing statement" tells me that he really has no intention to follow the law. The public signing was just a dog and pony show for the idiots who still believe Bush is completely against torture (read as: FoxNews viewers). There's no gray area, imho--you can't say, "Torture is bad. I'm against torture and I think it shouldn't be used, ever," and then add the caveat, "Unless I authorize torture to be used when I feel that torture is necessary." (Well, unless you're Republican--then you get a lifetime free pass from the corporate media and can pretty much do whatever you want without the media calling you on any of it.)

:mad:

[annabanana]

11. k&r..eom

[robbedvoter]

14. So, he is personally responsible for torture and all consequences

(such as retaliation against our troops, US citizens). At least, when the next ABu Grahib breaks, it won't be "sum' bad apples"
I plan to keep this statement in a safe place to be waived the next time the s* hit the fan.
What was their last inspirational mantra? "We do not torture?"
Raising the bar....

[G_j]

16. The War Crimes Act of 1996

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

(July 18, 2005 issue)

Torture and Accountability

Elizabeth Holtzman

<snip>
The War Crimes Act of 1996

No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

<snip>
The specter of prosecution was particularly worrisome because the Conventions use broad terminology. Noting that violations may consist of "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment," Gonzales advised the President in his memo that it would be "difficult to predict with confidence" which actions would violate the War Crimes Act and which would not.

Moreover, Gonzales opined, it was "difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels" acting in the future. (The "future" could be a very long time indeed, because there would be no statute of limitations on War Crimes Act prosecutions in cases where the victim died.)

Although Gonzales did not spell out which government officials he was concerned about, his reference to "independent counsels" suggests that he had in mind people at the highest levels. In the past, independent counsels--or special prosecutors, as they were previously called--had been appointed to investigate both President Nixon and President Clinton. The independent counsel statute (now expired) applied to Presidents and top officials.
<snip>

[G_j]

17. Alito on on expanding the use of presidential signing statements:

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1124

From a 1986 memorandum on expanding the use of presidential signing statements:

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 of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.
* * *
- What happens when there is a clear conflict between the congressional and presidential understanding? Whose intent controls? Is the law totally void? Is it inoperative only to the extent that there is disagreement?
- If presidential intent is of little or no significance when inconsistent with congressional intent, what role is there for presidential intent? Is it entitled to the deference comparable to that customarily given to administrative interpretations?

This last point - the relevance of presidential signing statements - seems arcane, yet it may actually be one of the most important issues the Senate will face, since it bears directly on the power of the executive branch in interpreting and executing congressional legislation. Consider, for example, the lengthy signing statement that President Bush issued last week when signing the law containing the McCain torture amendment.
<snip>

[Justice Is Comin]

18. Where are those damn Abu Ghareb photos and videos

so we can put a ribbon around them along with this little rat hole clause and present this whole package on the six o'clock world news?

[leeroysphitz]

19. "Interpretive" Signing Statements.

Everyone needs to read about how this is working. Bush is saying in essence that he is only obligated to follow the law when it doesn't conflict with his "duty" to protect national security. This is in essence CARTE BLANCH power for the executive. Under this philosophy you could claim justification for almost ANY act. Especially when you can classify the whole thing.

And it's more than flouting the torture ban. The implications of the administrations continued use of this tactic is STAGGERING. If he isn't called on it immediately, via the strongest congressional oversight it could set future precedent for Bush to ignore any law he chooses or infer upon himself powers that congress never intended. By diktat. Granting himself authority on his own authority.

This isn't just another outrage. This is FANTASTICALLY dangerous to our republic.

We need to do something.

[proud patriot]

20. bush is Criminal ,bush is FIRED

[sakabatou]

21. My WTF-dar has gone off...

[mom cat]

22. Democracies do not need to torture people, but Oiligarchs do.

Bush knows that without draconian powers, he is toast, and so are his buddies.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. ***Another thread on this in the LBN forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2019631
thread title (1/4/06 LBN): Boston Globe: Bush could bypass new torture ban

In addition to this, the Bush DoJ has initiated proceedings to try to throw out of court all existing Gitmo cases. And then there's the recently passed (same time, in same defense budget bill as the McCain "anti-torture" amendment) Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, which basically guts the McCain amendment anyway. So, taken with this "waiver letter," there are at least three different "legal" manuevers ongoing to allow the Bushies to torture all they want despite any laws to the contrary. I'll post a compilation thread on this later.

In the meantime, ask yourself: given the well-known fact that evidence obtained by torture is not reliable, WHY DO THEY WANT TORTURE SO MUCH? I've thought about this and decided the answer is that it's their own terror campaign. Intimidation of possible dissent. The final morphing of law-enforcement and protective services of this country into the feared Gestapo, to keep them in power and force obedience. Not information, but terror-mongering.

[pinto]

24. Found some background on this "googling" off an earlier thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=183118&mesg_id=183118

[G_j]

25. Conyers' blog comments:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000342.htm

Blogged by JC on 01.03.06 @ 10:13 PM ET

Abramoff Plea Deal -- Whats Next; Obnoxious Bush Signing Statement on Torture Bill
Another recess day, another big day in D.C. The big news was the Abramoff plea deal (see CREW's analysis ). We start by giving DOJ some credit for agressively pursuing...


Another recess day, another big day in D.C.

The big news was the Abramoff plea deal (see CREW's analysis). We start by giving DOJ some credit for agressively pursuing this case, but the unanswered question is where they will take this case from here? They appear to have fingered one Rep., and hinted at bribery of others, but it looks like a lot of work needs to be done before further indictments are brought. I have seen this Department at work, and they are more politicized than any DOJ under any president I have seen. We can only hope there are some good, strong career attorneys in the middle of this case, who are willing to blow the whistle if political pressure is brought to bear to quiet the thing down.

I also read a good post at mydd on Bush's signing statement on the Defense bill. In particular, he appeared to thumb his nose at Congress on torture, essentially saying the Executive reserves whatever power he or she deems necessary unto itself. This is the same animus that led to the warrantless wiretapping scandal, the Iraq debacle, and many, many civil liberties abuses since Sept. 11. I intend to do everything within my power to provide some sort of check and balance to these outrageous usurpations of authority that threaten our very constitutional structure. Really amazing stuff.

[alfredo]

26. He had his fingers crossed.

for full size image, open in new window or tab. Remove the "tn" from near the end of the URL.
Download and print then paste, glut, tape, or staple where you can.