Bush Signs Torture Ban

[Jaime]

From the Boston Globe here is the rest of the [url="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=2"]article[/url]

[quote]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.

[b]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.[/b][/quote]

Edited January 16, 2006 by jaime

[philothea]

[Sojourner]

Typical Republican ... say one thing and mean another.

[Jaime]

First he threatens to veto a ban on torture. Then when congress prevented him from being able to, he REWRITES THE LAW!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

We need to pray for honest politicians in all parties.

[Brother Adam]

Do you get your Catholic news from the Boston Globe as well?

[Jaime]

I find it interesting that Bush fans are being so quiet on this particular thread.


And as quiet as this story has been, it certainly puts to rest the myth of the "liberal media"

[Jaime]

No one wants to rise to Bush's defense?


figures

[Akalyte]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 16 2006, 07:55 PM']No one wants to rise to Bush's defense?
figures
[right][snapback]858255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yeah, wait and see what he does first before you judge him.

[Jaime]

I've seen what he did

There was a bill calling for an all out ban on torture. And with his signing statement, he nullified it.

I'm judging that as completely immoral

[Jaime]

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is what he added to the Torture ban. This states that the President can circumvent the ban in cases of terrorism.

Congress passed this bill so overwhelmingly, Bush couldn't veto it. So he did this

[Cow of Shame]

It makes me wonder what he knows that makes him think that torture just might occasionally be a good idea....

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Jan 16 2006, 10:13 PM']It makes me wonder what he knows that makes him think that torture just might occasionally be a good idea....
[right][snapback]858350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How about what he doesn't know?

He doesn't know that the president cannot arbitrarily redefine laws to suit his needs.

He doesn't know that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that states torture doesn't work

He doesn't know that torture is immoral in all cases

[Cow of Shame]

Well, he's either hopped up on a power trip or honestly believes that torture is sometimes justified....that's all.

I didn't make any mention whether I think what he did was right or wrong, or whether I ever think that torture is justified in any instance.

[blovedwolfofgod]

any treaty that is signed with a reservation pretty much means that reservation applies to all because of reciprocity. most countries are reciprocal. thats why we do nothing about genocide, because reagen signed the treaty and his reservation clause implied that it only applied to us when we wanted it to. if the reservation implies that we can waive anything, everyone can waive it too and nothing can happen.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Jan 16 2006, 03:48 PM']Typical[s] Republican[/s] Politician ... say one thing and mean another.
[right][snapback]858061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Fixed

Torture is contrary to the dignity of the human person.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:56 AM']Torture is contrary to the dignity of the human person.
[right][snapback]858625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Agreed.

[Jaime]

I'm curious as to how other Bush supporters react to this?

[PadreSantiago]

they close their eyes, plug their ears and go into a cave. It's called selective hearing. They hear what they want. They ignore the murder, treason and theft of our civil liberities and instead focus on more important issues, like homosexuality.

[Theoketos]

This sort of relivant, but what is water boarding?