Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture

  1. http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl.../01/06/1451239

    ...Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. In this document Bush declared that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. Legal experts say this means Bush believes he can waive the anti-torture restrictions. This is not sitting well with some Republican Senators, including John Warner, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham....
  2. 5 Comments

  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    amazing. just sickening.
  4. by   VivaLasViejas
    And this is surprising..........how??
  5. by   leslie :-D
    it's sickening, scary, narcissistic and sadly predictable.
  6. by   maureeno
    Alito thought up this method twenty years ago
    >>In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."

    In the memo, Judge Alito noted that one problem was the effect these signing statements would have on Congressional relations. They would "not be warmly welcomed by Congress," he predicted, because of the "novelty of the procedure" and "the potential increase of presidential power."<<<

    Bush and Alito believe in some nonsense
    called unitary theory of presidential power
    which I say is another name for dictatorship
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    ..."The Supreme Court flatly rejected Judge Alito's view of the law. In a 1985 ruling, the court rightly concluded that if the attorney general had the sort of immunity Judge Alito favored, it would be an invitation to deny people their constitutional rights"...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/op...79ff&ei=5 070

    Private conversations taken out of context and interpreted by an attorney can convict an innocent person.