Bush could bypass new torture ban - The Boston Globe
The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage has the goods on the supposedly tough new law that was passed through the house and senate attached to the latest Military funding bill. The language, inserted by AZ Senator John McCain, effectively ended the use of torture or any "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" tactics upon prisoners of war or other captives.
the Bush administration decided, once again that it needs not be bounded by such laws.
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.
There seems to be no amount of kingly power that Bush and his crew are not willing to take. I was under the impression that this was a nation governed by laws not men. How much of a simpleton I have been.
posted by thorrad @ 9:44 AM
2 Comments:
I heard a guy on Canadian radio a week or two ago. His take was that the adminsitration can say it's against torture because it defines tortures as perpetrating physical acts -- like pulling our fingernails maybe? I don't know. So, mental persuasion such as sensory deprivation or sensory bombardment, for example, is okay. As it sleep deprivation or requiring people to assume difficult positions for long periods of time -- just standing, for example.
Yeah, Anvil,
Its all a PR game. I realize that the admin. has been "defining up" torture from what had been just inhuman or degrading treatment to a new definition that I think I remember as being "the amount of pain associated with major organ failure." I believe that that was an actual phrase bandied about by one of the civillian leaders of the defence department. (one who, interestingly enough, didn't serve in the militarty until he was appointed to lead it.)
I guess I just think about our moral obligation to ourselves and the world here. I mean we are selling ourselves down the river for a few peices of bad information and a chance at revenge. Plus, at this rate, who really thinks that any US military personnel captured in further combat operations won't be subjected to worse? We have assured that the gloves are off and I bet there isn't an enemy of the USA out there that won't take advantage of that.
Post a Comment
<< Home