Bush could bypass new torture ban: Waiver right is reserved

The Boston Globe ^ | January 04, 2006 | Charlie Savage

[jmc1969]

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 [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."

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

[jmc1969]

Zarqawi and Bin Laden won't be getting the kiddy glove treatment if captured.

[EagleUSA]

Good -- let the obstructionist liberals continue to whine, while the job of prosecuting a war goes on.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said."

The author, if any more to the left will be looking to his right to see Lenin. "Bush believes? No, you slimeball of a hack reporter, the Constitution gives Bush the authority and the legal experts agreed."

The MSM is just worthless.

[Semper Paratus]

McCain got Bushwacked again! LOL!

[TomGuy]

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.

...

In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held.

...

Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference.

"The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

===

Seems there is a lack of a meeting of the minds between Bush and McCain.

This is another legislative muddle that will result in lawyers being happy to go to court and challenge either side.

[untrained skeptic]

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.

''Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view."

Maybe she should think a bit harder about what co-equal means, because she's basically arguing that Congress has supreme power to overrule the President's constitutional authority, and then calling that being co-equal.

[Soul Seeker]

''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."

YESSSSSSSSSS!!! G.W.B. just slammed McCain and the other losers in the U.S. Congress!!! Well done Mr. President! So this is what he had up his sleeve to prevent McCain protecting terrorists. LOL

[La Enchiladita]

Interesting news ping.

[festus]

A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.

Such as when he figures out which senators were leaking the eavesdropping program to the NYTimes.

[tiki]

Yeah, but the weasel McCain lines up a few more liberals for his side in the next presidential election.

[mrsmith]

Constitutionally he doesn't have much of a claim here.

The Constitution expressly gives congress the powers "To define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations" and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

Probably any case would fall under those two provisions.

[Cboldt]

Discussion at http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/5448252.html

Relevant text from President Bush's signing statement for H.R.2863:

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

The signing statement for H.R.1815 refers to and incorporates this language.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060106-12.html