Bush Adds "Personal Waiver" to Bill Prohibiting Torture!

[Lemon law]

I wonder exactly how far out of touch with reality GWB is? Lately everything he touches blows up in his face, he is slowly alienating even his hard core base, and absolutely enraging everyone who had doubts about him in the first place. The relatively new Abramoff scandal will have far reaching effects and may cause any number of whistle blowers to come forward with the scandal possibly reaching deep into the
Bush administration itself. Meanwhile its business as usual, new unpopular recess appointments add fuel for the opposition to an uncoming supreme court nominee who will be grilled on Bush's tactics.

Meanwhile Bush is riding the tiger in Iraq. Controlled but not controlling events and simply hoping that Iraq will not also blow up in his face. No one in his inner circle is telling Bush that he has bet his Presidency on Iraq---nor does Bush seem to realise how much moral high ground he loses defending
torture that yields no real benefits.

After a while one just realises the only way that man will ever get a clue is to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.---even then he will be clueless but it sure will be a victory for everyone else and the best possible thing for foreign relations also. A token of US sincerity so sadly lacking for the past five years.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Wow - Bush is a wacko. Everything here that has been said about his abuse of power rings true...

But I can't help thinking that the REAL problem with what he is doing is to make the country unsafe. See, we always had limits to how we dealt with enemy prisoners, even terrorists. We usually followed the Geneva Convention, at the very least. But there was always SOME wiggle room, so extreme cases where special ops, delta operators, CIA agents, and other wetwork operators could use torture on the quiet, could abuse a detainee if they thought they had to get info, or had to kill them outright to preserve the secrecy of a mission.

By blatantly abusing the rules of the treatment of prisoners, what Bush has done is to have very concrete rules put in place, much more rigorous, and with more penalties, than had existed before. So that "wiggle room" for the wetwork ops has evaporated.

The problem is that there ARE probably very good reasons why spec ops and CIA agents have to infrequently do things that we consider ghastly and against the rule of law. It probably keeps us much safer, however, and as long as it is used in genuine emergencies or special cases I am not opposed to it. If a terrorist has info on a WMD in Manhattan, don't you think we would have a legitimate need to torture him?

But with Bush pushing the boundaries, and abusing EVERY power given to him, no one wants to make exemptions for special cases. And that is the problem - Bush has turned this into a litmus test of executive power vs. congressional power, rather than a rational debate about how we should treat which prisoners, and if there should be any special cases.

And that will only come back to haunt us...nice going W...

Future Shock

That's an interesting point. While I'm not sure I agree with you on proper uses of torture, your point about abusing power and the resulting additional restrictions is well taken. I've said this before, and it's worth saying again, I think that there is a certain amount of trust we place in our intelligence and police agencies and the people who run them, all the way up to the President himself. They have rules, but they also, as you put it, have some wiggle room. At the very least, they have the ability to bend those rules in extreme circumstances.

But by abusing the trust placed in them, and by being so blatantly agressive about that abuse, the end result will be further restrictions and laws and rules that are probably going to hamper their ability to do their job. I think that's a bad thing, but it's also a necessity. If you can't trust someone to do the right thing, how much power do you really want them to have? Yes, it might be useful if you could hand a lot of power over to a President who would responsibly use it to fight terrorists...but Bush is proving himself to not be that President.

 

[tommywishbone]

"You can't get a disease like Bush as President without there being something radically wrong with the American people."


I'm afraid this may be totally accurate.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
You can't get a disease like Bush as President without there being something radically wrong with the American people.


I'm afraid this may be totally accurate.

For the 52% that voted for him...yes something wrong there.

 

[judasmachine]

listening to that man is torture.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You can't get a disease like Bush as President without there being something radically wrong with the American people.

QFT

Check out this statement from the OP,

''The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. ''The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.' "

Yet time and time again Bush has placed himself above the law. Until the American people recognize and recover from the pathogen that is ailing us our democracy will continue to suffer.

Our only antidote is impeachment and indictment for the myriad crimes the Bush administration has and continues to commit.

 

[Lemon law]

I fail to see that Bush is an indictment of the American people. We must remember that the man was groomed with the best scripting Karl Rove could produce. Ringing pledges of compassionate conservatism and being a uniter not a divider. Only now are far too many realizing the huge gap between rethoric and fact.-----helped not at all by the dems fielding a candidate who could never connect with the American people-----and too polite to call a spade a spade when that fellow had also been duped by Bush.

Well, the midterm 2006 elections approach. I have not lost faith in the American people.----as they say the third time is a charm.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Wow - Bush is a wacko. Everything here that has been said about his abuse of power rings true...

But I can't help thinking that the REAL problem with what he is doing is to make the country unsafe. See, we always had limits to how we dealt with enemy prisoners, even terrorists. We usually followed the Geneva Convention, at the very least. But there was always SOME wiggle room, so extreme cases where special ops, delta operators, CIA agents, and other wetwork operators could use torture on the quiet, could abuse a detainee if they thought they had to get info, or had to kill them outright to preserve the secrecy of a mission.

By blatantly abusing the rules of the treatment of prisoners, what Bush has done is to have very concrete rules put in place, much more rigorous, and with more penalties, than had existed before. So that "wiggle room" for the wetwork ops has evaporated.

The problem is that there ARE probably very good reasons why spec ops and CIA agents have to infrequently do things that we consider ghastly and against the rule of law. It probably keeps us much safer, however, and as long as it is used in genuine emergencies or special cases I am not opposed to it. If a terrorist has info on a WMD in Manhattan, don't you think we would have a legitimate need to torture him?

But with Bush pushing the boundaries, and abusing EVERY power given to him, no one wants to make exemptions for special cases. And that is the problem - Bush has turned this into a litmus test of executive power vs. congressional power, rather than a rational debate about how we should treat which prisoners, and if there should be any special cases.

And that will only come back to haunt us...nice going W...

Future Shock

That's an interesting point. While I'm not sure I agree with you on proper uses of torture, your point about abusing power and the resulting additional restrictions is well taken. I've said this before, and it's worth saying again, I think that there is a certain amount of trust we place in our intelligence and police agencies and the people who run them, all the way up to the President himself. They have rules, but they also, as you put it, have some wiggle room. At the very least, they have the ability to bend those rules in extreme circumstances.

But by abusing the trust placed in them, and by being so blatantly agressive about that abuse, the end result will be further restrictions and laws and rules that are probably going to hamper their ability to do their job. I think that's a bad thing, but it's also a necessity. If you can't trust someone to do the right thing, how much power do you really want them to have? Yes, it might be useful if you could hand a lot of power over to a President who would responsibly use it to fight terrorists...but Bush is proving himself to not be that President.

In that situation, the cia operators torture, then go to jail. Bush will then at the end of his term pardon them.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush is on some kind of power trip, and constantly emboldened by his cronies who agree with or even guide him in his quest. If ever there was a man who needed people in his inner circle with the balls to tell him when he is wrong, it is Bush. Unfortunatley, only devout team players are welcome.

Cheney has been on a crusade for administrative power ever since he decided that it was not the public's business who he talked to or what criteria he used to form the National Energy Policy. It is as though he is determined that the people shall have no right to know or oversee what the government does. I have no doubt he has assured GWB that if he can gain unfettered power, then history will shower him with all of the glory for the acheivements during his reign. I, on the other hand, do not share the optimism of these people, and believe that history will be quite unkind to GWB.

 

[nihilaxiom]

History,history,history. Why are we ( the American people) not learning/remembering from history. Read up! Pre-war Germany and Hitlers "rise" to power ( or for that matter any dictators rise to power)Bush is just following the same path/tactics as all the rest. Whats truelly sad is that America was supposed to be so much better then that kind of mentality.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: nihilaxiom
History,history,history. Why are we ( the American people) not learning/remembering from history. Read up! Pre-war Germany and Hitlers "rise" to power ( or for that matter any dictators rise to power)Bush is just following the same path/tactics as all the rest. Whats truelly sad is that America was supposed to be so much better then that kind of mentality.

Actually, it seems to me he takes more after Nixon. The parallels are obvious.

 

[BBond]

Hitler, Nixon, Bush -- they're all cast from the same mold.

Authoritarian fascists who believe they're above the law yet it's their job to enforce it on everyone else.

 

[MicroChrome]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey
According to Bush, we don't need no stiinkin' Consititution.

Can you say, "incredulous," boys and girls? It's IM-PEACH-MENT time! :| :| :|

I didn't know bills were part of the Constitution?

So how much are they paying you to look the other way and go on with the program.

This president is the worst one we have ever had and needs to go... Soon....

 

[trenchfoot]

you'd think he started this war with iraq just so he could position himself to ignore all of the laws that's preventing him from doing things "his way".

the pieces of the puzzle that bush, cheney, rumsfeld et al are doing their best to hide from the american people are continually being exposed and put in place. the agenda he was tasked with is getting clearer all the time.

i guess we're going to be "at war" at least until his term expires.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
you'd think he started this war with iraq just so he could position himself to ignore all of the laws that's preventing him from doing things "his way".

the pieces of the puzzle that bush, cheney, rumsfeld et al are doing their best to hide from the american people are continually being exposed and put in place. the agenda he was tasked with is getting clearer all the time.

i guess we're going to be "at war" at least until his term expires.

Maybe the plan is to stay so permanently "at war" that his term doesn't expire.

 

[GoPackGo]

In a ticking clock scenario i have no problem with torture...

Not physical like beatings but if we need to pump someone up with truth syrum to tell us where a nuke is at in LA, then so be it. If it ends up killing him or frying his brain? then so be it.

This only for the guy who says I have a nuke, its going to go off, and I am not telling sort of thing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In a ticking clock scenario i have no problem with torture...

Not physical like beatings but if we need to pump someone up with truth syrum to tell us where a nuke is at in LA, then so be it. If it ends up killing him or frying his brain? then so be it.

This only for the guy who says I have a nuke, its going to go off, and I am not telling sort of thing.

Are you re-watching last season's 24? 😉

And this isn't the 1st time the Propagandist has issued a signing statement
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13568438.htm

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

"It's nothing short of breath-taking," said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University. "In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and pre-empted the judiciary."

Signing statements don't have the force of law, but they can influence judicial interpretations of a statute. They also send a powerful signal to executive branch agencies on how the White House wants them to implement new federal laws.

In some cases, Bush bluntly informs Congress that he has no intention of carrying out provisions that he considers an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority.

"They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."

The White House says its authority stems from the Constitution, but dissenters say that view ignores the Constitution's careful balance of powers between branches of government.

[...]

The roots of Bush's approach go back to the Ford administration, when Dick Cheney, then serving as White House chief of staff, chafed at legislative limits placed on the executive branch in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and other abuses of power by President Nixon. Now the vice president and his top aide, David Addington, are taking the lead in trying to tip the balance of power away from Congress and back to the president.

They may soon have an ally on the Supreme Court. As a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote a 1986 memo outlining plans for expanded use of presidential signing statements.

Although Alito told his bosses that the aggressive use of assertive signing statements "would increase the power of the executive to shape the law," he acknowledged doubts about their legal significance.

[...]

Bush and his legal advisers offer a variety of arguments to support their claims to power. In their view, the Constitution's directive that "the president shall be commander in chief" gives Bush virtually unlimited authority on issues related to national security.

They also rely heavily on the "unitary executive" theory to resist congressional directives to federal agencies. The theory rests on the Constitution's clause that says that "executive power shall be vested in a president."

Bush has cited the theory, which has not been fully tested in court, more than 100 times in his signing statements.

Skeptics say the president and his advisers overlook the Constitution's checks and balances, noting that the Framers had a deep distrust of excessive executive power, having rebelled against a king. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and shared power over executive spending, for example.

Lawmakers from both parties have questioned Bush's assertion of his wartime authority.

"If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"The Constitution says that if the president doesn't like it (a bill), he can veto it. And we have an opportunity to override the veto," Kennedy noted.

Some members of Congress from both parties also question the legal authority of presidential signing statements.

"He can say whatever he likes, I don't know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hmmm...soooo....DICK didn't like the restriction of executive powers introduced in the wake of Tricky Dick's abuse of those powers? Awww....poor DICK.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In a ticking clock scenario i have no problem with torture...

Not physical like beatings but if we need to pump someone up with truth syrum to tell us where a nuke is at in LA, then so be it. If it ends up killing him or frying his brain? then so be it.

This only for the guy who says I have a nuke, its going to go off, and I am not telling sort of thing.

While I understand your point and disagree with it, this is a far larger issue. What Bush is saying is that his will trumps the other branches because he says it does. In effect, he cannot break the law because in a very real way his will IS law.

How is it possible for Bush to violate the law in such a circumstance?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In a ticking clock scenario i have no problem with torture...

Not physical like beatings but if we need to pump someone up with truth syrum to tell us where a nuke is at in LA, then so be it. If it ends up killing him or frying his brain? then so be it.

This only for the guy who says I have a nuke, its going to go off, and I am not telling sort of thing.

Can you cite a single example of such a situation?

For the record, there's no such thing as truth serum. Thiopental sodium (Pentothal) is a short-acting barbituate. Barbituates are sedative/anesthetics. In essence, they make you feel relaxed to the point of sleepiness and reduce your overall "awareness."

But just like alcohol, barbituates don't make you tell the truth . . . just maybe talk a little more. Hell, some people are more likely to lie AFTER drinking. Think about it, if you are buzzing and want to convince a girl, guy, or girl AND a guy to come home with you . . . you are capable of telling all kinds of stories to achieve your goal.

It works in reverse as well. When you've got a little buzz on you are more susceptible to suggestion but it's still a CHOICE. Sex with ugly girl versus DVD+rosy palms is still volitional . . . despite your claims after the fact.

Thiopental sodium doesn't fry the brain. It does suppress respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure. If you give too much of any barbituate you can induce cardiopulmonary arrest.

Interestingly, MDMA (Ecstasy), Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), ketamine, GHB, and good old MD 20/20 are all potentially useful to make people "manageable." But the information garnered will be highly suspect. Accordingly, you would rarely (if ever) take this route if your goal was to get USEFUL information ASAP.

It is possible that using the right drug, at the right dose, in a particular person may produce actionable information. But it would require intimate knowledge of the person (med/psych history, drug pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics). If you don't have this information, you cannot reliably use "medicinal chemistry" manipulation.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ok, am I the only person who is confused by this whole thing? I mean, on the face of it, it makes Bush sound really crazy in a Bond villian kind of way. Now I admit he's a lot of things, but this whole "the laws don't apply to me" complex he's got going on is really off the deep end kind of stuff. I can't imagine he possibly believes that being commander-in-chief affords him the right to just ignore the rule of law in this country. And yet, this is hardly the first time where being commander-in-chief is wielded as some kind of magical talisman that protects him from having to follow the law.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I can't believe that the actual position of our actual president is that laws don't apply to him. I realize he is not, nor has he ever been, part of the same America as the rest of us...but this is a little much.

The law has never applied to the Bush's (and others). Why would people think that once he became president he would become a law abiding citizen? Doesn't common sense tell you he will just get more corrupt.

Really, we need to take control of this country back and impeach him. He deserves it so much more then Clinton did and we need to send a message to the rest of them that there are consequences for them too.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I guess this explains why he hasn't issued a single veto. He doesn't have to. He just makes a simple statement at signing and only the part of the law that he doesn't like or agree with is disregarded.

This is what happens when you have someone that has never been told no in his entire life, put into a position of authority. He has always had the juice to have someone bail him out of any situation, whether it be a military draft, desertion, jail, DUIs, fights, horrific business decisions, etc. He has also always had the juice/connections to get him into plum spots like Yale, Harvard, TANG instead of Vietnam, Texas Rangers baseball investment that increased 1700%, governor and president.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
In a ticking clock scenario i have no problem with torture...

Not physical like beatings but if we need to pump someone up with truth syrum to tell us where a nuke is at in LA, then so be it. If it ends up killing him or frying his brain? then so be it.

This only for the guy who says I have a nuke, its going to go off, and I am not telling sort of thing.

Can you cite a single example of such a situation?

For the record, there's no such thing as truth serum. Thiopental sodium (Pentothal) is a short-acting barbituate. Barbituates are sedative/anesthetics. In essence, they make you feel relaxed to the point of sleepiness and reduce your overall "awareness."

But just like alcohol, barbituates don't make you tell the truth . . . just maybe talk a little more. Hell, some people are more likely to lie AFTER drinking. Think about it, if you are buzzing and want to convince a girl, guy, or girl AND a guy to come home with you . . . you are capable of telling all kinds of stories to achieve your goal.

It works in reverse as well. When you've got a little buzz on you are more susceptible to suggestion but it's still a CHOICE. Sex with ugly girl versus DVD+rosy palms is still volitional . . . despite your claims after the fact.

Thiopental sodium doesn't fry the brain. It does suppress respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure. If you give too much of any barbituate you can induce cardiopulmonary arrest.

Interestingly, MDMA (Ecstasy), Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), ketamine, GHB, and good old MD 20/20 are all potentially useful to make people "manageable." But the information garnered will be highly suspect. Accordingly, you would rarely (if ever) take this route if your goal was to get USEFUL information ASAP.

It is possible that using the right drug, at the right dose, in a particular person may produce actionable information. But it would require intimate knowledge of the person (med/psych history, drug pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics). If you don't have this information, you cannot reliably use "medicinal chemistry" manipulation.

Do you think we would actually be told?

 

[tommywishbone]

A terrified cowardly mind can justify anything.

Herr Bushler is laughing at all of us.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Do you think we would actually be told?

Yes, the government would want to show they did something right, they'd hold the fact that they prevented a terrorist attack because in the court of public opinion that would do wonders.

 

[trenchfoot]

looks like this year's elections is shaping up to be a very definitive and telling message to bush and his party of the way he is abrogating the very laws he swore to defend.
this, along with the stench of criminal acts perpetrated against the citizens of the US by his legions.