I am looking for Republicans only to address the following specific article...?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_co/bush_signing_statements

Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress.

I guess my specific question is... Do we really need a loophole allowing torture? Go ahead and defend the commander in chief.

Kusasiawash... I have issues about Democrats, but this imparticular question isn't really about them.

FNKYCOL... You say its more complex than I suggest, I disagree. There are reasons for signing statements on other bills sure, JUST NOT THIS ONE.

Boob... The article begins, "Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) thought he had a deal when President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers." Sorry, I will try to contain my ignorance in the future.

MIKE B... You think I, "Care more about the enemy." How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Because I denounce torture.

Answer 1

Just in case you were too stupid to catch it, that article is referring to the Patriot Act. Also know as "The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" < If you think that is bad... well, you shouldn't be starting any political arguments.

Answer 2

It's more complex than your description of the issue seems to allow.

Here's just a small excerpt from Wikipedia:
_____________________________________
A November 3, 1993 memo from the Clinton Justice Department explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

"If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."

Signing statements may be viewed as a type of executive order without congressional (democratic) oversight. Other types of executive order are, national security directives, homeland security presidential directives, and presidential decision directives, all of which deal with national security and defense matters.
_____________________________________


Unless you are a lawyer highly skilled in this area, there are many arguments you can make on either side that seem indisputable. The fact is that the President has the authority to protect rights given to him by the Constitution. If only a "small number" of provisions in a new bill would violate those rights in "some" circumstances, then the President's obligation is to explain that in the signing statement.



***
***** UPDATE *****
***

You may disagree that in the "torture" bill, the move was not complex, but I respectfully disagree with your disagreement!

Apparently you've never watched an entire season of 24 before. The President could be faced with an important, time-pending decision in the face of national security in which thousands or even millions of American lives were at stake. This could easily have been one of the scenarios on his mind when he made that signing statement to McCain's bill.

Here's an article:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

You may not buy that, and that's your right of opinion. However, it seems clear to me that there are scenarios in which the signing statement doesn't seem so ridiculous, and furthermore, that it does not mean he WON'T follow the law 99.99999% of the time. To think otherwise is leaving behind any facts that you have in favor of your opinion. Interestingly, Yahoo! edited their news release (check your link) that no longer mentions McCain in the article. There just isn't enough fact available to back up such a wild accusation. When you are biased against the administration or political party, it is easy to make assumptions like that...

On a personal note, I'm not so worried about the rights of Al Qaeda and other insurgents in Iraq who have beheaded and/or mutilated hundreds of people from different nationalities around the world, including our own. I wouldn't lose any sleep if it became official that we tortured the most ruthless detainees to obtain valuable information to fight this war on terror. I think it would work in our favor if that came to light...

*****
CBB, by the way, is on some wicked Kool-Aid over there! Perhaps the fact that many WMD chemical munitions have been found since 2003 and that the international community had similar intelligence that we did, still is not enough to convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist. Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if CBB thinks our government, and not Al Qaeda, is responsible for 9/11 as well. Must be buying into that Loose Change documentary, LOL...

Answer 3

I have no defense for this. I typically vote conservative, but this man has no respect for our laws and civil liberties. After reading that article, I am more disgusted than ever. I want him out of office immediately.

Answer 4

what torture you mean taking naked pictures i don't that is not torture if somebody did torture then they should be punished i think you care more about the enemy than you do about us why don't you go live with the enemy so they can cut your head off

Answer 5

do you really think that a republican, who voted for him will say anything that will be against him? good luck, good question. if republicans can't answer it truthfully, that only renforces the way the pathetic republican party currently destroying our way of life and our place in the world community does things.

Answer 6

Pretty bad huh? seems that dems do it too. maybe all politicians are corrupt? maybe you cannot trust the government?