NewsBlog 5000
The finger on the invisible hand
 

President can Waive Torture Prohibition

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

(SNN Washington) When President Bush signed the bill outlining the torture of detainees, he issued an additional statement declaring that he will respect interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers.

A White House official told us that the laws would not be ignored.

Basically, what this means is that despite the fact of law was passed by a veto proof super majority of both houses of Congress, the president still believes that he can torture people at his own discretion. The president's "signing statement" as it is called essentially says "I will torture whomever I like whenever I feel like it."

A White House official told us that the laws would not be ignored. "We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment." However, the officials said the situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions.

A detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.

The official then cited an example where a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. In such a situation, President Bush could swoop in like a Jack Bauer and personally use his vast array of torture techniques the detainee. The President is considered an expert in the field of torture, being especially fond of the Australian Ball Sticker.

Some say that this interpretation of the new law is indicative of the demonstration which believes it is above the law. This has seemingly been corroborated by recent actions of the administration. Administration officials have said that in order to defend the Constitution, it is reasonable for the president to ignore judicial approval, ignore laws from Congress, and eat sushi off the bellies of naked Japanese whores.


Complaints:
Golly, if he was just going to ignore it anyway, he's really cluttering up the lawbooks by signing it.

Couldn't he have just _said_ "I'm not going to sign this, but I will follow it by law" which would have made him a liar, but not a lawbreaker?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link