Bush could bypass new torture ban – The Boston Globe

Same tactic as the wiretapping. Grab executive power with the backdoor approach.

Bush released a “signing statement” that functions just as if he crossed his fingers behind his back on the McCain anti-torture bill.

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

”The signing statement is saying ‘I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it’s important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,’ ” he said. ”They don’t want to come out and say it directly because it doesn’t sound very nice, but it’s unmistakable to anyone who has been following what’s going on.”

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush’s decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush’s signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.

So now, we don’t torture…. unless the President thinks we should. Pretty much the same as before. I’m sure the best lawyers were on it… like Gonzales, for example. Wonder what Harriet Meirs’ role might have been? Maybe that’s why he nominated her…

He didn’t have the chowder to make his first veto for torture, but the effect is the same. Next they’ll name torture something else. How about “pre-emptive negotiations”?