Signing statement subverts Anti-torture provisions
I usually steer clear of politics here but I just have to link to this:
Read Mark Aiken’s post on the signing statement that the administration attached to the anti-torture amendent to discourage enforcement by the executive branch or via lawsuits.
This is the amendement that was passed with the backing of John McCain and a strong majorities from both parties in congress.
Who thinks that developing a reputation as supporting torture is good for the United States?
In the Alito hearing today, a senator supportive of the Alito nomination made mention of the internment of Japanese Americans as an example of a spectacularly wrong decision supported by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, he didn’t give Alito a chance to comment on the decision.
How are the powers now being claimed by the executive branch for indefinite internment in the war on terror any different (or less wrong) than those claimed in World War 2?
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Maybe you should move out of liberal Seattle into a place where murders are actually held responsible instead of the government that tries to stop them? Just a thought.
By Robert Gills on 01.11.06 5:07 pm
John McCain and an overwhelming majority of the Senate backed the anti-torture provision. This is not a liberal vs. conservative question.
This is a question of maintaining the system of checks and balances this nation was built on.
By Phillip Bogle on 01.11.06 5:12 pm
Leave a comment