Boston Globe<\/a>, qui a re\u00e7u quelques confidences. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00ab A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. We are not going to ignore this law, the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law’s restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ticking time bomb’ scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case, the official added. We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tDes commentaries? \u00ab 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,\u00a0\u00bb 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.<\/em> ()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush’s signing statement an in-your-face affront to both McCain and to Congress. The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch, she said. Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it’s being told through the signing statement that it’s impotent. It’s quite a radical view.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 4 janvier 2006 \u00e0 21H44<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Quand il tient quelque chose, il ne l\u00e2che jamais. GW Bush ne cessera pas de nous \u00e9tonner. Sa conception de la loi, itou. Sa derni\u00e8re performance, datant du vendredi dernier, pass\u00e9e relativement inaper\u00e7ue, qui repr\u00e9sente pourtant un acte aussi grave que les \u00e9coutes de communication de la NSA (pour lesquelles on parle de mise en… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4320,4432,4063,3871,4281],"class_list":["post-67152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-boston","tag-globe","tag-mccain","tag-nsa","tag-torture"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}