Then why add a signing statement if it means absolutely nothing? If it means nothing, it wouldnt have been added. From Warner's comments, it DOES sound like Bush wants to waive restrictions that were in the bill.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/05/3_gop_senators_blast_bush_bid_to_bypass_torture_ban/3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture banJohn W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.
''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
>Gimme a break, Hilmar. Bush is not the madman you think he is. Plus, signing statements mean absolutely nothing. He signed the bill and it is now law, meaning he is as bound by it as anyone.
