The purpose of the signing statement is an attempt to not have to adhere to the bill he just signed. From the same article you site, the New York University law professor specializing in executive power issues writes... ''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."

Its a very Clinton-esque position to take, with some flipflopping thrown in too. Arguing that it depends on what your definition of torture is (which is what they're doing here) is an admirable position to defend. Having signed the bill with the ban, Bush then adds the signing statement rejecting the need to follow it.

To top it off, you have McCain/Warner saying "that a White House request for a presidential waiver of the restrictions had been rejected in the negotiations before the bill was passed."


>OK, I had to do some research:
>
>The Legal Significance Of Presidential Signing Statements
>
>It would appear that I am incorrect, that they do carry weight insofar as execution of a law is considered.
>
>Also, from: Bush could bypass new torture ban, some conflicting information:
>
>"The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
>
>"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."
>
>Possible. That's the key here, and why I resented Hilmar's post. He implies that Bush intends to order the routine torture of prisoners. That is not, IMHO, what was intended by the signing statement.