News Is Bush Trying to Pardon Himself of War Crimes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OmCheeto
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Escape
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the possibility of George W. Bush attempting to pardon himself for war crimes, with participants debating the implications of such actions. It is noted that any self-pardon would likely only apply within the U.S. and may not hold up in international courts. Concerns are raised about the legal ramifications of a bill passed in 2006 that could protect Bush and his administration from prosecution. The conversation also touches on the potential for Barack Obama to pursue charges against Bush or Cheney, with skepticism about whether he would choose to do so, given his focus on unity. Ultimately, the complexities of the legal landscape and the political motivations behind prosecuting former officials are emphasized.
OmCheeto
Gold Member
Messages
2,471
Reaction score
3,316
One of my ex-compadres sent me the following:
Bush trying to Pardon himself of War Crimes
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21113.htm

At first I was appalled...

Then I was intrigued...

Then I smiled...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OmCheeto said:
One of my ex-compadres sent me the following:

At first I was appalled...

Then I was intrigued...

Then I smiled...

Actually I don't think Obama would do that. But what it does do is suggest that there must be more that is not known, so maybe they do have something to worry about.
 
I'm afraid you may be right about Obama, but I want every one of those bastards prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I believed in the death penalty, and it applied, as it might in some cases, I would support that as well. But, unfortunately, there is a greater imperative on that count.
 
LowlyPion said:
Actually I don't think Obama would do that. But what it does do is suggest that there must be more that is not known, so maybe they do have something to worry about.

Obama?

I believe they were talking about the court in den Haag.

Like Serbia's Milosovic. Never pulled a trigger, but spent his life in prison.

Kind of what Hitler would have been put through if he hadn't toasted himself.

War crimes.

It's a funny topic.

boogedy boogedy boogety!

Thank god halloween is only an hour and 10 minutes away...
 
Bush can't pardon himself from an international court. This would have to apply to the US.
 
I will have to check the Constitution, but I can't believe the pardon would be binding. It sounds like more of Bush's smoke and mirrors to me.
 
Any pardon he manages to grant himself will only be valid in the US, and not in any international war crimes tribunal. Unfortunately, he could in theory grant himself immunity from extradition. (I think, maybe not, anyone know what the constitution says about that?)
 
That video is from 2006...

But this still may be an issue if Bush does try to pardon himself or people in his administration before January. I think him pardoning Stevens may be another issue.
 
What a moterf...! Can give, but can't take huh?

Ivan Seeking said:
I'm afraid you may be right about Obama, but I want every one of those bastards prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I believed in the death penalty, and it applied, as it might in some cases, I would support that as well. But, unfortunately, there is a greater imperative on that count.

If I was the religious type, I'd say "Amen" to that.
 
  • #10
Vid said:
That video is from 2006...
Oh, I thought it was new, my bad. Does anyone know what happened with it?
Vid said:
But this still may be an issue if Bush does try to pardon himself or people in his administration before January. I think him pardoning Stevens may be another issue.
It would have to be everyone or no one, as anyone pardoned could be forced to testify against everyone else.
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
I'm afraid you may be right about Obama, but I want every one of those bastards prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If I believed in the death penalty, and it applied, as it might in some cases, I would support that as well. But, unfortunately, there is a greater imperative on that count.

If Obama wins, I sense that he is interested in healing, not in inciting further division. I have serious doubts that he would go after Bush, though Cheney might be a temptation, if it comes out he exceeded his authority and acted extra-legally. (Because, after all, as Cheney likes to point out he's not a member of the Executive Branch, so why not?) But even that I suspect will not be pursued. I think that such extra-legal practices will simply cease.

I think Obama, despite all of McCain's posturing with flag and country, has a more profound grasp of the Constitution and the central themes of how it functions to serve everyone, and in the end can be counted on to serve in executing its promise to all, as opposed to pandering to the fanatical minority that would have been used to ride into office.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
I will have to check the Constitution, but I can't believe the pardon would be binding. It sounds like more of Bush's smoke and mirrors to me.

The President has one unrestrained, unilateral power, the power to pardon. A President can pardon anyone for any reason, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

However, pardoning oneself is new territory, and I am uncertain whether it would hold up in the Supreme Court.

That being said, this video is obviously from before the Democrats took office, and, I do believe it was passed and signed into law (someone should check on that though). If it were, then essentially, there is no pardon since it is a legal immunity granted by the passage of federal law.

That being said, the Constitution does state that treaties are the "highest law of the land," and one must wonder whether or not that might override federal laws and allow for the prosecution of war crimes even if the individual has been granted immunity by federal law.

Both would be interesting cases to face the Supreme Court.
 
  • #13
LowlyPion said:
If Obama wins, I sense that he is interested in healing, not in inciting further division. I have serious doubts that he would go after Bush, though Cheney might be a temptation, if it comes out he exceeded his authority and acted extra-legally. (Because, after all, as Cheney likes to point out he's not a member of the Executive Branch, so why not?) But even that I suspect will not be pursued. I think that such extra-legal practices will simply cease.

I think Obama, despite all of McCain's posturing with flag and country, has a more profound grasp of the Constitution and the central themes of how it functions to serve everyone, and in the end can be counted on to serve in executing its promise to all, as opposed to pandering to the fanatical minority that would have been used to ride into office.

I too doubt that Obama would be pursue federal charges against anyone in the previous administration, but given how little we know about how Obama might act, it is difficult to state that with certainty.
 
  • #14
If Obama wins,
You think the Patriot act will be revoked?
When it is vital for going after drug smugglers, or child pornography on the internet, or online gambling, or the criminals behind the Wall St crash - or who ever is the next bogeyman?

The US 304th Military Intelligence Battalion (an oxymoron?) is calling for restrictions on the internet - specifically it has identified forums and IM as problems.

"Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hacktivists and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audiences,"

So we defeated terrorism and communism - but there is still the threat of vegetarians and political enthusiasts to deal with.
 
  • #15
I don't know IF the president can or can not pardon himself. But that is not the issue here, because Bush did not try to pardon himself through the executive branch. This took place before the 2006 election when the democrats took control of congress. So this was rushed in right before then by the Republicans, through Congress. So it is already in effect. Basically it was just a clause or something in an unrelated bill, that prevents Bush and the subordinates from being prosecuted in the future.

I am not sure, but is it possible for this bill to be repealed and to prosecute them? AND I think there is some constitutional basis for this to be thrown out because the law provided protection from too broad a category and not specific crimes.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
vociferous said:
I too doubt that Obama would be pursue federal charges against anyone in the previous administration, but given how little we know about how Obama might act, it is difficult to state that with certainty.

Obama clearly has a respect for the Constitution and at the same time understands the power of unification. Given the erratic alternative of McCain and his incompetent backup pick, seeking to ride into office by sowing seeds of division and catering to extremist ideologues, I have much more faith that Obama will be effective in leading the country with some sense of bi-lateralism and bipartisanship and the only way to do that will to be inclusive and not fanning the flames of polarization by sending Bush and Cheney in chains to The Hague.
 
  • #17
fanning the flames of polarization by sending Bush and Cheney in chains to The Hague.
It would be much smarter to prosecute them for some fraud relating to Blackwater/ defence contracts.
Which is going to go down better with republican voters?
1, Sending the brave leaders of our brave fighting boys off to be tried by mayonaise-covered-fries eating surrender monkeys.
2, Prosecuting the evil men who robbed our brave fighting boys of proper equipement to do the job by siphoning off defence contracts.

Rememebr you don't have to apeal to your own supporters, they are already voting for you - if you want to win elections you have to appeal to the other guys supporters.
 
  • #18
Ghost803 said:
I am not sure, but is it possible for this bill to be repealed and to prosecute them? AND I think there is some constitutional basis for this to be thrown out because the law provided protection from too broad a category and not specific crimes.

The constitution specifies that you cannot be prosecuted retroactively; however, one could make an argument that it would not be retroactive prosecution if the crime took place before the bill was signed into law, the act was illegal at the time it was committed, and the bill which granted the immunity (after the fact) was eliminated by a later law.

Again, this is another area of (to the best of my knowledge) ambiguous legal territory.
 
  • #19
LowlyPion said:
Obama clearly has a respect for the Constitution and at the same time understands the power of unification. Given the erratic alternative of McCain and his incompetent backup pick, seeking to ride into office by sowing seeds of division and catering to extremist ideologues, I have much more faith that Obama will be effective in leading the country with some sense of bi-lateralism and bipartisanship and the only way to do that will to be inclusive and not fanning the flames of polarization by sending Bush and Cheney in chains to The Hague.

Firstly, Obama has almost no legislative history by which to judge. Politicians can say whatever they want, which is why it is best not to listen to what they say, but rather what they do, and unfortunately, in Obama's case, the evidence is simply insufficient to make the kind of determination by his actions that one could make with a more seasoned and experienced politician.

And I should just mention that it was never the intention of the Hague to prosecute those from Democratic countries with an established history of respect for the rule of law, but rather to prosecute war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity who reside in countries which have a reliable judicial system.
 
  • #20
mgb_phys said:
Sending the brave leaders ...

Who would these be again? The hunkered in the bunker Cheney, and our President in hiding on 9-11?

"brave leaders" - as it applies to these guys? - now there's an oxymoron.
 
  • #21
vociferous said:
Firstly, Obama has almost no legislative history by which to judge. Politicians can say whatever they want, which is why it is best not to listen to what they say, but rather what they do,...

And in McCain's legislative past we see a committed deregulator, waders deep in lobby money from banks, with not only the current financial crisis on his resume but also Congressional censure from the savings and loan fiasco from 20 years ago.
 
  • #22
vociferous said:
Firstly, Obama has almost no legislative history by which to judge. Politicians can say whatever they want, which is why it is best not to listen to what they say, but rather what they do, and unfortunately, in Obama's case, the evidence is simply insufficient to make the kind of determination by his actions that one could make with a more seasoned and experienced politician.

LowlyPion said:
And in McCain's legislative past we see a committed deregulator, waders deep in lobby money from banks, with not only the current financial crisis on his resume but also Congressional censure from the savings and loan fiasco from 20 years ago.

:confused:

What the heck does this have to do with anything vociferous posted? (Or with anything anyone else in this thread posted?)
 
  • #23
Bush could pardon his whole administration then resign, then Cheney pardons Bush. Alternatively, Bush could be scheduled for a procedure that requires him to be under anesthesia, Cheney pardons him while he is acting president, and then Bush pardons everyone else. It's not pretty, but it would probably stand up in the current Supreme Court.
 
  • #24
turbo-1 said:
Bush could pardon his whole administration then resign, then Cheney pardons Bush. Alternatively, Bush could be scheduled for a procedure that requires him to be under anesthesia, Cheney pardons him while he is acting president, and then Bush pardons everyone else. It's not pretty, but it would probably stand up in the current Supreme Court.

As far as I can tell, it should stand up under any Supreme Court that respects the letter of the constitution. For whatever reason, that is the one unrestricted and unshared power that the President has, as guaranteed by those who founded our nation. The only way to overrule a Presidential pardon would be to amend the constitution.
 
  • #26
turbo-1 said:
Bush could pardon his whole administration then resign, then Cheney pardons Bush. Alternatively, Bush could be scheduled for a procedure that requires him to be under anesthesia, Cheney pardons him while he is acting president, and then Bush pardons everyone else. It's not pretty, but it would probably stand up in the current Supreme Court.

It would be a pretty fitting capstone to his unillustrious career. Skulking from office with his tail between his legs, snatching at some fig leaf to escape accountability.

Only 81 more days and the National embarrassment of the Bush regime will be over.
 
  • #27
So the president can pardon himself for anything, and the pardon cannot be repealed ?
So what's to stop him just 'popping a cap in the rear of' (as I believe you chaps say) Mr Obama at the inauguration ?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
mgb_phys said:
So the president can pardon himself for anything, and the pardon cannot be repealed ?
So what's to stop him just 'popping a cap in the rear of' (as I believe you chaps say) of Mr Obama at the inauguration ?

He wouldn't be President. And he would have to also get Biden and Pelosi who is 3rd in line. I doubt they would consider any further pardoning of his actions.

Of course that presupposes the Secret Service doesn't render its own justice in attempting to protect the new President.
 
  • #29
LowlyPion said:
He wouldn't be President. And he would have to also get Biden and Pelosi who is 3rd in line. I doubt they would consider any further pardoning of his actions.

Why not? The Presidential term doesn't start until noon on January 20th. There might be some issue of the President being mentally incapable of serving, thereby making his pardon invalid, but that would help in his murder trial, as well. (What a weird topic, anyway.)

William Henry Harrison's inaugaral address was 8,445 words long and he gave it on a cold, wet day while wearing no coat or hat. He caught pneumonia and died a month later.

John Adams used a 737 word sentence in his inaugaral address. Try diagramming that!
 
  • #30
BobG said:
John Adams used a 737 word sentence in his inaugaral address. Try diagramming that!

It's probably a good reason why Adams doesn't have many of his words engraved on walls of monuments.
 
  • #31
LowlyPion said:
He wouldn't be President...
Presumably he is until Obama says 'I do' or whatever.

Of course that presupposes the Secret Service doesn't render its own justice in attempting to protect the new President.
Bush would still be commander in chief and their boss.

Joking aside - this is the reason for having an international criminal court for war crimes.
Typically, war crimes are not against the law of the people committing them.
 
  • #32
mgb_phys said:
Presumably he is until Obama says 'I do' or whatever.

Bush would still be commander in chief and their boss.

Only until 12:00 noon.

Then it would be off to Guantanamo for interrogation.
 
  • #33
BobG said:
John Adams used a 737 word sentence in his inaugaral address. Try diagramming that!

John Adams said:
On this subject it might become me better to be silent or to speak with diffidence; but as something may be expected, the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology if I venture to say that if a preference, upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth; if an attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a conscientious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it; if a respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution and delicacy toward the State governments; if an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments; if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations; if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments; if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity in the interior administration; if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturers for necessity, convenience, and defense; if a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them; if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this Government and so solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress and applauded by the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress; if a personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the honor and interest of both nations; if, while the conscious honor and integrity of the people of America and the internal sentiment of their own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just cause and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and if success can not be obtained, to lay the facts before the Legislature, that they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

It's not too grammatically complicated, just a bunch of semi-colons
 
  • #34
Office_Shredder said:
It's not too grammatically complicated, just a bunch of semi-colons

I love it! :smile:

Knowing he's about to output 737 words, there's a little bit of irony in the start of the sentence: "On this subject it might become me better to be silent ... "

Not a bad sentence overall though.
 
  • #35
Give Bush some credit.

He may have killed the Republican party. We'll see how Obama does.
 
  • #36
The interesting thing now is how the Republican party reacts. Will it lurch even further to the right, retreating into it's hard core centre, embracing the world view of the likes of Sarah Palin or will it try to regain the middle ground by adopting a more moderate tone and policy stance. Either way it seems there will be some serious blood letting en route.
 
  • #37
Art said:
The interesting thing now is how the Republican party reacts. Will it lurch even further to the right, retreating into it's hard core centre, embracing the world view of the likes of Sarah Palin or will it try to regain the middle ground by adopting a more moderate tone and policy stance. Either way it seems there will be some serious blood letting en route.

I think the fundamentalists have been repudiated. I predict that Sarah Palin has reached the highest stage she will see in politics and like the Miss Alaska contest before it, she came in runner up.

I am prepared to leave Carribou Barbie now to spend the rest of her days obscurly enjoying God's splendor (as she sees it) - recreationally slaughtering moose from a helicopter.
 
  • #38
Maybe they'll split into two parties, one for the fundies, and one for the more rational economic conservatives?
 
  • #39
NeoDevin said:
Maybe they'll split into two parties, one for the fundies, and one for the more rational economic conservatives?

Better yet. Maybe they will all come to their senses?
 
  • #40
LowlyPion said:
Better yet. Maybe they will all come to their senses?

Apparently you've never had an argument with a fundie, or you wouldn't say such a thing.
 
  • #41
NeoDevin said:
Apparently you've never had an argument with a fundie, or you wouldn't say such a thing.
I thought arguements with fundies was easy just - "god says you have to think this..."
( ps god says you should send money to the address on you screen)
 
  • #42
lol, the combination of kneejerk censorship and open religious bigotry on this board is amusing to say the least.
 
  • #43
Proton Soup said:
lol, the combination of kneejerk censorship and open religious bigotry on this board is amusing to say the least.

Right, opposing irrational belief systems is bigotry. But denial of reality is not. Riiiight. :rolleyes:
 
  • #44
LightbulbSun said:
Right, opposing irrational belief systems is bigotry. But denial of reality is not. Riiiight. :rolleyes:

oh, i see religion and science as two separate things that have very little to do with one another. but you go have your fun now.
 
  • #45
OmCheeto said:
I believe they were talking about the court in den Haag.

US doesn't recognize their jurisdiction.
 
  • #46
Art said:
The interesting thing now is how the Republican party reacts. Will it lurch even further to the right, retreating into it's hard core centre, embracing the world view of the likes of Sarah Palin or will it try to regain the middle ground by adopting a more moderate tone and policy stance. Either way it seems there will be some serious blood letting en route.

Probably in a similar manner to the Democrats after Gingrich's Contract with America took Congress from the Democrats.

The Democratic Party was a mess. They definitely shifted towards the middle, but that created some strong conflict with the liberal base. The attempt to shift to the middle created a lot of 'shooting themselves in the foot' type of conflict that left Democrats looking pretty inept.

Equally interesting will be to see how Democrats react. Part of the reason Gingrich succeeded is that Democrats had become pretty self-destructive and corrupt. Once in power, Republicans were even more self-destructive and corrupt. In addition, as soon as Republicans were in control, they started trying to kick out all of the moderates.

Democratic success has as much to do with disillusioned Republicans becoming Independents or (worse yet) Democrats as it does with anything smart Democrats did.

If Dems do wind up with 60 Senators, the smart thing to do is to push through as much left-wing legislation as possible and to hell with moderates in the party. This is a chace that rarely comes around and it's not worth passing up just to hang on to a bunch of DINOs.

In other words, what goes around, comes around. The Republican Party will have to shift back towards the middle and will have to resort to picking up all the moderates that will be kicked out of the Democratic Party, but they'll find it impossible to do that in a nice, smooth manner. They'll have to wait for Democrats to self-destruct, just as the Republicans (and Democrats) before them did.
 
  • #47
BobG said:
Probably in a similar manner to the Democrats after Gingrich's Contract with America took Congress from the Democrats.

The Democratic Party was a mess. They definitely shifted towards the middle, but that created some strong conflict with the liberal base. The attempt to shift to the middle created a lot of 'shooting themselves in the foot' type of conflict that left Democrats looking pretty inept.

Equally interesting will be to see how Democrats react. Part of the reason Gingrich succeeded is that Democrats had become pretty self-destructive and corrupt. Once in power, Republicans were even more self-destructive and corrupt. In addition, as soon as Republicans were in control, they started trying to kick out all of the moderates.

Democratic success has as much to do with disillusioned Republicans becoming Independents or (worse yet) Democrats as it does with anything smart Democrats did.

If Dems do wind up with 60 Senators, the smart thing to do is to push through as much left-wing legislation as possible and to hell with moderates in the party. This is a chace that rarely comes around and it's not worth passing up just to hang on to a bunch of DINOs.

In other words, what goes around, comes around. The Republican Party will have to shift back towards the middle and will have to resort to picking up all the moderates that will be kicked out of the Democratic Party, but they'll find it impossible to do that in a nice, smooth manner. They'll have to wait for Democrats to self-destruct, just as the Republicans (and Democrats) before them did.
There are strong parallels between the current Republican party and the state of the Labour party in the UK when Thatcher was first elected.

The Labour ideologues, who although a minority of the membership were also the most vocal, claimed the party had lost because they weren't leftist enough and so made the extremely left wing Michael Foot their leader. It was only after Labour's disastrous showing in the next general election that the moderates led by Neil Kinnock finally managed to grasp control of the party from the socialist fundamentalists and only then after an internal war including evicting a large section of their membership (the militant front).

Even then it took several more years and the emergence of Tony Blair as party leader coupled with numerous scandals and infighting amongst the Conservatives to convince the electorate Labour were finally fit to hold office.

Watching the post election right-wing talking heads in the US, they seem to, like Labour did, believe their poor showing was because they were not extreme enough. If this view is prevalent, and one can be sure the far right will fight hard to insist this is so, then it is easy to see them traveling the same road into the political wilderness as the UK Labour party did.

For similar reasons it would be dangerous for the Democrats to move too far to the left, just because they can, as it is a simple truth that the majority of the electorate are politically in the centre.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
There are even stronger parallels between this victory and Labour in 97.
A young charismatic leader wins the biggest ever landslide with a 'things can only get better' theme song. The opposition then starts a decade of infighting, swings to the right and a series of throwaway leaders before it also kicks out the far right and picks it's own young moderate leader.

Meanwhile the 'socialist' party in power becomes more right than the conservatives it replaced.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
56
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
56
Views
11K
Back
Top