Is Bush Trying to Pardon Himself of War Crimes?

[OmCheeto]

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...

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

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...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush can't pardon himself from an international court. This would have to apply to the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

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?)

 

[Vid]

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.

 

[phyzmatix]

What a moterf...! Can give, but can't take huh?

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

That video is from 2006...

Oh, I thought it was new, my bad. Does anyone know what happened with it?

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[vociferous]

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.

 

[vociferous]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[Ghost803]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[vociferous]

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.

 

[vociferous]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[BobG]

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 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.

What the heck does this have to do with anything vociferous posted? (Or with anything anyone else in this thread posted?)

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[vociferous]

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.

 

[BobG]

Oh, I thought it was new, my bad. Does anyone know what happened with it?

The bill was passed, but a portion of it was declared unconstitutional earlier this summer (just the portion that dealt with habeas corpus).

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/supreme-court-decision-06-1195.pdf

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

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 ?

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[BobG]

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!

 

[LowlyPion]

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.