News Is Bush Trying to Pardon Himself of War Crimes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OmCheeto
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Escape
Click For 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.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
11K