Bush Trying To Pardon Himself

Bush Trying To Pardon Himself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0

If THIS doesn't make you mad enough to act... then stop griping about what your government is doing to you

[Peer]

Zorgon, you're absolutely right.
I am glad it's not my government.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Bush Trying To Pardon Himself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0

If THIS doesn't make you mad enough to act... then stop griping about what your government is doing to you

Does anyone know the outcome? Was this passed? Dear God, I hope not!

[BROOK]

I believe this is an old story, look at the ticker on the bottom. the news is old.
Weather it passed is anyones guess. You would have to look it up I guess

Well I'm no lawyer or expert on congressional law, but one thing I have heard lately that I'm very impressed about is a couple of laws that President Clinton secreted into law that make any actions taken by special order and possibly lame duck congresses during the period before an election until the inaguration of the new president easily reversible. Anything passed after May 15th of the year in which the election is held for Presidential office falls under this category to prevent just this sort of action, so who knows.

I'm hoping all these roadblocks being thrown up by the Bush administration will be able to be reversed once Obama takes office. He certainly has a sharp legal team digging into the laws and powers of the president.

[Reunite]

Bush could pardon spies involved in torture

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-torture.html

[joe2288]

wow cant believ that even made it on the main stream news i guess its not

as censored as i thought it was

[Heretic]

This is a tricky line of events starting in 2006, and I am not even sure I have it right.

I believe this is referencing the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was recently struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court.

New York Times Article on This

Timeline:

November 2001

* President Bush asserts authority to try captives taken in the war on terror before "military commissions".

January 20, 2002

* Camp X-Ray is opened in the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
* The Bush administration asserts that since the Naval Base is not on US soil, the captives there are not subject to US law and have no rights under the US Constitution nor protection through the United States Justice System.

2002, 2003, 2004

* Friends and family of approximately 200 captives initiate habeas corpus submissions. These submissions work their way through the courts.

June 28, 2004

* Rasul v. Bush is the first habeas corpus submission to reach the United States Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court dismisses the argument that the Naval Base at Guantanamo is beyond the reach of US law.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the authority to deny captives access to the US justice system, and that the captives did have the right to initiate habeas corpus submissions.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch was obliged to provide the captives with an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants". As a result the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

December 31, 2005

* The United States Congress passes the Detainee Treatment Act.
* This act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War who had been tortured in enemy custody, explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture.
* This act also restricted subsequent captives from initiating habeas corpus submissions.
* Existing habeas corpus submissions remain in the system.

July 27, 2006

* Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, another habeas corpus submission, reaches the US Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives taken in the "war on terror". It rules that this authority lies with the United States Congress.
* The charges against the ten captives who had been charged were quashed.

Fall 2006

* The US Congress passes the Military Commissions Act, setting up Military Commissions similar to those that the Executive Branch had set up, retaining most of the features that had concerned critics.
o The Commissions could still hear and consider "hearsay evidence".
o Suspects would still be restricted from attempting to refute, or indeed even learning about, evidence against them that was classified as secret.
o Evidence extracted from the suspect, or other witnesses, through the use of "extended interrogation techniques", would be permitted, so long as it was extracted prior to the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005.
* This act asserted that all outstanding habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed.

February 20, 2007

* A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals considers Lakhdar Boumediene's habeas corpus submission, and upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding habeas corpus submissions through the Military Commission Act.

April 2, 2007

* After a petition for a review of the Circuit Court decision, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ writ of certiorari, thereby declining to hear the case at that time.

June 29, 2007

* The Supreme Court of the United States grants a writ of certiorari to Boumediene and his co-defendants, indicating that it would hear their challenge to the Court of Appeals' decision when the Supreme Court's next term commences (the first Monday of October 2007).

August 24, 2007

* The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights file an Amicus brief on behalf of Boumediene and al Odah.
* Over 20 supporting Amicus briefs were submitted simultaneously on behalf of Boumediene, including, the American Bar Association,[26] retired military officers, retired federal judges, former U.S. diplomats, a sitting Republican U.S. Senator, law professors and legal historians, Canadian, British and European Parliamentarians, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and domestic and international non-governmental organizations.

October 9, 2007

* The United States government submits its opposition briefs for Boumediene.

November 13, 2007

* The petitioner files its reply briefs.

December 5, 2007

* Arguments begin before U.S. Supreme Court.

June 12, 2008

* The Supreme Court announces its decision.

Supreme Court Again Says
Guantanamo Prisoners Should Have Rights
DAVID G. SAVAGE / Los Angeles Times 12jun2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, for the third time, rejected President Bush's policy for holding and trying foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ruled today these men have a right to seek their freedom in a hearing before a federal judge.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court struck down as unconstitutional an administration-backed law that barred the detainees from going to court. The right to habeas corpus is fundamental to American law and cannot be suspended except in times of national emergency, the majority said.

George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture
George W Bush is considering issuing pardons for US spies embroiled in allegations of torture just before he leaves the White House.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 5:20PM GMT 15 Nov 2008

Why the constitution isn't an issue elude me.

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States
Article I, Section 9. & Section 10.

Section 9. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

The supreme court has previously ruled that by its nature the pardon cannot apply to any act for which the pardoner is himself implicated, nor can it apply to a trial of impeachment. Now I cannot find this anywhere, anyone else?

Did Bush sneak in his pardon clause in one of these two Sections?

"Section 7 of the MCA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on 12 June 2008.

Section 6 remains in contention

There is a movement that has been trying to impeach Bush simply to keep him from being able to pardon in general.

President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stand accused of 39 grave and impeachable offenses, including war crimes, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and outing a covert CIA operative.

Most of these offenses are felonies for which Bush and Cheney can be criminally prosecuted after they leave office. But prosecutions will be impossible if Bush issues blanket pre-emptive pardons for Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, other senior officials, and even himself.

Can Bush do this? Absolutely. Gerald Ford set the precedent in 1974 when he gave Richard Nixon a blanket pre-emptive pardon for any crime he "may have committed."

Democrats Unite Against Bush Pardons
Their Petition

Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Interesting Times!

[Ashatav]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Bush Trying To Pardon Himself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0

If THIS doesn't make you mad enough to act... then stop griping about what your government is doing to you

Hahaha you are so RIGHT

Cheers!

[Humble Janitor]

I certainly hope that Bush can be stopped before he's able to pardon. I'm not holding my breath though.

[RFburns]

No one was expecting any of this??? Some are finding this surprising???

Why???

As with any crook, the job is not over until all the tracks and trails are covered and erased.


Doesnt surprise me one bit. It was expected.


Well its a shame that no one listened back in 2003/4 to the warnings.


I think people should put some of the blame on themselves who supported and allowed the crook to do what he did. It could have been stopped...but wasnt.


Cheers!!!!

[Jack]

Excelent job of lulling the people into thinking they still have a free press.

[RSF]

According to info found, see: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33662.pdf regarding changes tabled and passed through Congress Bush2 may have a get-out-of-jail (or noose) free card.

But seems to me and I could be wrong, a few Nations have filed a complaint against Bush2 in the world court. Under the War Crimes Act deliberate omission of the Use of Torture regulations of the Geneva Convention.
Would be interesting to learn Pres Elect Obama's position on any potential Presidential Pardon of the to be Former US Pres G W Bush?

RSF

[RFburns]

Good point RSF. It may be that Wushy Bushy Jr there might have a freebie card within the US, but what about the rest of the world!! That freebie card would not extend outside of the US boarder.

Not unless there was some other freebie card he obtained, from the UN for example.


Cheers!!!!

[MAP]

this is what I think... nothing will happen till hes out of office...
once hes out, there has been word whistle blowers will come out big time ratting him out..
we all pretty much know what he has done but these people will have proof.. and prolly more info then we know and him and his administration will be sent down the river..

[RSF]

As I understood it, If the US Congress would have impeached Bush2 while in office, then any and all charges brought against him once out of office could NOT be overturned through the Presidential Pardon process. Meaning Pres Elect Obama would not be able to Pardon this former President if Indicted.

But I remember correctly HS Pelosi just after winning back the House and Senate Majority, said "Impeachment's (of Bush2) not on the table..."

RSF

[freekatz]

Originally Posted by RFburns

No one was expecting any of this??? Some are finding this surprising???
Why???
As with any crook, the job is not over until all the tracks and trails are covered and erased.
Doesnt surprise me one bit. It was expected.
Well its a shame that no one listened back in 2003/4 to the warnings.
I think people should put some of the blame on themselves who supported and allowed the crook to do what he did. It could have been stopped...but wasnt.
Cheers!!!!

I agree!! Dennis Kucinich has been trying to impeach both Bush and Cheney for a long time, how many people actually got motivated and supported him when he try to rally everyone to send emails and calls to congress??

'Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder!' Vincent Bugliosi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73KIpzrUXI8


President George W. Bush Wanted for Murder! - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmCLk2rR8as

[Fredkc]

Ok, that YouTube was posted Oct. 2008. However, I have seen it before, and it is quite old. The fact that he mentions two things are a give away:
1. Talk of the Democrats getting control of the House.
2. Denny Hastert being in charge of the House (Speaker of..)

These two place this as being late 2006, before November 7th, though.

Now, on with the fun:

RDburns;
but what about the rest of the world!! That freebie card would not extend outside of the US boarder. Not unless there was some other freebie card he obtained, from the UN for example.

Map;
this is what I think... nothing will happen till hes out of office...
once hes out, there has been word whistle blowers will come out big time ratting him out..

I have posted my thoughts on this one several times here, with lots of verbage as to why, so I will cut it short:
No sitting President will EVER hold a previous one for trial, either due to domestic or world court prosecution, no matter what he's done.
Just won't happen, sorry.


Next: Whistleblowers
There is absolutely no need for them. The crimes are well documented.

Item 1:

“We can debate the wisdom of that, we can debate why the President may have done it, but in my view, the President committed a crime, and we have to deal with that as citizens. And unfortunately, you have to deal with that as members of Congress. It strikes an alarming circumstance when the President can go into a press conference and announce that he has violated a federal statute 30 times, and promises to continue to do so until someone stops him.

That is the most remarkable admission that I have ever heard from a President of the United States…” Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley.

You see, here you have an admission, on tape, and in writing of having committed 30 counts of one crime, and also another one even more to the point of impeachment. Up until he made this admission, he had consistently told the public that any and all wiretapping being done was according to law. He went so far as to say, "if we are tapping anyone in this country, there is a warrant to cover it."

That was a blatant lie, told to thwart justice. (I'll come back to that)


Item 2:
Again, in a National Journal column of March 15, 2007 titled: Internal Affairs
Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales
It is reported that in a legal Congressional investigation into the domestic spying issue, the Atty Gen (Gonzales) and the President issued directives that made this legal investigation impossible.

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

So once again you have the President, acting to thwart the pursuit of justice. (I'll come back to that)


(Ok, I'm back to that)
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - It's not just some flowery term. It is a hold-over from Common Law. Basically it is using the power of your office to prevent, or subvert justice.

"The President is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy." - Jon Roland, Constitution Society

Now, it might be said that his chief purpose in lying about domestic surveillance in Item 1, was necessary in order to "deceive an enemy". But the actions taken, if provable, in Item 2 are very different. This was a legal, investigation ordered by Congress. There was precedent for people of much lesser security clearance having access to everything this investigation was denied. And that it took place after:

• Gonzales became aware that he would face scrutiny in this inquiry, and
• He then spoke to the President about shutting the inquiry down.

Deceiving the enemy was not a factor here. Neither were national security concerns.

So now we have:

• An admission to 30 counts of knowingly violating the law,
• 2 counts of a textbook definition of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors".

Then:
"In August 2002, there was the infamous torture memo, put out by the justice department, that stated that the President could indeed order gov’t officials to violate federal law."
This is a baldface lie, even a child could see through. Consider the oath of office the President takes:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No person abiding by this oath can even pretend that includes the authority to order subordinates to break the law.

Additionally, there is the Geneva Convention, which this country signed as a treaty. Treaties are in fact some of the most potent and dangerous instruments this nation codifies. Here is why:

Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In short, and in english, what that says is, when we sign and ratify a treaty, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land". It automatically over-writes any judicial decision, any state law, any federal law, AND any part of the Constitution itself!

Geneva Convention says that you will treat all prisoners as fully eligible prisoners of war, unless a tribunal of the signatories is convened making some formal exception. The President deciding to call some group of people "Enemy Combatants" has absolutely no effect on this.


So now we have:

• An admission to 30 counts of knowingly violating the law,
• 2 counts of a textbook definition of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors".
• And a clear Geneva Conv. violation which is most likely cause for war crimes trials.

And...

RSF;
But I remember correctly HS Pelosi just after winning back the House and Senate Majority, said "Impeachment's (of Bush2) not on the table..."

Yup! They sure as hell did!
Even before all the votes were counted they had back-stabbed the electorate. What I just outlined above amounts to four impeachable acts. Two of which the President himself is on tape and in writing admitting to!

They decided not to for two reasons:
Reason 1.
They decided that if they impeached, their approval with the people would tumble. Never mind the people voted as they did with the idea of impeachment in mind. They decided not to risk it.... In favor of...

Just what they did. That was to spend the next 2 years using everything they couyld to run down the Republicans, while taking great care never to birng to light enough evidence that they would be forced to impeach. In short, they chose to run out the clock with cheap shots, trying to gain as big advantage for the 2008 elections as they could, the people's business, and their oath of office be damned!

Reason 2.
The Democratic members of "The Gang Of Eight": Harry Reid. Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman.
You see, any impeachment trial would include a defense. And in that defense it would come out that the NOW-current Dem. leadership all knew! Not only about the domestic spying, and had given a consensus of the group to continue the program; but the "torture memos" the admin was acting under as their fig leaf of legality as well. They all knew and did nothing!

They were,according to what I've read, constantly reminded that to disclose the illegal acts going on, to the public, or even to any other member of Congress, would see them in jail. So, to avoid having to face the possibility of that crime, they kept silent of greater crimes committed. And couldn't you can just hear the editorials on this, "Oh but NOW they want to impeach for the very same acts they condoned?"

But notice that list.
It was Pelosi who took impeachment off the table.
It was Rockefeller who wrote the FISA bill including Telco immunity for domestic spying.
Make sense now?

Finally:

RSF;
As I understood it, If the US Congress would have impeached Bush2 while in office, then any and all charges brought against him once out of office could NOT be overturned through the Presidential Pardon process. Meaning Pres Elect Obama would not be able to Pardon this former President if Indicted.

Actually the Constitution forbids either the President, or the Vice-President from pardoning the other, so long as they are under impeachment.

Article 2, Section 2: "... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Again another place where the Democrats decided to duck the job, lest one voter out there get mad at them.

Both Conyer's case against the VP, and Kucinich's articles on Bush should have been carried forward. It was the Democratic Congressional leadership which halted both. So, as things stand, the current President, and VP can still pardon themselves out the back door of the White House on Jan. 19th, 2009

Bush pardons Cheney, then resigns. Cheney takes the oath and then pardons Bush.
Next morning as Obama takes the oath, they both run like hell.

[RSF]

RSF: "As I understood it, If the US Congress would have impeached Bush2 while in office, then any and all charges brought against him once out of office could NOT be overturned through the Presidential Pardon process. Meaning Pres Elect Obama would not be able to Pardon this former President if Indicted."

Fredkc "Actually the Constitution forbids either the President, or the Vice-President from pardoning the other, so long as they are under impeachment".

---

Great work an informative read, but, I was not referring (above) to Pres and VP pardoning each other though. As above mentioned, the next President ("Obama") not being able to Pardon Bush if he had been Impeached and then been Indicted when out of office.

I liked your thoughts as to why Pelosi wouldn't table Impeachment proceedings back then, but I also feel she was worried about Bush2 invoking Martial law through some made-up attack on the US (eg the loose nuke incident (which I assume Obama might further investigate?)).

RSF

[Fredkc]

Ah, ok. heres the thing...

An impeachment is a special kind of thing. Normally a sitting President is immune from prosecution, in the regular courts, and even the Senate. The President can only be tried by the Senate after the House approves Articles Of Impeachment.

These articles are basically a two-fold thing.
1. They remove his immunity from prosecution by the Senate, and
2. Serve as an "indictment" which is then tried in the Senate.

Were he impeached, this would be business before the sitting Congress and they would have to deal with it before the end of the President's term. If they didn't move on it by then:
* then he becomes a regular citizen,
* no impeachment is required to try,
* and I would think any pending but unfinished impeachment proceedings would die when Congress' session ended.

Without pardons being issued the whole mess would then be in the hands of the Justice Dept (good luck there), and any claims handed our government from international courts (again, I think they'd be turned down by any sitting President).

[RSF]

From time to time Nixon reason to resign comes up here and there. The reason I most frequently read as to why he didn't face the Impeachment music and instead resigned his Presidency was a back-room deal that if Ford made it through the confirmation process Ford would Pardon Nixon once seated as president. Ford did Pardon Nixon.

My point is, had Nixon been Impeached and removed from office and the Justice Dept followed up with say Conspiracy to Commit Burglary charges against him, Ford or whomever replaced him as sitting US President COULD NOT Pardon Nixon and the Judicial process and penalty would be sustained.

RSF

[KassandraLoves]

all I can say is wow. Just wow.