We let Bush get away with pardoning himself for war crimes

[joft]

and none of the american news media is really paying any attention to this fact (as of yet). i was just googling looking for articles on the bill they just passed, and like none of them mention the fact that he included a provision that retroactively pardons him and his administration from any war crimes they might be prosecuted for in the future.

it was mentioned on "the cafferty file" on cnn, but other than that i've found almost nothing except for some bloggers...

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8024


The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

and the house passed the bill, and the senate passed the bill, and nobody is saying anything. can't we at least have some outrage for a week or so here before we forget about it? they also passed a bill legalizing the warrantless wire-tapping... :huh:

[C.J.Woolf]

Somebody's paying attention. Here are a few:

http://www.dailykos.com

http://www.firedoglake.com

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com

[meshou]

Is this constitutional? I don't think a president can pardon himself, and it's not a legislative power either.

Also, a president can't be held legally responsible for actions he took in his capacity as president. Plus we can't make international law by ourselves. This just seems... pointless.

[joft]

it's not technically a pardon, but a change in legislation that makes them immune to prosecution for any actions they took during that time, so it basically has the same effect as a pardon

[meshou]

it's not technically a pardon, but a change in legislation that makes them immune to prosecution for any actions they took during that time, so it basically has the same effect as a pardonRight, but isn't he already immune, since he was acting as president? And if he was not acting as president, it's not in either his nor the legislature's powers to pardon himself.

[Nemesis]

I started a thread on this already.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14451

[ptGatsby]

Right, but isn't he already immune, since he was acting as president? And if he was not acting as president, it's not in either his nor the legislature's powers to pardon himself.


No one is above the law. That is why they had to change the law to fit his actions.

[meshou]

No one is above the law. That is why they had to change the law to fit his actions.Like I said, I think this is a constitutional thing. I am 100% sure that the president can't be convicted under US law for fufilling duties under his capacity as president.

And when it comes to pardoning, I'm fairly sure the legislative branch doesn't have the power to pardon, and the president doesn't have the power to pardon himself.

This is something the judicial branch would have to decide on before it became law. I am nearly sure this isn't constitutional.

[ptGatsby]

Like I said, I think this is a constitutional thing. I am 100% sure that the president can't be convicted under US law for fufilling duties under his capacity as president.


Well, its in part, true. He cannot be arrested while president ( http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm ), but he most certainly can be prosecuted. The only protection he has is covered in that 1973 memo - basicly, not to disrupt his work.

He is immune to civil proceedings however. And the immunity from 'just being picked up' goes away the moment he isn't president... And he could be impeached, of course... But that would just remove him from office.

(To quote: "The only kind of offenses that could lead to criminal proceedings against the President would be statutory offenses, and "their very inclusion in the Penal Code is an indication of a congressional determination that they can be adjudicated by a judge and jury." )

These are covered (I think) in the United States Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code). Maybe a lawyer can confirm that.



And when it comes to pardoning, I'm fairly sure the legislative branch doesn't have the power to pardon, and the president doesn't have the power to pardon himself.


Ah, but that will be seen yet, won't it? The judiciary carries out the law, and if there is a law that says it was legal back then... well... its open for a great court case.

Now, if they say its not constitutional, then the very last check worked out... for now. Like last time, the one where it went from military tribunal to what there is now. Big difference... just enough to make it constitutional, but to still allow torture... sorry, interrogation methods... to sneak through.



This is something the judicial branch would have to decide on before it became law. I am nearly sure this isn't constitutional.


Its not constitutional to strip habeas corpus, or suspend the 4th amendent via no oversight wiretaps. Its not constitutional for the president to declare war.

That is largely irrelevant now. What you are seeing is the rewriting (a continuation of) of the constitution. That's what this whole fight is about, and why there is such a huge divide.

Maybe it will be struck down, and maybe not. A lot of things that 'were' unconstitutional have found their work arounds before, this may be no different.

[omnirook]

and none of the american news media is really paying any attention to this fact (as of yet). i was just googling looking for articles on the bill they just passed, and like none of them mention the fact that he included a provision that retroactively pardons him and his administration from any war crimes they might be prosecuted for in the future.

it was mentioned on "the cafferty file" on cnn, but other than that i've found almost nothing except for some bloggers...

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8024



and the house passed the bill, and the senate passed the bill, and nobody is saying anything. can't we at least have some outrage for a week or so here before we forget about it? they also passed a bill legalizing the warrantless wire-tapping... :huh:

The whole thing is obscene - but, remember, we let Bush steal the White House in the first place, which was far more obscene. We let the Bush Junta go to war and bomb the hell out of a country for - nothing at all, just for the hell of it - and that was even more obscene. The American people are over-fed, over-stuffed, deliberately ignorant, hell, deliberately stupid cattle - and, so, we get just what we deserve. The Bushies have "legalized" their past, present, and future crimes - far worse than anything the Mafia ever did - and this is Organized Crime! - and who cares? A few. Most don't give a good god-damn, and that's all there is to it. As long as the average American can sit in his easy chair, a can of beer in one hand, a tv remote - or his dick - same thing - in the other hand, it doesn't matter what the thugocracy does down in Washington. And that's the sad truth of the matter. I'm fed up w/trying - I mean, bending over backwards! - to believe that the American people are victims - if they are, they volunteered for the job. Fuck 'em. I'll cut a deal w/the Devil and survive. What else can I do?

[Johnny]

Can't we at least have some outrage for a week or so here before we forget about it?

Nah. Too many people still remember 9/11...and as far as most Americans are concerned Islamic Middle Easterners are nothing but savages, thereby disqualifying themselves from such protections as the Geneva Convention.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_video_shows_9/11_hijackers_attending_al-Qaeda_camp_in_Afghanistan
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Mujahedeen_Army_issues_threat_of_attack_on_Vatican_City
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Damascus:_US_embassy_attacked
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/President_of_Iran_warns_universities_to_stay_out_of_politics


Iraq's government hasn't been able to provide essential services, weed out corruption or rein in brutal militias.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6158278