NationStates Jolt Archive

biden is in:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-rips-bush.html
Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation," he said, "they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution - out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."

awesome, says i. though it does leave me wondering - can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

Hmm... another associated question - can the president pardon himself? The constitution's seeming only limitation is impeachments.

Hmm... another associated question - can the president pardon himself? The constitution's seeming only limitation is impeachments.

no, because any criminal charges would have to be filed after his term was up, at which point, he no longer has the power to do so.

biden is in:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-rips-bush.html


awesome, says i. though it does leave me wondering - can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?
hmmmm if he can do that he must have to name each potential criminal defendant by name and what he is pre-emptively pardoning them for, dont you think?

ford pardoned nixon without charges having been brought against the former president. so it might be possible.

we need a constitutional scholar.

no, because any criminal charges would have to be filed after his term was up, at which point, he no longer has the power to do so.
why would they HAVE to be filed after?

hmmmm if he can do that he must have to name each potential criminal defendant by name and what he is pre-emptively pardoning them for, dont you think?

ford pardoned nixon without charges having been brought against the former president. so it might be possible.

we need a constitutional scholar.
No constitutional scholar needed.

Bush will write a signing statement to the effect that everything done during his term in office is legal and above reproach. Democrats will huddle together in fear at the idea of challenging this statement, for fear of being seen as "partisan," and Republicans will pray to god that no Democrat ever tries to apply the executive powers that Bush has claimed for the Presidency. The media will agree that this is a very bad development for Obama and a good development for McCain and did you guys notice how rugged St. BBQ was looking this morning?

No constitutional scholar needed.

Bush will write a signing statement to the effect that everything done during his term in office is legal and above reproach. Democrats will huddle together in fear at the idea of challenging this statement, for fear of being seen as "partisan," and Republicans will pray to god that no Democrat ever tries to apply the executive powers that Bush has claimed for the Presidency. The media will agree that this is a very bad development for Obama and a good development for McCain and did you guys notice how rugged St. BBQ was looking this morning?
damn youre smart.

its so obvious to me now.

no, because any criminal charges would have to be filed after his term was up, at which point, he no longer has the power to do so.

Ford pardoned Nixon for possible crimes before charges were brought....

Ford pardoned Nixon for possible crimes before charges were brought....

true, and that's bad wording on my part. I meant to say that I don't think you can pardon before charges could be brought.

Point being Nixon had to be out of office and subject to the possibility of charges before he could be pardoned

Prosecute! To the Gates of Hell!

true, and that's bad wording on my part. I meant to say that I don't think you can pardon before charges could be brought.

Point being Nixon had to be out of office and subject to the possibility of charges before he could be pardoned

The loophole seems to be that there's a precedent for pardoning possible crimes and there's no constitutional wording to prevent the pres. pardoning himself. The only pardon prevented is in cases of impeachment. So, if there appears to be a case against him, and impeachment proceedings haven't been brought up, Bush could pardon himself against possib le criminal charges...

Can we say constitutional crisis, boys and girls? Very good! I knew you could! ;)

Id love it if they were prosectued, but I think Bottle is right.

The loophole seems to be that there's a precedent for pardoning possible crimes and there's no constitutional wording to prevent the pres. pardoning himself. The only pardon prevented is in cases of impeachment. So, if there appears to be a case against him, and impeachment proceedings haven't been brought up, Bush could pardon himself against possib le criminal charges...

Can we say constitutional crisis, boys and girls? Very good! I knew you could! ;)

you are right in that there's no specific wording preventing it, I'm just going on gut instinct here, on the feeling that such a pardon would probably not be upheld. NO real caselaw to support it since...well...none exists, just call it an educated guess.

The problem with the pardons clause is that there really is very little caselaw about it, mostly because there's a very tricky little standings problem when it comes to challenging it.

you are right in that there's no specific wording preventing it, I'm just going on gut instinct here, on the feeling that such a pardon would probably not be upheld. NO real caselaw to support it since...well...none exists, just call it an educated guess.

The problem with the pardons clause is that there really is very little caselaw about it, mostly because there's a very tricky little standings problem when it comes to challenging it.
im thinking that you may be right--that it all depends on the willingness of the next administration to press the issue.

and that it may have been carter's unwillingness to re-open the watergate can of worms that let ford's pardon stick when there were no charges ever brought on nixon.

I hope someone has read this book:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/2575387417_26a08913bf_o.jpg

...and gives it a try, pardon or not.

Prosecute! To the Gates of Hell!

Use this guy.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/05/17/Harvey-Dent.jpg

you are right in that there's no specific wording preventing it, I'm just going on gut instinct here, on the feeling that such a pardon would probably not be upheld. NO real caselaw to support it since...well...none exists, just call it an educated guess.

The problem with the pardons clause is that there really is very little caselaw about it, mostly because there's a very tricky little standings problem when it comes to challenging it.

Indeed. With no caselaw and the constitutional wording, it'd be a nice little con. law crisis. SCOTUS would likely pull a Marbury v. Madison. ;)

Indeed. With no caselaw and the constitutional wording, it'd be a nice little con. law crisis. SCOTUS would likely pull a Marbury v. Madison. ;)

as long as they don't pull a Lochner I'm happy.

Prosecute! To the Gates of Hell!

Further, if possible.

Doesn't someone need to be proven guilty of a crime before you can pardon them for it?

The problem with the pardons clause is that there really is very little caselaw about it, mostly because there's a very tricky little standings problem when it comes to challenging it.

you know, that problem crops up all over the place. seems to me like we should have an alternate way to get to a ruling on certain politically important issues - doesn't most everybody have a separate 'constitutional court' for that sort of thing?

Doesn't someone need to be proven guilty of a crime before you can pardon them for it?

no. or at least, it doesn't seem to have stopped anyone yet.

Doesn't someone need to be proven guilty of a crime before you can pardon them for it?

Think of it as an amnesty...

biden is in:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-rips-bush.html


awesome, says i. Though it does leave me wondering - can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

yay rule of law strikes back!

yay rule of law strikes back!

Don't count your chickens until they're meth addicts...

Use this guy.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/05/17/Harvey-Dent.jpg

He gets my vote! :fluffle:

If Dear Leader pre-emptively pardons himself and his flunkies and buddies, it'll leave a kind of legacy he wasn't hoping to get. Not to mention make his Secret Service watch the most miserable and shellshocked in the organization's history from the Open Season fallout.

Use this guy.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/05/17/Harvey-Dent.jpg

Oh please, he's a complete flip-flopper who boils every decision down to a coin toss. :p

Soo out of interest, what crimes are you expecting bush to have committed...

Soo out of interest, what crimes are you expecting bush to have committed...

You mean you never saw him rob that bank?! :eek:
It was all over the news!

Soo out of interest, what crimes are you expecting bush to have committed...

Murder.
Treason.
Different kinds of corruption.
Authorization of illegal acts and war crimes, including but not limited to torture, organizing a war of aggression, breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Obstruction of justice.

That's off the top of my head, for starters...

Murder.
Treason.
Different kinds of corruption.
Authorization of illegal acts and war crimes, including but not limited to torture, organizing a war of aggression, breach of the Geneva Conventions.
Obstruction of justice.

That's off the top of my head, for starters...

Treason, then putting up a scapegoat, then pardoning said scapegoat.

Treason, then putting up a scapegoat, then pardoning said scapegoat.

Oh yes, the Plame exposure. Point out Dubya was aware of that before it got carried out and you might have a solid case.

Oh yes, the Plame exposure. Point out Dubya was aware of that before it got carried out and you might have a solid case.

Yes, it requires an investigation first, which is why Biden didn't make specific accusations. The evidence I'm aware is certainly only circumstancial, but it is say much about his committment to protecting the US when he pardoned the person his own administration claimed was responsible.

shame about the whole retroactive-legalizing-of-felonies-bush-publicly-admitted-committing-on-national-tv thing, but, well, there's plenty more where that came from.

Soo out of interest, what crimes are you expecting bush to have committed...

Obstruction of Justice, War Crimes, Treason if he authorized leaking that CIA agent's name.

If you could prove a conection to the Plame incident, it could be quite legal to execute Bush for Treason. I disaprove of the Death Penalty on principal, but its worth noting that a sitting President of the USA may have commited actions that would qualify him for it.

*interests of national security*

"ach"

So, who all believes that they will actually follow through with this?

For those who raised their hands, there's an Ocean Front Property in Kansas I'd like to sell you.

So, who all believes that they will actually follow through with this?

For those who raised their hands, there's an Ocean Front Property in Kansas I'd like to sell you.
See also any kind of investigation of 9/11 being handled in a 'proper' way.

"WE WANT AN INVESTIGATION, THE BUSH GOVERNMENT DID IT!"
"Eh fair doos"
*investigation*
"Nah was baddies"

So, who all believes that they will actually follow through with this?

For those who raised their hands, there's an Ocean Front Property in Kansas I'd like to sell you.

There's not much they can do if Bush issues blanket pardons, burns the evidence, and has the Supreme Court rule that various actions were Constitutional. Plus, persuing an investigation would require more than Biden's support, and the party as a whole has been shown to be lacking balls before.

And I'll take that Property in Kansas. Could be quite valuable if Global Warming raises the sea levels sufficiently.

See also any kind of investigation of 9/11 being handled in a 'proper' way.

"WE WANT AN INVESTIGATION, THE BUSH GOVERNMENT DID IT!"
"Eh fair doos"
*investigation*
"Nah was baddies"

That was... somewhat incoherrent.

See also any kind of investigation of 9/11 being handled in a 'proper' way.

"WE WANT AN INVESTIGATION, THE BUSH GOVERNMENT DID IT!"
"Eh fair doos"
*investigation*
"Nah was baddies"

You believe in "Loose Change"?

Yea, you're done.

MY point is, this is nothing more than Obama & Biden pandering to their base for support and vote. As soon as they get into office, they are going to do a half ass job of it, jail a few un-important people from the Bush administration that NO one has heard of (like the mail room clerk), and Bush will get to sit at his Ranch in Crawford writing his memoir.

That was... somewhat incoherrent.
How so?

Any 'independent' investigation will be nothing of the sort, and any government investigation will be a farce.

You believe in "Loose Change"?
Never seen it, what's it say?

How so?

Any 'independent' investigation will be nothing of the sort, and any government investigation will be a farce.

Nevermind, I reread it and I think it makes sense now.

But there have been real investigations before. One actually forced a President to step down.

Nevermind, I reread it and I think it makes sense now.

But there have been real investigations before. One actually forced a President to step down.
Nixon lost Watergate because the general public didn't like it, as the already-rich lining their pockets a wee bit more is insulting. On the other hand, three and a half thousand Americans getting killed provokes a lot of sympathy.

Nixon lost Watergate because the general public didn't like it, as the already-rich lining their pockets a wee bit more is insulting. On the other hand, three and a half thousand Americans getting killed provokes a lot of sympathy.

That because money is just fancy paper with dead Presidents on them. They have no real value outside of the intrinsic value we place on the piece of paper.

However, once a life is gone, it's gone.

That because money is just fancy paper with dead Presidents on them. They have no real value outside of the intrinsic value we place on the piece of paper.

However, once a life is gone, it's gone.
Aye, no shit.

That because money is just fancy paper with dead Presidents on them. They have no real value outside of the intrinsic value we place on the piece of paper.

However, once a life is gone, it's gone.

Yes, like all the lives in New Orleans a few years back, or in famillies who can't afford health care, or in Iraq, or in the ellectric chair in Texas, or in the preventable attacks on 911...

Bush needs to end his days in small cell in a maximum security facillity.

Yes, like all the lives in New Orleans a few years back, or in famillies who can't afford health care, or in Iraq, or in the ellectric chair in Texas, or in the preventable attacks on 911...

Bush needs to end his days in small cell in a maximum security facillity.
Can't really blame the structural problems of the US entirely on Bush. A lot of them, yes, but you can't blame, for example, the fact that a lot of Americans don't have healthcare on Bush.

Can't really blame the structural problems of the US entirely on Bush. A lot of them, yes, but you can't blame, for example, the fact that a lot of Americans don't have healthcare on Bush.

But fewer can afford it due to what his years in office have done to the economy.

But fewer can afford it due to what his years in office have done to the economy.
Would have been a problem no matter who was in power, the population is aging and the US economy has been running at a loss for the last 25-30 years. This all means less money to stuff like the healthcare programme.

Would have been a problem no matter who was in power, the population is aging and the US economy has been running at a loss for the last 25-30 years. This all means less money to stuff like the healthcare programme.

Fair enough but you can't deny Bush didn't do enough to make the situation better.

Fair enough but you can't deny Bush didn't do enough to make the situation better.
Absolutely.

Can't really blame the structural problems of the US entirely on Bush. A lot of them, yes, but you can't blame, for example, the fact that a lot of Americans don't have healthcare on Bush.

No, you can blame them on the last couple Presidents, actually. However, as the one who is currently in office and still hasn't fixed it and refused to fix it when my company and others gave evaluations that it was weakened to the point of danger, he's responsible enough to be be considered at fault.

He was absolutely warned about the infrastructure. As was the congress.

can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

lawyers in the house, thoughts?

Can't really blame the structural problems of the US entirely on Bush. A lot of them, yes, but you can't blame, for example, the fact that a lot of Americans don't have healthcare on Bush.

But what can be blamed on the American public is the utter lack of care for their fellow Americans that have created this lack of structure. You'll find lots of support for war, murder, "holy" crusades, but from the very same people, not one whit of compassion for their fellow being. Not all Americans may think this way, but enough of them do that it's more or less American policy.

No, you can blame them on the last couple Presidents, actually. However, as the one who is currently in office and still hasn't fixed it and refused to fix it when my company and others gave evaluations that it was weakened to the point of danger, he's responsible enough to be be considered at fault.

He was absolutely warned about the infrastructure. As was the congress.
It's a worldwide problem. As to it being 'the last couple of presidents' - when was the last time that proper healthcare was an issue that was really acted upon?
But what can be blamed on the American public is the utter lack of care for their fellow Americans that have created this lack of structure. You'll find lots of support for war, murder, "holy" crusades, but from the very same people, not one whit of compassion for their fellow being. Not all Americans may think this way, but enough of them do that it's more or less American policy.
Quite. Thank you democracy for making sure that the people with enough money to go out and vote in force are also the people with healthcare insurance. Yes...

Oh please, he's a complete flip-flopper who boils every decision down to a coin toss. :p

50% chance of Bush and co. being found guilty.

can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

lawyers in the house, thoughts?

Without doing any research or giving the matter a great deal of thought, my knee-jerk answer would be "No, a president's pardons can't be revoked."

FWIW, here is some good legal background on pardons (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/09.html#8). A cursory review didn't seem to include an answer to your question, but I may well have overlooked it.

as long as they don't pull a Lochner I'm happy.

Indeed.

Doesn't someone need to be proven guilty of a crime before you can pardon them for it?

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates easily defeated proposals to make presidential pardons subject to the approval of the Senate, and to limit pardons to persons actually convicted of crimes.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/prespardons.htm

And the case I mentioned earlier:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/740061.htm

Soo out of interest, what crimes are you expecting bush to have committed...

Primarily war crimes related to his having authorized disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners, and the like.

Without doing any research or giving the matter a great deal of thought, my knee-jerk answer would be "No, a president's pardons can't be revoked."

FWIW, here is some good legal background on pardons (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/09.html#8). A cursory review didn't seem to include an answer to your question, but I may well have overlooked it.

Sounds good to me.

Also, on the point of the president pardoning himself, it's come up with Nixon, Bush I, and Clinton.

Nixon's Chief of Staff, Alexander Haig, did in fact offer a deal to Ford. Bob Woodward, in his book Shadow, recounts that Haig entered Ford's office on August 1, 1974 while Ford was still Vice President and Nixon had yet to resign. Haig told Ford that there were three pardon options: (1) Nixon could pardon himself and resign; (2) Nixon could pardon his aides involved in Watergate and then resign; or (3) Nixon could agree to leave in return for an agreement that the new president would pardon him. After listing these options, Haig handed Ford various papers; one of these papers included a discussion of the president's legal authority to pardon, and another sheet was a draft pardon form that only needed Ford's signature and Nixon's name to make it legal. Woodward summarizes the setting between Haig and Ford as follows: "Even if Haig offered no direct words on his views, the message was almost certainly sent. An emotional man, Haig was incapable of concealing his feelings; those who worked closely with him rarely found him ambiguous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#Pardon_of_Nixon

Good Authority for a Clinton Self-Pardon

While no president has ever pardoned himself, the law supports the president's authority to do so. Scholarly inquiry into the subject was provoked first by fear that Richard Nixon would pardon himself to escape Watergate; later by thought that George H. W. Bush would do so because of the Iran-Contra grand jury; and most recently by concern about Bill Clinton's problem of a possible post-Presidency indictment and trial. And while a few scholars have concluded that the president cannot pardon himself, many more believe that he can.

As one Member of Congress said during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, "the prevailing opinion is the President can pardon himself." Thus, should Bill Clinton pardon himself, and should Independent Counsel Ray decide to go to Court to test his presidential power to do so, not only would that court case delay the prospect of resolving any criminal action against the former president quickly, it would also present a case of first impression, with the authority overwhelmingly on the side of the former president.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20001208.html

Murder. really hard he would have to be shown to order specfic murders. not just poorly lead a nation to war
Treason. none of his actions fit the legal definition be reasonable
Different kinds of corruption. difficult to prove as you have to prove planning and for knowledge of the specific acts acts
Authorization of illegal acts and war crimes, including but not limited to torture, organizing a war of aggression, breach of the Geneva Conventions. now you got a winner. focus on this one. though the Geneva convention is not something we prosecute for.

Obstruction of justice. again difficult to prove. even more so because the justice department reports to the president.

That's off the top of my head, for starters...

really only one that has a serious chance of being prosecuted. though if the evidence is there they should work on an impeachment now. Standards of evidence in congress are much easier then in a court.

I don't see why we need criminal charges. We should just take him into custody as an unlawful combatant and detain him in Guantanamo until the War on Terror has been won.

:)

Without doing any research or giving the matter a great deal of thought, my knee-jerk answer would be "No, a president's pardons can't be revoked.

so this may be yet another issue that the anti-federalists were not totally off-base about.

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp67.html
His power of nomination and influence on all appointments; the strong posts in each state comprised within his superintendence, and garrisoned by troops under his direction; his control over the army, militia, and navy; the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt; his duration in office for four years-these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position, that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.

so this may be yet another issue that the anti-federalists were not totally off-base about.

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp67.html

The South will rise again!!

Bush should lay charges against Cheney and then pardon him, and then he should resign making Cheney the President so Cheney can then have charges laid against Bush and then automatically pardon him. Problem solved.

I don't see why we need criminal charges. We should just take him into custody as an unlawful combatant and detain him in Guantanamo until the War on Terror has been won.

:)

It would be delicious irony, yes. But more so if he were exported to say... Pakistan for... questioning about his crimes.

It would be delicious irony, yes. But more so if he were exported to say... Pakistan for... questioning about his crimes.

Presidentially approved harsh interrogation techniques seem perfectly justified in this case. Any confessions obtained will be admissible in court. *nod*

Presidentially approved harsh interrogation techniques seem perfectly justified in this case. Any confessions obtained will be admissible in court. *nod*

And after the trial, the verdict won't matter, because we'll reveal that we actually weren't going to honor the court anyway. That his internment is indefinite despite a finite sentence.

Presidentially approved harsh interrogation techniques seem perfectly justified in this case. Any confessions obtained will be admissible in court. *nod*

And the more vocal opponents who formerly supported such measures can be countered with accusations of anti-Americanism, and possible suspicions of being terrorist supporters.

Mmm, tasty irony.

biden is in:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-rips-bush.html


awesome, says i. though it does leave me wondering - can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

Theres first the problem of proving a crime was committed. Then you'd have to prove guilt etc.

Given the large number of Lawyers in the Bush regime, the long experience of many of the operators in the Bush cabinet, and the length of time theres been to ass-cover, you have a better chance of nailing a pool of oil to a wall.

Will he be waterboarded to get the evidence?

Theres first the problem of proving a crime was committed. Then you'd have to prove guilt etc.


Why not use the tools he so thoughtfully left behind? Like the apparent lack of need for proof before things like imprisonment, torture and maybe even killings can be carried out? I'm sure the one's who were soooo supportive of these things wouldn't mind them being carried out on one of their own.

Why not use the tools he so thoughtfully left behind? Like the apparent lack of need for proof before things like imprisonment, torture and maybe even killings can be carried out? I'm sure the one's who were soooo supportive of these things wouldn't mind them being carried out on one of their own.

Well they should be, but those who are against now should still be against and should not support using it, otherwise you are just as bad as those you criticise.

Well they should be, but those who are against now should still be against and should not support using it, otherwise you are just as bad as those you criticise.

I'm aware of the disconnect. I don't support the kind of chicanery that has taken place, but I do like to indulge in the idea of ironic justice. It's a therapeutic exercise.

It would be much more ethical and legal of course, to prosecute for existing crimes, going through the court of law and such, but the current law's structure makes it nearly impossible to convict any about to be ex-president who doesn't want to be presecuted for just about anything from jaywalking to genocide unless some other power conquers the country.

Still, the specter of such powerful tools of tyranny being used against the very people who installed it should not be easily discarded I believe, if only to convince them what an astoundingly bad idea it was and ensure future generations won't make the same mistake.

I know that Biden, Waxman, several others in Congress -- and I -- dream daily of convicting Bush, Cheney, and all those other evil bastards for war crimes, political corruption, and various violations of their duty under the Constitution, but I personally have little hope that it will ever happen. That doesn't stop me from dreaming of them in orange jumpsuits, walking around and around a very small room for the rest of their misbegotten lives.

As to the pardons issue, I believe a presidential pardon is absolute, and the the president's discretion as to who to pardon and for what is sole and absolute as well.

I do not believe a president can pardon himself, because that would be just nutty. However, as with Nixon and Ford, a president can pardon a former president. If McCain gets elected, Bush will likely be protected, but if Obama wins, I would expect Bush will be on the hook for anything that can be proven against him.

Also, the lawyers in the Bush admin are not the only lawyers in the game -- and if Gonzalez is anything to judge by, they're not the best lawyers, either. Now, I'm just guessing and imagining here, but I would imagine that a possible approach might be to argue that the president cannot use the office and powers of the president to cover up high crimes the president himself commits. So if Bush is not protected, and a case can be made against him (and I believe there is likely to be enough evidence around to do that), and if he is convicted, and if the case made against him clearly implicates others who he has already pardoned, then prosecutors might use his conviction to petition the court to issue warrants for those people on those specific charges, on the grounds that the pardons themselves, as cover-ups, were part of the criminal action. But you'd have to get Bush first, and the underlings later.

Anyway, that's what I'd try. I have no idea whether it would be possible.

But regardless, I think it would be worthwhile to try to bring charges against those bastards. It could take many years to build a case, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. And if it led to presidential pardons being rescinded or ignored if they are deemed part and parcel of a criminal and/or corrupt action, that could set a precedent that would undermine some part of the powers of the presidency, but I really don't have a problem with that either. Pardons are really a privilege of the president, anyway, not a power.

I don't see why we need criminal charges. We should just take him into custody as an unlawful combatant and detain him in Guantanamo until the War on Terror has been won.

:)

A most excellent suggestion. Even avoids the pardon question.

Bush should lay charges against Cheney and then pardon him, and then he should resign making Cheney the President so Cheney can then have charges laid against Bush and then automatically pardon him. Problem solved.

No need. As I've shown quite clearly above, charges need not be brought nor resignations handed in, for Bush to pardon the whole crew, including himself. That's pretty much what I expect to seen come January 2009 - Bush issuing a blanket presidential pardon for himself and his cronies. And I expect it'll force some sort of crisis.

Will he be waterboarded to get the evidence?

He's down with it...

Obstruction of Justice, War Crimes, Treason if he authorized leaking that CIA agent's name.

And we all know how treason during time of war is punished . . .

So . . . what is the secret service to do when cops with guns show up to arrest an ex-president? Also, will they continue to guard him while he's in prison?

So . . . what is the secret service to do when cops with guns show up to arrest an ex-president? Also, will they continue to guard him while he's in prison?

Are you asking if they'll still 'take one' for him if a large man named Bubba wants to dance?

Are you asking if they'll still 'take one' for him if a large man named Bubba wants to dance?

Somehow I doubt they'll be taking one if that Bubba's wanting to go for the sort of "dance" wartime treason might involve...

really hard he would have to be shown to order specfic murders.
not just poorly lead a nation to war
Read the book I've posted about earlier.


none of his actions fit the legal definition be reasonable
I disagree, and I'm entirely reasonable. A case against Bush for treason could be made.

difficult to prove as you have to prove planning and for knowledge of the specific acts acts
So? A case could be made here as well.

now you got a winner. focus on this one. though the Geneva convention is not something we prosecute for.
War crimes are punishable.

again difficult to prove. even more so because the justice department reports to the president.
So? This would be under a new administration.

really only one that has a serious chance of being prosecuted.
Really, none of them have. Because nobody wants to deal with it. He could do whatever he wanted and nobody would lift a finger. It's sad.

But in theory, he could be prosecuted for the whole package.

though if the evidence is there they should work on an impeachment now. Standards of evidence in congress are much easier then in a court.
Again, nobody wants to deal with it now. And a criminal prosecution has a lot more impact than the political circus that is impeachment.

Are you asking if they'll still 'take one' for him if a large man named Bubba wants to dance?

That and if they will be allowed/required to accompany him to prison.

That and if they will be allowed/required to accompany him to prison.
Maybe someone can give the exact info on this (?) but I think there is a prison in the US for people convicted of treason, espionage and such like. No, not GITMO. I think it's in Colorado somewhere. Anyway, it's a high security federal facility and has federal officers guarding it who I think might be military but at least are not regular state correctional officers. So I don't think the Secret Service would have accompany Bush to prison as he'd most likely go to that prison where he'd be under federal "security" anyway. ;)

I think it's just political grandstanding. If there were any actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the Liberals in Congress would have already impeached and drawn-&-quartered him. It's just a bunch of drivel to play on peoples emotions so he can have his precious power.

biden is in:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-rips-bush.html


awesome, says i. though it does leave me wondering - can a president's preemptive pardons be revoked if they are part of a coverup of that president's participation in crimes?

Political banter to appeal to the masses who are out for blood... Nothing will become of this if Obama and Biden win. I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.

I think it's just political grandstanding. If there were any actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the Liberals in Congress would have already impeached and drawn-&-quartered him. It's just a bunch of drivel to play on peoples emotions so he can have his precious power.

Yeah, except more than 2/3rds majority of votes is required for such proceedings even with smoking guns. And there's those imaginary Republican Representatives and Senators who would somehow manage to cockblock the impeachment proceedings if that were the case.

Sort of like how the same people who crow about Congress doing a worse job than Dear Leader conveiently forget that they have Republicans in there too who cockblock the Democratic agendas.