George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture

[Robbien]

Source: By Tim Shipman, The Telegraph UK

Senior intelligence officers are lobbying the outgoing president to look after the men and women who could face charges for following his orders in the war on terrorism.

Many fear that Barack Obama, who has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and put an end to the policy of extraordinary rendition, could launch a legal witch hunt against those who oversaw the policies after he is sworn in on Jan 20.

Most vulnerable are US intelligence officers who took part in intensive interrogations against terrorist suspects, using techniques including water boarding, which many believe crossed the line into torture.

A former CIA officer familiar with the backstage lobbying for pardons, said: "These are the people President Bush asked to fight the war on terror for him. He gave them the green light to fight tough. The view of many in the intelligence community is that he should not leave them vulnerable to legal censure when he leaves.

"An effort is under way to get pre-emptive pardons. The White House has indicated that the matter is under consideration."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3464442/George-W-Bush-could-pardon-spies-involved-in-torture.html

[Xipe Totec]

1. Too bad he can't pardon himself

Hiya, chimpie!

Your ass is ours!

See you at Nuremberg!

[dipsydoodle]

5. Someone mentioned this other day

Apparently he can after a fashion. :shrug: I don't recall the exact context - may have been in reference to FDR and Hoover.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. There is nothing to prevent him from pardoning himself.

The presidential pardon is pretty much unlimited.

[Xipe Totec]

9. He can try...

Let him spell out every crime he's committed, and then pardon himself for it.

Oh, did you miss this one? Too bad!

[Warren Stupidity]

11. See the nixon pardon.

"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."

It is called a blanket pardon.

[silverojo]

35. If he pardons himself, he's admitting to his own guilt

Whether it's a blanket pardon or not.

Still...couldn't the rest of the world try him as a war criminal in The Hague, or does the proceeding have to start here?

[iamjoy]

10. If Nothing Else

He could do all his pardons, then resign within the last week. Dick Cheney gets sworn in as POTUS. :puke: It would only be for a few days, but enough time to pardon Dubya.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. There is only one limit on the pardon: impeachment.

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


That is it. There is nothing to prevent Bush from giving himself a pardon.

[davekriss]

25. Which is precisely why impeachment was so important

Conviction in the Senate is not even required. The mere act of impeachment in the House prevents Bush from pardoning himself. The sequence is "impeached" (in the House), "tried and convicted" in the Senate -- the clause does not refer to the Senate trial and achievement of a conviction.

Pelosi could have rallied the votes in the House for impeachment but instead decided it was "off the table", leaving the greatest criminal in U.S. history free to leave office unscathed and pardoned.

[amdezurik]

16. now if there were a clever lawyer or two...

they might be able to make a case that If that happens then Cheney would have been participating in a criminal activity to obstruct justice AFTER his pardon was granted by dumbaya and charge him before he does the one for the dumbaya :)

[shanti]

26. you can bet he will!

he's been pretty much unfettered up till now.

[unblock]

27. the supreme court has never ruled on it, therefore it's not "settled law".

though with THIS supreme court, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't side with bush.

having said that, self-pardons so obviously run afoul of several ideas that the founders had about how government should work, so a reasonable supreme court would not uphold them. the problem is that we don't have a reasonable supreme court.


then again, if self-pardons WERE prevented, a criminal cabal could easily circumvent them. bush could pardon cheney and resign on the last day, then cheney could pardon bush as his only act as president for an hour.

[elocs]

15. He who laughs last, laughs best and Bush may very well get the last laugh here.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195689

Pre-emptive Presidential Pardons Can you be pardoned for a crime before you're ever charged?
By Jacob LeibenluftPosted Monday, July 21, 2008, at 6:36 PM ET

With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime?

Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

Timothy Noah made the case after Gerald Ford's death that the pardon of Richard Nixon set a dangerous precedent. Toward the end of President Clinton's administration, Emily Yoffe explained the difference between a pardon and a commutation, whether it was constitutional for Congress to hold hearings on pardons, and how often fugitives received pardons. Daniel Engber described how you go about applying for clemency from your state's governor. Last year, Michelle Tsai discussed whether a presidential pardon would get Scooter Libby his $250,000 fine back.

As the Explainer has pointed out before, there aren't many limits to the president's pardon power, at least when it comes to criminal prosecutions under federal law. The president's clemency power has its origins in the practices of the English monarchy, and as a result, the Supreme Court has given the president wide leeway under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. There are some exceptions: The chief executive can't pardon someone for a violation of state law or nullify a civil ruling, and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. (It's also not clear whether the president can pardon himself for future convictions.)

While pre-emptive pardons remain very rare, there are a few notable exceptions. Perhaps the most famous presidential pardon of all time occurred before any charges were filed. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. In other cases, presidents have pardoned individuals after criminal proceedings have begun but before a judgment has been handed down. In late 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been indicted earlier that year on perjury charges surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. (A lawyer for Roger Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee claimed the pitcher might receive a similar pardon from Bush if he were ever indicted.) In addition, broad presidential amnesties—like the one President Carter issued to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam War—are essentially pre-emptive pardons issued to a large group of individuals.

If someone hasn't yet been charged with a crime, how does the president know what to pardon them for? As in Nixon's case, President Bush could issue a pardon that applies generally to any crimes that may have been committed within a certain range of dates. More likely, a pardon could apply only to actions surrounding a single policy or place—say, the detention or interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members.

I wonder exactly who everyone thinks is going to carry the water on impeaching Bushco, war crimes trials, etc? It certainly won't be either Obama or Congress.
Reality is a harsh mistress.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. "Reality is a harsh mistress."

You're really obsessed with that aren't you? You use it in every post you make.

Tell that to Don Siegelman, Valerie Plame, and all the other victims of the various crimes. I'm sure they'll take it well.

If you're a parent you must tell your kid, "Yeah, there's bullies in the world. Reality is a harsh mistress. Life is unfair. Get used to it. Sit back and take the blows."

Would you have the same attitude if somebody raped your daughter?

"Bush will get the last laugh." Oh yeah? Well we'll just see about that.

Also, "I wonder exactly who everyone thinks is going to carry the water on impeaching Bushco, war crimes trials, etc?" Whether we can make that a reality isn't the point. It's a matter of us not letting up so the world will know we did what we could to stop everything and that we weren't "Good Germans."

I remember you saying not all criminals will be brought to justice. Well, maybe we should change the Pledge of Allegiance from "liberty and justice for all" to "liberty and justice for a few."

If the African Americans in the '60s had your attitude, we'd still have segregation.

[elocs]

32. Actually, "reality is a harsh mistress" used to be my sig.

Here's a clue: if my posts bother you, don't read them. I will continue to use my "reality is a harsh mistress" whenever I like, maybe even more often now. Kind of anally retentive about that, aren't you. I guess I never realized that someone was keeping track of my words.

The good news for me is that I will no longer have to read your posts. Why not go thou and do likewise with me.

Oh, by the way, REALITY IS A HARSH MISTRESS!. :rofl:

[Independent_Liberal]

33. Well, on that I guess we're even.

.

[amdezurik]

2. just following orders

that must be how they still sleep at night...

[Lincolngirl]

3. This is very disturbing

I was following orders is not a good enough defense for torture for me. I hope he looses track of time, or forgets about this.
He should end up in jail for what he has done, along with many others. I'm disgusted about the whole thing.

[Solly Mack]

4. Fuck'em. They deserve to be in prison and not just them

"...using techniques including water boarding, which many believe crossed the line into torture."

It's not a question of belief or opinion or debate...water-boarding IS torture.

[gratuitous]

6. Bush can't pardon international crimes

And torture is one of those crimes against humanity that doesn't come under the purview of the Executive branch of the United States. Our choices are pretty stark: Either we prosecute these criminals or someone else will, either by legal or extralegal means.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Now you're talking!

Indeed I expect that Bush will be issuing a boatload of pardons, perhaps even secret pardons, as he exits. But as you point out, that has no effect on international law.

[hack89]

20. What do you mean by extralegal? nt

[gratuitous]

21. Outside the law

There's a possibility that if we don't prosecute our own criminals, other folks will. Now, they might go through a regular court system with rules of procedure, an evidence code, and much of the usual trappings of a court proceeding that we're used to seeing. An extralegal proceeding would be more akin to how Mussolini or Ceaucescu were prosecuted for their crimes. Those proceedings are quite a bit messier, horrifying, and notoriously scattershot in who receives "justice." More like the prisoners at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, where it's impossible to separate the guilty from the unlucky innocent.

I greatly prefer the orderly prosecution of a regularly constituted tribunal.

[hack89]

22. The US military and the CIA would then hunt those folks down and kill them

at the order of President Obama. Extra judicial murder of ex-US Presidents is not a precedent that he will want to encourage - for his own safety if no other other reason.

[Nihil]

36. Well if they do as well at that as they have in the hunt for Bin Laden ... (n/t)

:rofl:

[hack89]

37. How hard do you really think they are looking for Bin Laden nt ?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. They aren't spies, they are torturers.

People torturing prisoners are not engaged in espionage, they are torturers.

[Piewhacket]

14. Pardon would cover only Federal Crimes.

Remember,
Abuse of the pardon power is grounds for impeachment.
Which is why controversial pardons come at the end of a lame duck term.

Perhaps there are other jurisdictions that could try them.
Perhaps the crimes can also be tried in absentia.
Even if the defendant cannot be punished.

[Ian David]

17. Once they're pardoned, they aren't protected by The 5th Amendment...

... they'll be free to point fingers upward, and spill all the beans, without fear of prosecution, and without a way to prevent them from having their testimony dragged out of them.

[Gregorian]

30. Thanks. This was the part I had forgotten.

The entire world will not forget this administration. They're in for a ride.

[machI]

18. This is how Republicans operate above the law

They just have their minions perform the illegal actions, then give them a get-out-of-jail-free card at the end of the administration.

And don't forget, the pardons are only for crimes that are detected, how many more things went on that we will never know about.

[POAS]

19. This could expose those agents identities

which would have the effect of identifying them to international tribunals where a Presidential Pardon would provide no protection.

[many a good man]

24. But the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court

We don't recognize their jurisdiction. Even if Obama signs on I doubt it can be made retroactive. The war criminals would have to be snatched off the street while touring abroad. It would create an ugly international incident and destroy any hopes for non-partisanship. Face it, there will be no justice.

The best preemptive strike against Bush pardons is to vote to impeach him in January. That will take away his right to pardon anyone. After Obama takes office we could dismiss the Senate trial. Then start criminal proceedings.

[nichomachus]

23. Actually, I think Bush is in a bind

He either has to pardon hundreds and hundreds of people -- or pardon no one. If he pardons a few and not the others, then the others are going to be pissed off. And, if they know where the bodies are buried, that might just spur them to tattle.

He could do like his father and pardon only those people who could testify against him. Again, that would be a lot of people. But, once he's done that, those people can't claim their Fifth Amendment privilege, since they can't be prosecuted for implicating themselves in his crimes. So, they could be held in contempt if they refuse to testify.

It's going to be interesting.

[formercia]

29. Just say NO!

That's what I did at the CIA and I paid the price. At least I'm still alive. Some paid the ultimate price.

They swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. They didn't uphold their oath. Fuck 'em.

[goforit]

31. True, but these torture guys will have to hide from the world for the rest of

their lives.

[RedCloud]

34. Punish the wing nuts

Send the correct message, not the one of letting Reagan's October Surprise go unpunished. By not going after Bush I and his October 18, 1980 meeting with Iranian terrorists in Paris, France, Clinton disingenuously opened the door for a third generation of Bush traitors, W, to emerge.

Prescott Bush and the Nazis
Bush I and this negotiating deals with enemies.
W and his fleecing of the Free market.

Let no more insanity prevail. We have had way more than our fair share.