An unpardonable use of power-By Sen. Russ Feingold

[kpete]

An unpardonable use of power

If President Bush cares about his place in history, he should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

By Sen. Russ Feingold


Nov. 20, 2008 | A departing president probably can't help thinking about the judgment of history. At the end of eight years, President Bush likely isn't any different. With the nation's attention focused on his successor, it may seem as if there is little opportunity left for the current president to affect how he will be viewed. But there is one power left -- the power of the pardon -- that could, if it's abused, create a controversy that both the president and the public could live without.

The power of the pardon is close to absolute. Short of interfering with their own impeachment, presidents can pardon whomever they choose. At the end of his term, however, this president should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

If President Bush were to pardon key individuals involved in the misdeeds of his administration, from warrantless wiretapping to torture to the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the courts would be unable to address criminality, or pass judgment on the legality of some of the president's worst abuses. Issuing such pardons now would be particularly egregious, since voters just issued such a strong condemnation of the Bush administration at the ballot box. There is nothing to prevent President Bush from using the pardon in such a short-sighted and self-serving manner -- except, perhaps, public pressure that may itself be a window on the judgment of history. Everyone who can exert that pressure, from members of Congress to the press and the public, should express their views on whether it would be appropriate for President Bush to use his pardon power in this way.

more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/20/pardon/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. FYI to Russ - Smirky could care less what anyone thinks about his pardons.

The pardons will rain down like manna from heaven for hundreds if not thousands of people in January.

[mymessageboardid]

15. If Bush was on this message board

The :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: icon would be broken after reading that gem from Russ.

[Ian David]

2. You REALLY need to put a comma in there after "power" or a double-dash. n/t

[bdamomma]

3. Sorry Senator Feingold

but George Bush does not care about the rule of laws.

[VP505]

4. Memo to Russ:

Booo$h couldn't care less what the perception of him is, he knows that the RW talking heads and his knuckle dragger followers will do all they can to spin his legacy into Sainthood. Just like they are doing with Raygun, although it may take a few extra generations for Booo$h to get to the same starting level as Raygun. At some point both he and Raygun will be known to have walked on water. With Booo$h having to rescue America from the damage of the Clinton years and because of his Diplomacy, far reaching knowledge and expert abilities he turned the Middle East into paradise with everyone loving everyone and living wealthy and happy ever after, that is until that Obama guy got elected. It may not happen that way but for sure the RW will try.

[pat_k]

5. Unpardonable to pardon for crimes you refused to even TRY to. . .

. . .stop by calling on the House to impeach?

It's 'unpardonable' if people can't be prosecuted for crimes you effectively endorsed by defending 'off the table'?

Senator Feingold, until you declare 'off the table' to be 'unpardonable,' all your efforts to be a standup guy are just making you look like an ass.

You're tolerating the intolerable today. So whatcha gonna do about the 'unpardonable' tomorrow? More impotent 'condemnations' that just amount to whining? You're refusing to enforce the law today. Do you really believe that passing a duplicate law tomorrow can 'fix it."

And, BTW, if Bush pardons his co-conspirators to protect himself -- and that will be precisely what he is doing if he pardons for torture and spying -- he is willfully and blatantly obstructing justice. President Obama's administration would have a duty to prosecute.

No amount of twisting, and turning, and 'interpreting' can make torture constitutional. And no about of twisting, turning, and interpreting can make it constitutional for Bush to immunize himself from the charge of obstruction.

All your blather about Bush's pardons making it "impossible to address criminality" is just another destructive false meme that enables Democrats to say "Hey. We're Powerless! We can do Nothing! You are Powerless! Go Away and leave us alone!"

[Independent_Liberal]

6. Precisely, pat_k.

If he's so concerned about this, he should call on the House to commence impeachment proceedings.

[glitch]

7. Sadly agreed. That ship sailed so long ago you can't even see it on the horizon

And another thing, calling "his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question." WTFH?

WHO ON THIS PLANET STILL HAS ANY QUESTION AT ALL ABOUT BUSH'S JUDGMENT OR HIS "RESPECT" FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE RULE OF LAW????
Sorry for yelling, but it is a ridiculous statement.

[pat_k]

8. The depth of their denial. . .

. . .and the strength of their defenses against reality is truly stupefying.

When otherwise rational people are so self-destructively deluded, they are in desperate need of 'treatment.'

What some of our fellow anti-fascists don't seem to realize is that when we challenge people like Feingold, we aren't "attacking our own," we're doing an intervention.

"Tough love" ain't always pretty, but if we are going to rescue our country we must do what we can to save our so-called leaders from themselves.

[glitch]

11. Intervention is a perfect analogy.

I often feel they need de-programming, from professionals who de-program cult members.

What can he be thinking to write this in all seriousness, as if the rest of us have no idea of the criminality of the Bush Administration? There are limits to being "politic", for God's sake.

[omega minimo]

9. No impeachment and now it's time to judge Bush's abuse of power?

:thumbsdown: :wow:

[FLAprogressive]

10. Feingold 2016!

[Solly Mack]

12. ...

"The current president, who has shown such disrespect for the rule of law during his term, will have a chance to show to all of us, and to history, whether he respects it enough not to short-circuit the judicial process after he leaves office."

Seriously? lmao

[KharmaTrain]

13. He Should Be Looking Into The Underground Pardons

This regime has already hinted that it will use a vague extention of Executive privilidge...invoked by Truman in '53 that would extend his cone of silence on subordinates long after he's been vanquished to his chicken ranch. You can't pardon those who haven't been indicted or convicted...but this abuse will allow him and his fellow war criminals to avoid testifying or face judgement for their crimes. This law needs to be looked into and challenged if this regime attempts to use it as a backdoor pardon.

As others have said, boooshie sure doesn't care what Feingold thinks and my hopes are Russ looks forward to the hard job ahead of restoring the balances of power that were abused over the past 8 years...including the investigation and prosecution of those who turned our Constitution into toilet paper.

[Land Shark]

14. "close to absolute" = Disinformation. Limited to Federal law only, not absolute

See the DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney. Not sure why Feingold gets this wrong. A pardon does nothing against state law violations or international law violations. There's precedent that it is an admission of guilt, and therefore may be rejected. The pardon power originated in the King's power in England, and always did carry an implied admission of guilt if accepted.

We should not consent to make the power of the President to pardon, expressly limited to federal offenses by Article II of the Constitution, broader than it really is, nor go along with the idea that it provides a mantle of purity either. We don't have a President more powerful than a King of England, unless we go along with the charade.