Countdown: Possibility of Blanket Presidential Pardons
By Heather Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 9:08am
From the Nov. 17, 2008 edition of Countdown, guest host David Shuster, filling in for Keith Olbermann, talks to Jonathan Turley about the possibility of George Bush issuing blanket pardons for the crimes committed by himself and his administration and what it means for the rule of law that remains in the United States.
UPDATE (Nicole): Does anyone actually believe that Bush won't thumb his nose at the rule of law? As Will Bunch notes, it's clear that Presidents and their aides are officially above the law.
However, that's not the thing that took my breath away in this clip. Listen as Shuster and Turley both matter-of-factly admit that one of the problems that Obama has in committing to close Guantanamo is what to do with the detainees there because some of them could not go through our criminal justice system due to lack of evidence to hold them or because they've been tortured. No outrage. No wringing of hands that these people still exist, years later, within Guantanamo, as we count down the days until George Bush is finally out of office.
Yet the media can get up in arms about Hillary Clinton can "subvert her agenda" to serve as Secretary of State and rehash that ad nauseam? We can have an academic discussion on presidential pardons (and not fail to mention Clinton, mind you), but when it come to authentic crimes against humanity that merit a full blown trial in The Hague, the media yawns, as if it's just par for course.
My god, when did we lose our moral compass that this kind of atrocity is an academic discussion instead of a rallying call for justice? Per Robert Jay Lifton, this is our American Apocalypse.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's only a matter of time until Bush gets out the pardon pen. The only question is will he pardon himself.
I can understand pardoning those who have been indicted and convicted (although I think it's wrong to do so).
But how can Bush pardon Cheney or Rumsfeld or himself if they have not even been charged with any crime (except in the court of public opinion)?
And if he pardoned himself and his fellow criminals, wouldn't that be an admission of guilt that would allow an easy indictment at the Hague after January 20th?
BTW, Lieberman just got the nod by his fellow Democrats to continue as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. But wait a second! He's not even a Democrat! He's an Independent! Or is he a Republican? Gee willakers. I'd a thunk the Dems could have found a REAL Democrat to give that position to.
Oh well. I hate to say it, but I told ya'll the Dems wouldn't touch AIPAC's Rep.
In Tom Clancy's 'Teeth of the Tiger,' Jack Ryan prepared blanket pardons for the members of a covert intelligence operation - all one has to do is fill in the blanks.
And it can be similar to what Gerald Ford did, pardoning Nixon for all crimes past and present.
Yeah, it would seem odd to pardon someone without that person first having been indicted or convicted. However, that's exactly what President Ford did with Richard Nixon. It's basically a get out of jail free card. It doesn't seem right, but the Constitution basically gives the president unlimited pardon power.
Forgive the pun but Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales indicted in S. Texas
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/...
holy joe gets to keep his chair, paulson gets to give our money to his buddies, and people who tortured get a blanket pardon
oh, and yesterday, scottie finally admitted that yes, bush was the one who ok'd the plame outing
i just dont care anymore
They didn't even slap that totally untrustworthy asshole Lieberman on the wrist.
What a sad message.
Bush will pardon himself and his crew, including Scooter Libby, who is still waiting in the wings.
The idea that Bush, et al. would leave anything hanging on their way out the door ignores the reality of 8 years in office.
I suppose he will pardon Tom DeLay and Ted Stevens too.
off computer keyboards. His last laugh. The bastard.
Change you can only fantasize about.
In the Air Force we used to have blanket parties.
It's where a group of guys throw a blanket over someone and beat the snot out of them.
wouldnt it have been so much better to have every crawl in bed with the poor slob and snuzzel him! its the american way !
sorry everyone , left out that. personaly id have visited each asshat coward who would do that and get my payback double!
Didn't Congress pass a law that no American could ever be arrested and tried at the Hague and that if it ever happened, the U.S. reserved the right to invade and repatriate the alleged criminal?
Not sure, but it sounds like something this country would do...
This was in the late 90's under Clinton. It also provides for the invasion of Holland to retrieve any US personnel that may be held in the world court!
Seriously.
Not cool.
Clinton signed the US on to the ICC (a member of the world court and subject to its rules) just prior to leaving office. Bush's first act was to pull us out of the ICC.
Show me the law that Clinton signed...I would like to read it.
If I did I'd share.
the question was intended for curt. I don't think his/her comment is valid which is why I asked.
MsJoanne I guess my dates were wrong. or this legislation originally started while Clinton was in office.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/07.26.02ASPAt...
However it received such broad support, I'm sure Clinton would have signed on.
One consistent point I try to make in my comments is that NEITHER side of the government should be trusted. So I'm sorry if I sounded partisan by pointing to Bill.
This was Bush pulling out of the ICC (after Clinton had signed the US up to be a part of the ICC and respect its rules. FYI, only the US, China and another banana republic are NOT part of the ICC.)
It's bullshit that we, the USA, is so in the shitter that we are at par with China when it comes to human rights.
Way to go Bush, you fucking piece of shit. You torture and kill at will and you have not one iota of conscience.
buncha anti-American fucks!
Obama on ‘60 Minutes’: I’ll Keep Gitmo Open, for Bush and Cheney
America is a forgiving society.
The more money you have, the more forgiving we are.
If I were a drinking person and I had any money, I would go get drunk to forget just how true that is.
I thought a pardon could only be used on a CONVICTION case. He cannot pardon that which has not been convicted of. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to pardon himself. he COULD pardon Ted Stevens if he gets convicted, which he should. But he has only been indicted so far.
I could be wrong. This was merely my understanding of the Presidential Pardon.
His HLS seat. lame.
Obama, get your hankys out. You're going to need them for everytime Lieberman spits in your face from his HS chair.
has caused me to lose all faith in the Democratic Party.
I don't care anymore. I swear.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party make me sick.
Can't they just do one thing to make us proud again? To give us some small inkling of hope for God's sake?
Excuse me while I go to the ladies room to barf along with Rachel Maddow.
"My god, when did we lose our moral compass that this kind of atrocity is an academic discussion instead of a rallying call for justice?"
Indeed!
Heather, thanks for the spot-on analysis. The last sentence you wrote (above) speaks volumes as to the effects the bush administrations (and reagan's too) have had on our country.
We, as a country who touts our preservation of civil rights, are surely in deep shit now, and need to find the courage to admit our failings and begin to dig out.
To begin with, we can stop torturing, we can stop killing innocents abroad, we can stop spying on our citizenry, we can stop condoning bigotry and hatred fomented by the churches, we can stop turning a blind eye to treason by our leaders, we can... we can... we can....
I look with hope upon the upcoming new administration. I hope they can instill within us the courage to lead the cry for justice. We have been in the wilderness for too long, and we most certainly need to find our moral compass once again.
We're complaining about academic discussions from the mouth of a constitutional law professor. I, for one, consider the topic outrageous enough without having the camera panning in on furrowed brows and throbbing forehead veins. And let's face it, torture isn't exactly a "cat out of the bag" subject - there are more angles to approach it than just "zomg this an outrage!" I, for one, have a bout of "outrage fatigue" on this topic.
If the argument is that the only thing stopping Bush's contempt for the law from entering the public conscience is the small amount of foam dripping from David Shuster's mouth, then that seems like grasping at straws to me.
oh...and in the interest of free speech...Bush is a pathetic sack of shit, a miserable excuse for a human being with a complete lack of intelligence. The man will go down in history as being the author of possibly the worst period in American history. A time when America turned its back on the international community, became a war mongering rogue state, justified its behavior with unpredented Presidential signing statements (before any right wing fundie throws around the Nazi word, take a close look at YOUR fiat president), was the primary party responsible for a world wide global collapse of commerce, increased the threat of nuclear proliferation with its misguided placement of "anti missile defenses" inside the borders of peaceful countries, the destruction of American civil liberties. A President so inept in speech and aforethought and so bereft of any sort of intellectual capacity or even intellectual curiousity, that he became the laughing stock of not only other world leaders but all civilized populations...including his own.
Bush memoirs? Really. I didn't know that publishers accepted manuscripts written in crayon. This moron wouldn't only need a copywriter, he would need a linquist, a translator and a high school english major to read back and explain his own "authored" text.
And well said. And yet, Impeachment was "off the table" while we (collectively) sat around with our thumbs up our asses and did NOTHING. And quite honestly, after this Lieberman/Emmanuel shit the euphoria and hope I was feeling less than two weeks ago is fading quickly.
He has been convicted on seven felony counts, and is appealing. Has not been sentenced yet. I hope he gets the book thrown at him.
Liebermann exhonerated by the party .... absolutely disgusting, disgraceful, and dishonorable! We need to remember this when it comes time to elect these entrenched "public servants"!
Bush will walk. He has no character and will pardon himself with absolutely no shame whatsoever!
I hope the democrats have the sense God gave a goose and at least lets the American public know the full extent of Bush's crimes against humanity. If the party lets that slide, I will be so disgusted it will bother me for the rest of my life.
and the Chimperor will forget to wear his coat and hat...catch cold...and then do the world a favor.
Such a blanket pardon would set a terrible precedent and therefore, you can bet it'll happen.
Thanks, Nancy. Timely impeachment might have headed a lot of this off. Bush might as well change his name to "Scott Free". After all his high-sounding talk about freedom, we now see that the main freedom he's interested in preserving is his own.
Sad picture of a once-great nation.
So? When has that ever bothered that POS. In fact, it's a hallmark of his admin.
As for 'FAIR TRIAL" WTF are you speaking of, Turley? Let's see, they've not been availed of Habeas, attorneys, speedy trials or humane treatment. For 6 years. Most were kidnapped and brought to Guantanamo on hearsay. Some of them were kids. They grew up there.
No such thing as a Fair Trial, since if any of these guys were to be processed legally, it would be to be released with prejudice and large cash settlement, and a load of ass kissing on the part of the US Govt, due to egregious civil rights violations.
will be on this country for decades.
George W. Bush - a skidmark on the underwear of history.
Actually, forever.
at this time of the holiday seasons that are comeing upon us let us be thankful for the things we are about to recieve from our government past and present and future , may i be the first to name some of them here goes 8***************
They understand the whole Clinton thing. Rovians have demonized the name to the point that anything they say or do is fodder a cheapshot to be repeated over a beer at the local tavern.
The complexities of the law...fuggedaboudit.
I just read a story about burrowing. Apparently Dubya is worried that Obama won't continue his rape and pillage environmental policy, so political appointees are being shifted into career civil service jobs where they can make sure it's easier to build an eight lane highway through a wildlife refuge to the new big box store on a newly created piece of shoreland. We won't see anything about that either, a one day story that'll die because it's too complicated.
... anyone being impeached. If Iread the following correctly:
"Constitutional Authority for Presidential Pardons
The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
No standards, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentand...
THEY SHOULD IMPEACH THE SOBs NOW!
The Hague
Tue, 11/18/2008 - 09:20
That sounds a bit like how so many Americans don't wont to see our soldiers wearing the baby blue UN helmet.
But is there any requirement to put them into an American court? Generally, the UN and other international communities don't start insisting on international trials, unless it looks like the nation's not going to try their own citizens in good faith.
In reality this ‘blanket pardon’ is designed to pardon the entire country, not just the politicians involved. Like it or not, we are this country and this country does, in fact, torture. With this pardon, Bush will bequeath forgiveness upon us all up to an including himself. This action clearly places the ball in the world court. How they react and how we respond remains to be seen.
Turley would be great slapping the fake-federalists around for the next few decades.
So give them pardons and then Congress can call them to testify. They will not be able to refuse to answer questions by taking the 5th and their pardons will not save them from future perjury or contempt charges.
I would rather know what went on now than seek punishment later after years of court fights.
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJ...
Google "Clinton ICC US" for more fun stuff.
After you've had a chance to review the material, perhaps we could meet to discuss it. ; 0 )
KIDDDDDING!!
Only in a *democracy* could a president pardon himself and his cronies BEFORE being indicted.
Nixon was never convicted. President Ford pardoned him.
Shuter needs a history course or two. "President Jackson pardoned the Cofederacy." What a dummy.
Yes, he should've said Andrew Johnson. Well spotted!
Can a President pardon himself? That seems kind of crazy.
My understanding is that the president cannot pardon himself. For that to occur, the president would have to pardon the VP, then step down so the VP becomes POTUS...the now POTUS would then pardon the old POTUS. IOW, January 19th...
Bush pardons everyone.
Bush steps down as POTUS.
Cheney becomes POTUS.
Cheney pardons Bush.
They all go to Paraguay and live happily ever after with our $700 billion fucking dollars.
We all die eating dirt.
In relevant part, Art. II Sec. 2 of the Constitution provides that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." While the argument has never been addressed, nothing in the text of the Constitution prohibits the President from extending the pardon to himself.
With the Dems in their reach across the isle kiss and make up mode, war crimes pardons may not even be necessary.
Impeachment off the table...nothing to prohibit the President from pardoning himself except impeachment.
Interesting.
Remember...nothing is ever done by accident in government.
Fortifies my theory that Pelosi and Reid were in bed with Dick and George the whole time. This is just the beginning of actually seeing the unforgivable mess that is going to be left behind. President Obama I'm sure is already feeling the knot tightening around his wrists. When did we lose our moral compass? The day We were hoodwinked into letting that waste of human flesh George W. Bush into the White House. He is being allowed to complete his second term, unchallenged for his crimes...laughing all the way to the bank.
If a president can pardon himself, he's not a president, he's an Emperor.
Certainly he could just rendition them extraordinarily in the name of National Sekurity(TM).
Hey Dick, bring your swimming trunks for your upcoming "dunk in the water." They might even use holy water, now with "Extra Burn(TM)."
Hey Dubya, time to pick the colors for your gitmo cell.
ad nauseum.
Or does Barak T. Decider need to get bitten by a radioactive dubya in order to get those ezekitive super powers?
E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Middle Class, Inc.
The real novelty wouldn't be the blanket pardon aspect. In fact, not only have there been numerous blanket pardons in our past, as mentioned in the clip, but the Federalist specifically mentions the idea that the president would be able to decriminalize participation in failed rebellions as a feature, not a bug, of the pardon. It would allow the binding up of wounds, etc.
The feature of this proposed presidential pardon of everyone in his administration, including himself, who participated in the American Gulag, that would be both unprecedented, as far as I have heard, and substantively troubling, is that he would be pardoning people whom he himself had suborned into the criminal acts for which he was pardoning them. His pardon would be part of a criminal conspiracy. Yes, Washington pardoned folks who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion, and several presidents pardoned folks who had fought for the Confederacy, but none of these presidents participated in these two insurrections. They weren't pardonng themselves, or confederates who might otherwise have implicated them in criminal activity were their silence not bought with a pardon.
As Turley points out, to allow such presidential pardons in furtherance of criminal conspiracies led by the president would effectively immunize such a conspiracy, and would effectively grant the president the power to carry on at will enterprises above the law. Could this possibly be what the Founders intended? They, in general, gave us a republic. Could they also have intended to make the president above the Law, in ways that the kings of England could only dream of being? Yes, the Constitution does not say that the presidetnial grant of pardons is subject to review or reversal by any other entity. But the US Constitution, unlike the constitutions of many states, which have to run to thousands of pages because they carefully describe and delimit every least thing they mention, is spare and merely referential on many points. That it does not enumerate limitations on the pardon power is no more proof that they meant no limitations on the pardon power than their lack of definition and delimitation to the phrase "Commander-in-Chief" means that they thereby meant something unlimited, and that the president has military command authority over all citizens.
The reasonable interpretation of what the Constitution means when it say the president shall have the power to pardon, is that it meant these words to reference a power of pardon subject to the same common sense, common law limitations as the pardon power exercised by the king of England and colonial governors. The Constitution declares that the common law is the law of the land; that common law limited the royal pardon; and the Constitution says nothing to exempt the presidential pardon from the limitation by the common law that everyting else under the Constitution lives within. What basis could there be to imagine instead that the Founders meant the pardon power to be some exception, even though granting this exception would put the president above the Law, and thereby set at nothing literally every other provision of the Constitution?
I am hardly an expert in the history of the common law. But I suspect that a case of the king of England even trying to immunize henchpersons of his whom he had suborned into illegal acts had never been heard in courts prior to 1789. I can't imagine that even a king would try such a thing, or think that he would get away with it. Edward Coke slapped down James I for even talking about the king being able to substitute his judgments for those of the Law. And if there is no case law on the subject, some latter day descendant of Coke will just need to put Dubya in his place on the same topic. I can't imagine what principle of equity, justice, or common sense, or what public policy interest, could possibly lead a judge to leave in place a pardon in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy of which the pardoner was the ring-leader.
A blanket pardon means nothing in another country.
Those sitting in prison, whether they were tortured or not will be in great need of psychiatric help.
Bush's criminal regime must be held accountable.
If all of the crooks in the Bush Administration get pardons - lets use that to make sure that level of criminality will never again be tolerated.
Make every last one of them confess to every legal infraction they committed or allowed to happen. With a pardon they CAN NOT invoke the 5th Amendment. They MUST answer every question honestly or be imprisoned for contempt.
Since the Senate Government Oversight Committee's Chairman - Joe Lieberman, can't be trusted to do the right thing, we'll have Henry Waxman hold the Truth Committee hearings in the House.
A pardon may absolve lawbreakers of legal responsibility, but it also prevents them from being able to avoid telling the truth. Make them talk.
Suppose President Bush pardons everybody who was involved in all of the BS that's gone on during his term....
In order to get a pardon, you have to have done something wrong, isn't that correct?
But if you HAVEN'T...what the hell do you need a pardon for?
I'm not a lawyer. But it sounds to me like if Bush grants a pardon to all the folks who've been involved in all that BS, that means that there was some ILLEGAL ACTIVITY going on ON A CONTINUING BASIS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
Golly gee whiz...sounds like an organized crime family, doesn't it?
Anybody remember the RICO statute?
For those who don't, try this link:
www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/us...
The finial days of any cruel and corrupt leadership is always filled with even greater cruelty and corruption.
Login or Register to post comments.