11th hour Bush pardons

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

is there any legitimate discussion that Bush intends to issue a pardon for himself for past crimes during his term of office?

What "crimes" are speaking of?

is there any allegation of financial improprieties?

He hasn't testified in front of Congress, so he can't be guilty of impeding justice.

What legitimate "crimes" are people hypothesizing?

War crimes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

War crimes.

*chuckle*

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

War crimes.

Those are ill-defined much of the time and usually politically motivated by groups outside the US. I don't favor subjecting US officials to the foreign jurisdictions.

I suppose high-minded individuals like the spectacle in order to achieve notoriety for themselves.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

War crimes.

I don't think it would pertain to war crimes. While there may be specific US statutes pertaining to war crimes (I don't know), they are generally the product of international conventions, and international tribunals wouldn't be required to recognize the applicability of a US pardon (the president's pardon power presumably only pardons him with respect to US laws and not laws of other jurisdictions).

The US isn't going to hand Bush over for an international war crimes tribunal, so it probably doesn't matter anyways.

That said, many "war crimes" would also violate a separate US law that wasn't necessarily designed for war crimes. A Bush pardon would be a blanket pardon, if he decided to go that route, to ensure no clever prosecutor could find a new angle that wasn't covered by the pardon.

[MikeWaters]

I think there is the argument that when Bush authorized torture and his administration conducted torture, they committed crimes.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think it would pertain to war crimes. While there may be specific US statutes pertaining to war crimes (I don't know), they are generally the product of international conventions, and international tribunals wouldn't be required to recognize the applicability of a US pardon (the president's pardon power presumably only pardons him with respect to US laws and not laws of other jurisdictions).

The US isn't going to hand Bush over for an international war crimes tribunal, so it probably doesn't matter anyways.

That said, many "war crimes" would also violate a separate US law that wasn't necessarily designed for war crimes. A Bush pardon would be a blanket pardon, if he decided to go that route, to ensure no clever prosecutor could find a new angle that wasn't covered by the pardon.

Bush can probably never leave the country. *see Pinochet.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

is there any legitimate discussion that Bush intends to issue a pardon for himself for past crimes during his term of office?

The topic has been brought up on various news talk shows on cable over the last couple of months.

As far as what specific crimes, the point is that Bush wouldn't have to specify which crimes. He could issue a blanket pardon for anything that may have been done over the last 8 years. The precedent that would set would be very bad because in theory a future president (imagine Obama doing it if you conservatives have a hard time imagining Bush taking advantage) would not be afraid to break any laws or ignore the Constitution because he could just give himself a pardon at the end and escape any retribution for what he did.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't think it would pertain to war crimes. While there may be specific US statutes pertaining to war crimes (I don't know), they are generally the product of international conventions, and international tribunals wouldn't be required to recognize the applicability of a US pardon (the president's pardon power presumably only pardons him with respect to US laws and not laws of other jurisdictions).

The US isn't going to hand Bush over for an international war crimes tribunal, so it probably doesn't matter anyways.

That said, many "war crimes" would also violate a separate US law that wasn't necessarily designed for war crimes. A Bush pardon would be a blanket pardon, if he decided to go that route, to ensure no clever prosecutor could find a new angle that wasn't covered by the pardon.

It seems as if that would be a very tough row to hoe, but leave it to partisan politics to find something to keep the misery going.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The topic has been brought up on various news talk shows on cable over the last couple of months.

As far as what specific crimes, the point is that Bush wouldn't have to specify which crimes. He could issue a blanket pardon for anything that may have been done over the last 8 years. The precedent that would set would be very bad because in theory a future president (imagine Obama doing it if you conservatives have a hard time imagining Bush taking advantage) would not be afraid to break any laws or ignore the Constitution because he could just give himself a pardon at the end and escape any retribution for what he did.

I understand the concept, not certain if a person can pardon himself. That doesn't sound logical.

On the other hand, the allegation that Bush committed crimes sounds implausible.

For example, Bush sought advice and received legal opinion that something did or didn't constitute torture. Under mens rea arguments, it sounds as if he is exonerated under the concepts of US law.

We spent a lot of money on Watergate, Irangate, Billgate, and do we want to continue our time-honored tradition of diverting resources to perpetuate the harm of past administrations? In true diversive political fashion, I suppose we do. O joy.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The topic has been brought up on various news talk shows on cable over the last couple of months.

As far as what specific crimes, the point is that Bush wouldn't have to specify which crimes. He could issue a blanket pardon for anything that may have been done over the last 8 years. The precedent that would set would be very bad because in theory a future president (imagine Obama doing it if you conservatives have a hard time imagining Bush taking advantage) would not be afraid to break any laws or ignore the Constitution because he could just give himself a pardon at the end and escape any retribution for what he did.

The fact that this has never happened in American history should suggest to you just how far-fetched it is.

If every President thought he could just hop into office, grant himself a pardon, and do whatever he wants accountability-free, they all would have done it. Heck, Bill Clinton alone would've granted himself ten.

Obviously there is a political price attached to such an action, a price that (it appears) no president has been willing to pay. Is Bush the first? Don't count on it.