Comments on: Would Bush pre-emptively pardon Rumsfeld?

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:27:13 +0000

PARDONS MAY BE UNNECESSARY

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 already insulated all Americans from War Crimes prosecutions, criminal or civil.

Thank you Congress….

By: Cats r Flyfishn

Cats r Flyfishn — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:35 +0000

Wayne – I’m not sure that Bush pardoning Rumsfeld pre-emptively would be the same as Ford pardoning Nixon. Richard Nixon was a Congressional vote away from being impeached. Articles/charges were already in place and waiting for a vote from Congress when Nixon resigned. He could have still face criminal charges when Ford pardoned him. There are no charges or articles against Rumsfeld at this time. Ford pardoned Nixon after Nixon left office. I’m not convinced that Bush can pardon Rumsfeld in the absence of charges.

Watergate Scandal

By: Cats r Flyfishn

Cats r Flyfishn — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:11:05 +0000

And what crime would the boy Bush be pre-emptively pardoning Rumsfeld for? Wouldn’t the boy Bush need to name a crime in order to pardon? Is this pre-emptive pardon kind of confession where the priest pardons the penitent of all their sins?

By: Jackie

Jackie — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:32:30 +0000

Rummy is a wanted man in many countries and he will be stolen in the night and tried for his crimes. He didn’t get enough money from that fake flu medication they put out. It was a smooth move as Rummy invested 5000 dollars and the Govenment put the fake stuff on the market which Rummy cashed in his shares and got 5 million dollars. The old man did good.

By: shoeless

shoeless — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:57:23 +0000

stormkrow Says:
——————————————————————————–

Didn’t old Rummy have to flee France for war crimes??

I heard that members of the Bush administration have had charges filed against them several times in Europe. The judges keep dismissing the cases because there is not sufficient evidence that they can not be brought to justice in the U.S. Since pardons would provide incontrovertible evidence that they cannot be prosecuted for their crimes by their own country, the pardons would seemingly make them vulnerable for prosecution in foreign courts.

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:54:46 +0000

CitiDC Says:

Step back and understand that all of the offensive pardons are going to be issued *secretly*

I wouldn’t put that past them either.

However, the whole “secret Presidential action” thing is itself iffy in court. The question of exactly when a power is exercised would need to be addressed – does the President do X when he signs a piece of paper, or when it’s announced/presented that he did so?

If you allow that, it could be a forgery. Anybody could produce “secret Bush pardons” for the next fifty years, and if there’s no public record of who he pardoned, you’d have to take them all at face value. Or none of them.

By: greggp

greggp — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:48:01 +0000

. . . and under Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, they can’t be pardoned.

By: greggp

greggp — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:43:53 +0000

Impeach Rumsfeld, along with Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Gonzo. It doesn’t matter whether they are in office now, since part of the penalty is a permanent bar from holding office in the government again.

After January 20, the House and Senate can decide whether to proceed or let the matters drop.

By: Nevar

Nevar — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:41:03 +0000

I believe we will see a number of 11th hour, 59th minute pardons by Boosch, and I’m sure Rumpy will be one of them.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:36:50 +0000

republicans hate facts Says:

I thought you could only be pardoned for a crime you had been charged with.

Read up on Ford’s pardon of Nixon….

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:33:09 +0000

Why would Bush pardon anyone in his administration?

Haven’t they told already us, all these years, time and again, that they have done nothing wrong?

They didn’t torture, didn’t detain anyone illegally, didn’t illegally listened in on the conversations by private US citizens or by the heads of allied nations, didn’t invade and occupy a country against international law, didn’t grant no-bid contracts to enrich their cronies….

See? There is nothing to pardon.

Silly libs

/sarc off

By: DJ

DJ — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:22:37 +0000

Bush will pardon, for all practical purposes, his entire administration, including Dick Cheney. But before his administration actually ends, he will resign, allowing Cheney to succeed him, simply for the purpose of pardoning Bush himself.
The perpetrators of the horrendous crime spree known as the Bush Presidency would never take the chance they would be prosecuted for an impressive list of felonies, including fraud and criminal negligence causing great loss of life.
By the way, it can’t possibly be true that a presidential pardon is unreviewable and cannot be questioned. There is no such thing as absolute power in the United States, a government based on the idea that governments forever remain on a revocable probation. A simply hypothetical example could be devised that would dispose of this silly idea.

By: CitiDC

CitiDC — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:14:00 +0000

Step back and understand that all of the offensive pardons are going to be issued *secretly*

Whenever a secretly pardoned official finds him/herself in legal jeopardy, they’ll whip out a pardon letter.

You see, the Constitutional power of the President to pardon is absolute – and not reviewable by Congress, Supreme Court, no one.

The whole “pardon attorney” setup at DOJ is efficient for outsiders seeking pardons — but entirely unnecessary, and not a Constitutional requirement. Bush could route some pardons through the pardon attorney while saving some for his own consolidated review and signature.

Think about it.

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:13:00 +0000

tokin librul Says:

They won’t issue pardons unless there are charges and investigations.

Bush will be out of office by then. Preemptive pardons happen all the time, Ford’s pardon of Nixon being the most infamous example.

By: Zimzone

Zimzone — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:07:57 +0000

It’s not known if he’ll be an unknown or known pardon, but it is known that others know he knew ahead of time to know better than to torture.

By: Fred

Fred — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:06:28 +0000

Whether Obama persues this torture matter or not, the freedom of information act will be put back in place and interested parties will be able to persue it…..

I know tokin liberal……obama’s just like bush and we won’t get the freedom of information act restored, right?

I’m not so pesimistic. I believe enough light will be allowed to shine on these crimes that something will be done.

By: CageyCretin

CageyCretin — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:57:58 +0000

666lattes Says:
far left = a lable for anything that is true and typically a root cause of a serious issue affecting the nation, but that the mainstream media and politicians don’t have the courage to discuss and face directly.

I can’t think of any other definition.

How about, “far left = anyone not neocon”

By: 666lattes

666lattes — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:55:14 +0000

far left = a lable for anything that is true and typically a root cause of a serious issue affecting the nation, but that the mainstream media and politicians don’t have the courage to discuss and face directly.

I can’t think of any other definition.

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:53:29 +0000

Jeebus, Rummy sure is an arrogant, hateful, sociopathic SOB, ain’t he??

Yeah, boy, I sure am delusional because I want to see the perpetrators of TORTURE prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

It’s only bad, horrible, unacceptable war-worthy torture when evil dictators like Saddam Hussein do it — but, hoo-boy, we Amurkins are totally justified in using torture to protect Amurka!!

Yeah, I’m delusional, all right. My bad.

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:53:19 +0000

Oh – and Rummy? DROP DEAD, you evil old barstid!!!