Bush urged to issue pre-emptive pardons to officials

I doubt the legal possibility pardoning anyone for a crime they haven't been charged with.

I have it on good authority from some Constitutional scholars that he may very well be able to do exactly this.

Cycloptichorn

Awesome. Hey, he could pardon himself - should he think the need might arise.

That is a very interesting question, does anyone know the answer?

What is you opinion? You have not offered an opinion.

Who are those scholars and where do the rest of us find those opinions?

They are professors of Constitutional Law at the law school I work at. I mean, I don't know if Bush could or could not do so; but they didn't seem to think he could do so.

Cycloptichorn

OK. let's try this. ready? In my opinion, it's good to voice protests against even suggestions talked about in that article. that is democracy and it does not work without active citizenry.

Then reread you first comment.
You seem to be saying in your first comment that they think he CAN do so.

Pardon me, you are correct; it was in fact my second post which was in error. More then one thought that Bush could do so, and it would probably stick.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't read whatever article. I've no idea if Clinton's pardons were all better regarding questions re the constitution. I just think there was some smell there that tinges any righteousness re complaining about what someone else pardons in years after. As, I suppose, has happened ad infinitum before. Which is too bad, as righteousness might be appropriate now or in the future.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008News
JUST WHO IS PRESIDENT BUSH EXPECTED TO PARDON BEFORE HE LEAVES THE WHITE HOUSE?
Gary Ater

The questions are really starting to be raised as to, other than "Scooter Libby", who are going to be included in the hundreds (or thousands?) of the President's Republican cronies that he is expected to grant a Presidential Pardon? You can probably start at the top of the list with Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of course; Karl Rove, Harriett Miers and his long list of past and current Chief of Staffs and various, if not all past Cabinet Members and Press Secretaries, (with one exception for Scott McClellan).

But what about George himself? Aren't there rules that the President can't pardon himself?

Actually, other than if he is being impeached, no one really knows the answer because it has never happened or been litigated. However, the majority view of Constitutional Attorneys and Historians is that a president "can" pardon himself (assuming he does so prior to impeachment).

Art. II Sec. 2 of the US Constitution states, in part, that the president "shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." In this clause of the "power to grant Reprieves and Pardons," the founders of the US Constitution did not consider the issue of a President doing all of the illegal actions as those of this President. The purpose of this clause was originally, only to insure the separation of powers by preventing the courts from using the law as a legal blackmail against the president.

The argument that the president could murder someone and then pardon himself is rather a non-issue, considering that the vice president (or anyone) could kill anyone for the president and then the president could pardon him or her. Therefore, the original question is still unanswered.

On the other hand, what about the possibility of being pardoned for war crimes? Does this clause also apply to being found guilty of committing international war crimes?

Let's go back a couple of years to see what the Republican politicians did for dealing with this possibility:

A Supreme Court Decision in 2006:

In 2006, the US Supreme Court decided that the detainees being held in Guantanamo Bay and other US Military prisons were subject to the provisions as stated in the Geneva Convention. In this case, all those involved in any decisions to allow "any and all torture" to these detainees could be held responsible. Each action of torture could then be tried as a separate felony. The accused could then be tried, found guilty and considered for the death penalty in the most severe cases.

This Supreme Court decision occurred before the Democrats had retaken their the leadership position of the US Congress in the November, 2006 elections. It was at that time that the Republican leadership's congressional stooges, House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, (now thankfully, long-gone from the House and Senate) jumped into high gear and pushed a bill through that was later signed into law by President Bush. That bill is now referred to as the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Buried deep down in this bill of many pages is a clause that will allow President Bush to "pardon himself and to provide all of his staff retroactive immunity for any possible war crime(s) that date back to September 11, 2001".

So, unless this decision is challenged and overturned by a new Congress (which won't happen before the President's final term is finished), President George W. Bush could pardon himself and his staff from being accused and convicted of war crimes.

It now appears that once again, President Bush and his Administration will be able to place themselves above the law.

It is so sad and thoroughly disgusting that for a country that is supposed to be a "nation of laws", that this could set a horrible legal precedent and it would show the highest level of hypocrisy to other nations around the world. It would be just one more example that would once again lower the world-wide reputation of the United States, one more level.

I sincerely don't believe that our founding fathers ever considered that an elected US President, and his staff, would ever commit the number and the level of illegal acts as those by George W. Bush's Administration, and that other duly elected US Officials would let them get away with it.

There are times, for those of us that closely follow the actions of our government and its elected officials, that we are so repulsed and disgusted that we are just left speechless.

This is one of those times.....

If Senator Obama is going to honor the statement he made to Will Bunch, then he should place the Bush Administration and telecommunications companies on notice of his intentions. This will provide President Bush an opportunity to immunize those who broke the law at his request from criminal prosecutions, which he can do as long as he is President with his power to grant pardons. For Bush to issue a blanket pardon in this situation would be unprecedented, and it would offer Bush a chance at historical ignominy far exceeding what he already faces, and thus potentially become a powerful issue for the Democrats to campaign on during this 2008 election year.

Broader Meaning of a Blanket Pardon for "National Security" Law Breakers

If the civil suits that will now be dismissed under the FISA amendments had proceeded, it is questionable whether they could have been fully litigated, because they involved national security matters that no administration would disclose. Moreover, if those persons who have violated FISA at the request of President Bush are criminally prosecuted, it is not likely that any would be sent to jail (absent aggravating circumstances like those that existed in the case of Ehrlichman, who was involved in hiding information from the courts). But they all, particularly the telecoms, could face serious fines for criminal actions. Given the downside, it is not clear whether Bush would issue a pardon in this context.

If it were issued by Bush, however, a blanket pardon to his "national security" miscreants would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus an admission of guilt. Were Bush to issue such a remarkable pardon, it would, of course, cement his historical stature as several notches below even that of Richard Nixon, who refused to pardon those who (many "for national security reasons") engaged in the so-called Watergate abuses of presidential power on his behalf. Not many presidents want to be viewed by history as worse than Nixon. And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch. It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.)

Bush is very politically savvy. He knows that a blanket pardon, or even the prospect of it, could give Obama and the Democratic Party a wonderful issue during the coming months of the general election. Most Americans are deeply concerned about Bush/Cheney's conduct of foreign affairs and national security, which ignores American laws and treaty obligations. So if Bush is forced to pardon his national security zealots, or if GOP standard-bearer John McCain was forced to embrace such action (as he likely would be), it raises the issue of whether Americans now want to elect a president who is subject to the law, or endure another temporary monarchy which ignores it. And that is no small issue in this 2008 election.

In short, Senator Obama has much to gain by restating his position, unless his beliefs on the subject have changed. Conversely, Bush and McCain have much to lose if a blanket pardon becomes an issue. However, if Obama now has no stomach to enforce the criminal law, as he once proclaimed he would, he may pay a significant cost for balking. In particular, he is likely going to lose more than a few among his base of supporters who are upset with his flip-flop on the FISA amendments, for many of these unhappy supporters may currently take comfort in knowing (as few others know) that he could hold violators responsible for their criminal actions - and will retain that power even if the current legislation becomes law.

Of course, Obama can remain silent, which is the usual course of action for Washington politicians in these situations. But he will remain silent at the risk of making all his previous statements increasingly hollow, and his posture strikingly wishy-washy. And how refreshing it would be for him to act like a leader who believes we are governed by laws, not the whims of men.

What better way, too, for Obama to make clear that he will do what he said to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans, and to keep government officials and those who assist them fully accountable, than by making clear that those who violate the criminal laws that protect Americans' freedoms will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What better time than this issue, as well, to learn if Barack Obama is a stand-up leader or a slick politician who dodges his own past words when they might prove to have real meaning for the future.