Bush expected to pardon those with torture links

[kpete]

Source: The Age, Australia

Bush expected to pardon those with torture links

* Ewen MacAskill, Washington
* January 16, 2009

US LAWYERS battling against torture and other abuses at Guantanamo Bay are braced for George Bush issuing last-minute pardons to protect those in his Administration most closely implicated.

The lawyers' warning came after a senior member of the Bush Administration, Susan Crawford, admitted for the first time that torture had been carried out.

Such pardons could prevent US courts from prosecuting people involved in torture on the Bush Administration's watch, in much the same way that then president Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974 for crimes he may have committed during his presidency, even though no specific charge had been made against him.

Judge Crawford's admission of torture is in relation to the case of a Saudi national, Mohammed al-Qahtani, 30, accused of involvement in the 9/11 attack. He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002, tortured for a month and then kept in isolation.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/bush-expected-to-pardon-those-with-torture-links-20090115-7i64.html

[spotbird]

1. In some respects a pardon would be better

the US will never pursue charges against them anyway. This way they will never be able to leave the country, a small price, but a consequence nevertheless. Also, the guilty will at least be named this way.

[specimenfred1984]

13. Prove it, just saying "it'll never happen" is useless

Isn't it?

[spotbird]

28. Well, the new administration

and the old congress aren't interested, so it will never happen.

[sharp_stick]

2. That would pretty much cement his legacy

for history if he did that. Personally, I think the only reason that vapid megalomaniacle asshole hasn't done it yet is because he knows that right under his picture in the encyclopedia of the future would contain the words "pardoned those who tortured prisoners"

[provis99]

3. then Bush should be charged with obstruction of justice

I want his ass in jail until he dies of old age.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. bush can't pardon himself

[No Elephants]

18. Why not?

[Ian David]

4. Fortunately, our new Attorney General says the pResident does not have the authority...

... to pardon people for torture, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

[No Elephants]

19. He can pardon them from prosecution by America or any state of the U.S.

[jayfish]

20. Maybe Extraordinary Rendition Isn’t Such A Bad Idea After All. -NT-

Jay

[Ian David]

21. I'm pretty sure, but not COMPLETELY sure that's not true.

IIRC, he can pardon them from prosecution by the federal government, but not by state governments, by act of Congress, or by international law.

And if I heard Randi Rhodes correctly on the radio today, his power to pardon does not extend to war crimes or crimes against humanity AT ALL.

Right now, I'm browser-impaired as my computer is in its death throes, or I'd go research it myself.

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. Is Rhodes a constitutional lawyer?

[Ian David]

30. No, but she yells a lot. n/t

[merwin]

5. How exactly is it constitutional to pardon someone when they haven't even been indicted?

How can you pardon that which is unknown? And if a pardon IS given to someone who hasn't had any charges filed against them, doesn't that mean that he is immune from prosecution and thus must testify if Bush is put on trial someday?

[Grins]

10. It is also true...

It is also true that a pardon is an admission of guilt. Bush is saying they are, in fact, GUILTY.

This came up in the Scooter Libby commutation; Libby didn't want a pardon because it compels an admission of guilt and he'd have no say in response.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[Ian David]

23. To accept a Pardon is also an automatic confession of guilt.

That would make them prosecutable under international law, having already confessed to a crime.

And since the highest law of the land is not the President, not The Constitution, or even The Supreme Court-- the highest law of the land are international treaties signed by a U.S. President and ratified by Congress-- we would be Constitutionally REQUIRED to either prosecute them under international law, or deport them for trial by an international tribunal.

If I am understanding all this correctly.

[onehandle]

7. Ta Da!

The thrown shoe drops.

[ezdidit]

8. Bush legacy drill

From WaPo today -

The very best summary of BUSH II in 500 words or less, for the history books:

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11. He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policymaking process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

[bluesmail]

9. It makes about much sense as retroactive immunity for the Telecoms.

Which means it doesn't.

[dysfunctional press]

11. they may be pardoned in the u.s...but couldn't they still be rounded up and delivered to the hague?

:shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

12. If we had a govenrment with REAL ethics

they would simply conduct the investigation anyway. Then, once they document the crime, turn the evidence over to a foreign government who could then issue warrants. A pardon doesn't mean you can't be extradited and tried somewhere else.

But no one in our government has that much integrity.

[gratuitous]

15. Just develop the evidence anyway

What any other country does with it is their business. And, since nobody is going to be tried (in the United States), we should get extraordinary cooperation from everyone. The Fifth Amendment only applies to folks at risk of going to jail, and if everyone's pardoned, they have to answer under oath. Unless, of course, they lie under oath, in which case they're at risk of committing perjury.

I'm not optimistic about the prospects of seeing anyone from the Bush administration going to jail for their outlaw behavior, but they have certainly laid the foundation for being permanent outcasts.

[DCKit]

16. That's not true. There are plenty in the service of the people who would like to see...

the whole bunch of them strung up on the WH fence. Problem is, they're being held back from doing their jobs.

There's going to be hell to pay once Obama's in office, unless he, like Clinton, decides to ignore the criminality of BushCo II.

[No Elephants]

22. We, the people, should have cried out for impeachment until NO ONE could have ignored or

refused us. Effective activism died when they stopped drafting people. Sickening that we don't demonstrate nationally againt evil once they stopped shipping people overseas against their will. And that is no doubt why we now have a volunteer military, thanks to the PNAC minded.

[L0oniX]

14. Yea? Let's see them try to have a vacation in France!

You know Rumsfeld won't be going back there anytime soon.

[EFerrari]

17. I don't care. I'll never stop working to bring these felons to justice. Never. n /t

[dkofos]

24. His pardons won't mean squat at the Hague!!

[cstanleytech]

25. Hey its ok, they still face a potential trial before a world court and no

pardon by any US president can get them out of that.

[sohndrsmith]

26. Call me crazy (or just uninformed), but I don't get this whole "pardon" thing...

I know that presidents do it in the last days of their administrations, but... why? I have to start doing some research on that because I just don't understand the reason or it or the origin of it and why it is just par for the course at the end of each term.

I'm not expecting anyone to do my homework for me, but I wouldn't be unhappy if anyone who does have more knowledge to share it if they are so inclined. : )

Specifically, I am trying to figure out what valid reason for this practice exists... "tradition" or done purely for the benefit of the outgoing president (making friends and good graces) are not a valid reasons, so I hope these are not the actual answers.

[customerserviceguy]

27. I've long wondered if Chimpy

would pardon those connected to Abu Ghraib.

[GodlessBiker]

31. Just turn them over to the International Court of Justice. No pardons there.

[truth2power]

32. Good! Then international criminal courts can do it...

There was a lawyer on NPR awhile back who said that other countries cannot prosecute for war crimes unless the US shows it isn't willing to do it. Bush pardoning would be the signal that we're not willing to prosecute our own, and the international courts can get on with it.