Bush pardons himself against potential war crimes

[SHRED]

Run time: 01:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc   Posted on YouTube: January 19, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 20, 2008 By DU Member: SHRED Views on DU: 16800

 
What was the outcome of this?

I don't recall for some reason.

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

1. Is this for real?

I cannot even fathom the unmitigated gaul that this administration has exhibited over the last 7 years. How is it possible that this gets a pass? There is only one word for such a disgrace: No MF'in Way

[ooglymoogly]

20. This appears to me to be yesterdays news....read the crawler

at the bottom. The time frame would be when the Jeoffords scandal was taking place. I remember signing many petitions and at least 15 calls to senators to stop this bill in its tracks. My recollection is that we were successful and that it had been stopped temporarily. Wasn't this the spending bill that Reid tried to put on the floor ahead of another one without the forgiveness clause even though that one had the support of the American people and Reid in a moment of profound embarrassment backed down having been caught with his hand in the pug Cookie jar or did that just concern the telecoms forgiveness for it too was buried in the spending bill. We need to know the bill particulars. I am long of tooth and my memory is now fuzzy on this so I will research it.

[Hulk]

2. It will be interesting to see who votes for this one.....???

If Cafferty knows what a sham this is, I would think our legislators would also be aware. And if it is what Cafferty says it is, and IF they vote in favor of this bill, I think it's time to toss them all out.

[ooglymoogly]

29. past tense....who voted

[Kaleko]

3. When was this broadcast? And did Congress already pass this bill?

[kas125]

8. Geez, they must have -

he says "if the Democrats get control of Congress in November" and references Congressman Dennis Hastert, so it's gotta be old news.

[Divine Discontent]

19. like 8 months ago, relatively speaking. I watched it. shaking my head. n/t

[bear425]

4. Kicking for some insight on this vote. n/t

[ursi]

6. yes, I want to know more too!

Like when was this filmed?

[PatSeg]

7. According to a poster at YouTube

it is from 2006.

[pleah]

5. I missed this broadcast! OMFG!!!

[sojourner]

9. noted that Cafferty refers to time period BEFORE dems took congress

Republican house passed the bill. No doubt the Senate passed it too. More research needed, I'll keep looking

[yy4me]

10. If this is from 2006, no wonder **** is not concerned.

He is already pardoned.

Geeze, does anyone in Congress ever read the bills they sign? Did no-one ever question this little goodie? I am disgusted.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. This is the kind of "pardon" that can be revoked.

Presidential pardons cannot be, but a law can be changed.

[kas125]

16. There's a video of Waxman saying that none of them

read H.R. 1955 before it passed 404-6, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wei_hJdwkxY

What the hell good is having someone there to represent us if they don't even read what they're voting about? I simply do not understand. I wrote to my congressman and told him that if he doesn't have time to read this stuff, then he better hire a few people like me to read the legislation and tell him what it says before they vote because we are sick of them apologizing for their votes afterward when it does no good.

[AZgirl7]

58. Having a stroke

These bastards! NOT READING WHAT THEY SIGN???????????? It's a lie. They know damn well what they are doing to this country. Traitors all!!

[Selatius]

48. The Republicans controlled congress when this bill was passed.

They shoved it through fearing that a Democratic congress would not pass such bills.

[Dangerman]

11. Caffety, Here's your answer...

NO F*CKING WAY!!!

:mad:

[Bolo Boffin]

12. This is already law: Military Commissions Act of 2006

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ366.109

That's the text.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@L&summ2=m&

That's the legislative history of S. 3930 from the 109th Congress.

The relevant section:

SEC. 8. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO
PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.

(a) Counsel and Investigations.--Section 1004(b) of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``may provide'' and inserting ``shall
provide'';
(2) by inserting ``or investigation'' after ``criminal
prosecution''; and
(3) by inserting ``whether before United States courts or
agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or
agencies,'' after ``described in that subsection''.

(b) Protection <<NOTE: Applicability. 42 USC 2000dd-1 note.>> of
Personnel.--Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution
that--
(1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens
described in such section;
(2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United
States Code; and
(3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001,
and December 30, 2005.

They were revoking habeas corpus and covering their ass at the same time.

[orleans]

17. aren't they all such complete and total motherfuckers? oh my god! n/t

[sojourner]

18. yep --- Cynthia McKinney tried to repeal the law and got NOWHERE!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~mdbsG8Cblw::

edited to add link

[biermeister]

50. links to how our elected officals voted

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll508.xml#Y

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259#position

imagine how disappointed I am to see that both of my senators (both democrats) from NJ voted for it.


pdd 51- the end is near

[bdamomma]

52. great to see my Reps both voted NO for it.

and my Senators voted NO.

[gateley]

62. Good to see that ALL our candidates -- (and Dodd and Biden) voted NAY.

My rep (Dem) voted for it, which surprised me. My senators, both R, voted for it, too, but that was a given (Burr and Dole).

[bdamomma]

51. couldn't this be struck down??

nothing but a band of thugs, they need to be impeached, amazing how they are going to get away with all their crimes.

[Imagevision]

59. No doubt Gonzalez did the paper work, and the peeps keep saying Bush is...stupid?

[ooglymoogly]

13. The brazen kabuki dance that goes on in the house and senate

is astounding. If indeed this has already passed the house without a peep from anybody indicates it was carefully planned for maximum secrecy. It is not on any blogs (and I have searched). Thank you Jack Cafferty for yelling about this.

[Kaleko]

14. I found this article from Sep. 23, 2006

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0923-22.htm[/link>

Published on Saturday, September 23, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times

Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act

by former New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman

Excerpt:

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

21. Congress has no standing to...

...give Chimpy, or anyone else, any kind of immunity from being prosecuted for international war crimes -- these people live in a dreamworld. Only a legitimate international body could do this, and it would not be legitimate if done under duress, which, in light of the anthrax mailings, one could argue is how Chimpy has extracted most of the cooperation he's received from Congress.

[Mithreal]

23. Right, but, since we are not going to be defeated militarily and

will not be forced to face international tribunals, this works just as well for them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. I'm not so sure this empire couldn't be defeated...

...it is already crumbling. However, you're certainly right for the near term anyway, we cannot be compelled to hand over war criminals by an international judicial body if we simply choose not to cooperate.

[ooglymoogly]

28. But if we can get Edwards into the presidency and possibly even Obama

Edwards would and Obama might be persuaded to turn idiot and co. over to the Hague.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Possibly, but I don't think it would be...

...easy to get them to go along with that -- immense populist pressure would have to be applied.

[bjobotts]

38. Obama will do nothing. "We must forget the past and move forward"

Now maybe if his wife was tortured his attitude would change

[bdamomma]

53. Pelosi has the same mindset too, just move along, sorry

these thugs must be held accountable, if we do get justice I am wondering if another country will go after them just like how France went after Rumsfeld, where is that snake been hiding??

[Mithreal]

30. Why confront a nation militarily when you can bankrupt it throught its own arrogance and stupidity?

Of course our empire could be defeated and it would take a concerted effort. There is absolutely no reason to openly engage the US military. The US government will do all the work needed to destroy our empire, it just needs some more time. Our supposed enemies can just sit back and wait and watch the US spend itself into Oblivion. If I was in the military command I would be more concerned with having a highly educated, healthy, and happy citizenry and an agile highly skilled military that we can afford and not need to make payments on. We are not always going to be able to outspend every other nation militarily. It's the majority of our people who make this nation great. Weapons rust or break, do we really need to let that happen to our people. I would also add that talking about our nation being defeated in any way is not a popular idea and possibly feeds into the idea that we are not safe enough and need to spend more. You can say whatever you want, of course.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. Agreed. That kind of talk gaining any attention would likely feed into...

...a massive infusion of money resources we don't have directly into the Pentagon budget.

[Mithreal]

34. It seems hard to stop it

I think the idea you brought up is sound, we should come up with a way to promote an agile highly skilled well-equipped military that we can afford that also costs less than the amount needed to bankrupt us. Every weapon system we buy is going to be obsolete and very soon or already. Promoting a sane amount of defense spending could be called something like being for Fiscal Defense although I realize that has been used differently so there may be a better term. Anyway, the idea is that we don't do to ourselves what the Soviets may have done which is to spend themselves into collapse. I am just throwing it out there and want a name for it so that progressives can maybe gain some traction with the American public. Because someone must have already thought of this if you could point me in the right direction it would be appreciated : )

[Stranded]

33. Anyway...

Checks and balances be damned: the whole things smacks of fascism. It's like Bush and co. want the carte blanche authority to do what ever it is they want and avoid persecution a la Kissinger.

[Mithreal]

22. Better late than never, need to get this overturned asap.

Turn up the pressure.

[WheelWalker]

24. Impeachment off the table? No wonder. nt

[Sam Ervin jret]

26. The constitution states the one person a president cannot pardon is HIMSELF.

An illegal LAW is not a LAW. An unelected president is not a president. So maybe he's not pssing a law not pardon the non president? This is such BULL SHIT!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

27. "Bush pardoning himself" is just a useful metaphor to describe this

Right now, it's perfectly legal. I do believe the law can be repealed and Bush prosecuted. I could be wrong about that, however. There might be problems with ex post facto now, sadly enough.

[Sam Ervin jret]

35. If I stab my husband tonight(hypothetically speaking) can I pass a law tonight saying I cant be

prosecuted for it tomorrow? Any lawyers on site?

Like I said it's just for EDUCATIONAL purposes ONLY!

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Educational purposes only.

Let's see. You stab your husband, and you then convince Congress to place an retroactive exception to your act into the U.S. Code, barring any possible prosecution against you for that act.

Now you are in the clear. (Bush had the additional duty of signing this into law. I wonder if it could be overturned on those grounds, that this is a de facto pardon he's granting himself? One for the lawyers.)

However, if someone were to come along and strike your exemption from the law, would you then be subject to prosecution? It's another question for the lawyers, but I'm thinking not, because the striking of the exemption might put you into ex post facto territory.

Ex post facto means that we can't pass a law outlawing something and then prosecute someone for such an act committed before the law was passed. Since you were exonerated before by law, could the striking of the exemption be seen as jeopardizing you ex post facto?

I don't know. Definitely one for the lawyers.

[trusty elf]

45. Wouldn't that be shrubble jeopardy?

B-)

[Larry Ogg]

47. As long as criminals create laws and are arbitrators of the crimes they stand accused of,

they will and can get away with any inhumane act they commit – simply by passing laws that puts them above the law, or laws that say, do what I say not as I do – does not make it legitimate.

Another way of looking at it is that the legitimacy of any law is proportional to the number of those who legitimize it. Our founding fathers decided to no longer legitimized King Gorge’s law’s. Can you imagine ware we would be if they would have said, “Oh, according to the law, we can’t revolt and we have no right or duty to through off any oppressive government or tyranny, because that’s what the law says. Fortunately that’s not what they said and that’s not what they did.

But here’s a little reminder of what they did say and do…

The Declaration of Independence

<snip>
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
<snip>

Now is there some law that says American citizens are prohibited from getting outside of the criminal interpretation paradigm of law and use a little bit of common sense and logic. Any moralizing interpretation and law that legitimizes criminal and inhumane acts, is in itself a criminal act. And when society excepts such criminal interpretation as legitimate its days are numbered. But then I’m sure we can find a lawyer that is capable of interpreting the truth into any paralogism one chooses…

[FiveGoodMen]

61. No, but you can issue a signing statement saying you're exempt from murder charges

It works! Really!

(As long as no one is willing to challenge it)

[windoe]

36. The implants in their brains

are directing them now, resistance is futile.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. Is this from 2006?

Bill Frist is no longer in the Senate; Dennis Hastrrt is no longer speaker; and the Democrats won control of Congress.

[slipslidingaway]

40. My Democratic Senators voted for this bill and I voted for his

reelection in November 2006 to give the Dems control and to hopefully have them stand up to Bush.

Although there has been progress on a few issues, for the most part Bush has received what he wanted from the Congress.

:(

[stickernation]

41. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO PARAGUAY !!!

what is with protection from all these "war crimes" ? they must know something we don't know...

-s

[Diclotican]

43. stickernation

stickernation

The truth Will come out,sooner or later.. And I Will bet my salary that it something this administration know, and if that is coming out, when they are in office or out, it Will send them to prison.. THis LAW is just a insurance for that they should not be put where their rightfully deserve to be. And that is NOT for what we don't know, but for everything we do know about..

I am not a citizen of US, but I would believe the law here is somewhat like when it come to this thing.. We don't have a President here, but if our Prime minister was treating his government, and the country like that, he would face everything from a no confident wote in our Parliament, to be trowing out by force.. And even then find himself in a court and answering for criminal behavior.. He would never tryed or dared to come with this type of law.. He would never had the power, and the daring to do it anyway... The Parliament have some power, to say stop when they are not enjoying it anymore..

The last 8 year, specially when I tried to follow what is happening in US, have been seeing into a nightmare, and not have the opportunity to wake up, and se what it was. A nightmare...

Or, it is like se the german of the 1930s, where the nazis was going rampage with the german law, and behave as they was doing.. You know that for the most part, the germans was law biding people who would never act as they was doing.. But as the nazis was propagandizing their will, the german was seeing to lost their law binding attitude, and the extreme was going to be the norm.. Have it not been for the British and France NJET in 1939, the most of europe had been under the boot from nazi-germany for a Long time.. And it took 6 year, billions of money, and a totally bombed out europe to win over the evil of nazism.. And it was in many cases thank from the US;)..

The NEO-CONS is just as bad as he nazis was.. I would say that the neo-cons are the nazis of the 21 Century.. And if they are not STOOPED, they would act as bad as the german nazis in the 1930s.. In the 1940s it took many country almost 6 year to step them, and a blown up germany. Today we se the danger from the US, and we have not, I repeat NOT a superpower who can counter the extreme right from US.. US have a military pres sense over the rest of the world 2-1 or maybe 10-1 and it Will take a long time just for the rest of the world to come into the pari of US.. But if it come to a WW3, against the US US would not win.. But it would be destabilizing for all humanity, and for the world it Will be a catastrophe of gigantic propetions...

I really hope that I am just fearing the worst.. But it do look bad from the outside of US.. And I cant understand, with my rather normal intelligence that you don't stand up as one, and demand this man into trial.. Or thrown out as President.. US was into this between 1996-98 with Clinton, over a rather stupid little case... And here you let a WAR CRIMINAL go free???? Someone Remember 1776?? Or are it for long a time since you revolted against a "tyranny" over there?

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language.

[bdamomma]

54. American people will learn the hard way, they never had blood

spilled in our own land other than the Civil War, Europe understands what it takes to overthrow someone who oppresses them, cause they have seen their own countries ruined, us, on the other hand, have not seen a confrontation/war or unrest on our own soil.

[Diclotican]

63. alyce douglas

alyce douglas

I am very afraid that US have a lot of learning to do, when it come to over trow evil regimes.. US are like a child, who have given everything he/she want. But suddenly experienced that it have being denied what he always wanted.. And the result is a bad temper...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Diclotican]

42. SHRED

SHRED

He may not be welcome in Europe anyway... And WE can arrest the son of a..... And send him to Haag for trial.. The evidence against this criminal is overwhelming, and pretty to the open if I may say it.. And we grant him all the juridical help he want or need to fight his trial... On the taxpayers expence...

And in a European War Criminal Court, he would never be faced with the death penalty, he would end up old and senile in a prison somewhere in Europe - maybe even in a minimal prison, because he is not a danger for someone and on the top, given the mental help he absolutely need..

IN US, he may face the death penalty. After this LAW if you can call it that, is repealed.. It would be repealed wherry soon... I hope..

If mr Bush are not facing trial, against humanity, against the law of war, and against common sense, then US really have lost everything they once was standing for..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[FlyingSquirrel]

44. OMG OMG OMG OMFG

I can't even believe that this was on CNN of all places.

Did I say OMG?

[amb123]

46. WAKE UP AMERICA! THIS IS TREASON!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[L0oniX]

49. This government is fucked up. Hell, I might as well become a criminal too.

[bdamomma]

56. no, you probably be caught and sent to prison.

you know that double standard.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Kucinich speaks on the House floor regarding this bill...

I have read this bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x86468

direct link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLjirbJjmQ

[bdamomma]

57. right on Dennis!!!

he is a true patriot.

[rucognizant]

60. Hellooooooooo where you been?

In all fairness, I am retired in a rural area, and too small a SS income for much travel. So I watch Cspan check the house & senate behavior against the online records, & I have a killer memory.
My Uncle died the Sat before they passed this! I was so grateful he didn't live to see his country destroyed! He had been a state Senator for several terms, there were AWFUL rumors circulated about him and my Aunt, so when the districts in NJ were redrawn he didn't run again, that was it for politics for him. He brought a young Frank Lautenberg, ( who voted against this travisty) around to our house when he ran his first campaign.WE MUST HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE THINGS IF WE ARE TO MAKE GOOD CHOICES IN OUR VOTING!
I have noticed one of the Right wing tactics has been a strong propaganda beat against the wisdom of we elders!
That conservative Granny, waving the flag & supporting the troops, adoring the Bush family, is as much a myth as Reagan's "welfare queens " riding around in a caddy! I think all those quavery voiced elders who call Cspan on the repug line & say terribly ignorant things are probably paid rolls! My Parents ( Adali Stevenson voters) Grands & Greats were all very liberal ( except maybe my paternal Grandfather, & I don't know how to check that one beyond childhood memories.......) as were MOST of the people I knew back then.
THEY have cut the connection of oral history in favor of their TV propaganda! DELIBERATELY to keep the population dummed down!
Happy to say both my Dem. legislators voted against this! ( And one is backing HR 799; impeachment)
One of the Repug Senators voted yes the other missed the vote!

[slipslidingaway]

67. Agree :) n/t

[lovuian]

64. Congress is lining itself up to be war criminals just like Bush

Unfreakingbelievable

[slipslidingaway]

68. And there is no accountability :( n/t

[DutchLiberal]

65. Are you kidding me?

:mad:

[Contrary1]

66. Kick