General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So the DOJ acknowledges that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes! [View all]Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)of what is happening here is astounding in its sheer breadth, and stunning in its misinterpretation of the facts.
Firstly, can you point me to where the DOJ "acknowledged that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes"? That would be quite the acknowledgement, wouldn't it? But the DOJ has not done so.
You then go on to state: "And apparently they do not feel confident that they can defend them. So rather than present a defense, they move to grant them immunity."
The move to grant immunity is not new law that the DOJ just came up with off the top of its head. It is based on established law:
"In 1982, the United States Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), a 5-4 decision, that the President of the United States has civil immunity for actions taken while in office."
And for those in the peanut gallery who keep insisting this means protecting war criminals from prosecution, or that Obama has 'pardoned' the previous administration for war crimes, you will note the term "civil immunity". And this IS a civil case that has been brought; it has to do with civil liability, and nothing to do with criminal guilt or innocence.
But you DO go on ...
"According to the DOJ, he was just following orders, he was working for the US Government!"
In actuality, the DOJ said nothing remotely resembling the concept of "just following orders". Their legal position is that Bush et al planned and executed the Iraq War within the scope of their employment. Whether you like it or not, that is the fact of the matter. The fact that you chose to use a loaded term like "just following orders" speaks for itself. You are not opining on facts here - you are inserting your own delusions into the piece and attempting to pass them off as fact.
"So for the first time that I remember, the US Government has, publicly, not only admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, but worse, that they were WORKING FOR THE US GOVERNMENT."
Again, where has the US gov't admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration? You may think they committed crimes, and I may think it - and all God's children may think it - but the US gov't has admitted no such thing - and where you even got that idea that some kind of 'admission' was made here is beyond reason.
"And doesn't that shift the blame for the crimes to all of us? It certainly isn't an argument that no crimes were committed."
No, it isn't an argument that no crimes were committed - because this is a CIVIL suit, not a criminal prosecution. How can the blame for "crimes" be shifted to the citizenry when this case is not about CRIMES committed by anyone?
"Perhaps now that we have an admission of guilt, Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, who filed the suit can refile it."
I'll ask one more time: where is the "admission of guilt"? You keep insisting that there was one, but so far have not pointed to a single statement from ANYONE that admits guilt of anything.
This time filing it as: Saleh V The US Government!"
The Westfall Act certification (submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988 above) permits the Attorney General to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment.
THAT is why the suit will be refiled naming the US gov't as the defendant, rather than the individuals named in the initial filing. That's a matter of legal procedure, not some nefarious subterfuge.
While the hair-on-fire contingent have been screaming about Bush et al being "pardoned" or having been granted immunity from prosecution for war crimes, what it is REALLY about is a CIVIL suit that has no bearing on war crimes whatsoever.