Impeachment don't mean shit! Pardons mean shit!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

I frankly don't give a fuck weather we impeach Pissypants and his Dick. I am much more concerned that they can pardon all of the criminals before they leave office! We can investigate till we're blue in the face but if, at the end of the game, Bush is allowed to pardon all of those assholes, we will end up with more "Cheney" in his special show on Fux.

What constitutes a "pardon" and is there a limit to them? Or, can Bush just issue a blanket pardon to all of the criminals in his administration? Sort of like his father?s

Can "We the people" do anything about this. like send them to the Hague, Or are we just fucked once again by absolute power? I don't have the legal answer, but I sure have the moral answer!

[bluestateguy]

1. There really are no limits to pardons

Even a pardon issued in bad faith (i.e, through a bribe) would likely still stand. About the only limit on the pardon power is that the president cannot pardon himself if he is in legal jeopardy.

In any case, a pardon for crimes committed under US law does not grant one immunity from prosecution in an interbational tribunal. They are different crimes.

[magellan]

3. That would have been my answer too

They can pardon themselves all they want; the Hague will see things differently, I think. As it should.

[GymGeekAus]

4. War Criminals are guilty of crimes they can't pardon.

Like magellan said. The Hague will see things differently, I think. As it should.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Can Bush "pardon" himself?

Just asking.

[bluestateguy]

6. We had this debate at the end of the Clinton years

And most law professors agreed that a president cannot do that.

[CPMaz]

9. No.

Even Nixon had to wait until Gerald Ford took the oath of office.

[autorank]

5. Persona non grata...

The pardon is an archaic feudal right carried over by the framers to provide protection against gross injustices codified into law. Logically, every president would free people serving jail time for minor possession (or any for that matter) of recreational drugs); the convicted who have been proved innocent but languish due to idiots who maintain guilt out of bitterness; and other clear injustices. However, the record is a sorry one. There is every reason to expect pardons.

To the framers, the power to pardon, familiar as a power of the King of England, was necessary because the way the law was applied. In England, it was common for minor offenses to carry a sentence of death, with pardon by the King being the only way to avoid the punishment. Judges often applied a death sentence, having no choice, but at the same time applied for a Royal Pardon in the same breath. This is what Hamilton was referring to when he mentioned "necessary severity" and "unfortunate guilt."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

It is still necessary to pursue every means available for removal of this government regardless of who gets a pardon.

But here's a solution: persona non grata ... the right of a nation to exclude foreign citizens from their borders for any reason whatsoever. A quick expansion of this this right with the promise to have it invoked by Congress or a new President might put a real chill on the use of pardons. OK, so you got a pardon, now get the f' out of the country...but but...AMF fellas!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

7. I still don't quite get it but it seems a subject, quite worth exploring.

How did we ever give these bastards the right to forgive themselves? It seems so anti everything this nation was founded upon?

[autorank]

16. I agree. It's outdated. It does not serve any interests except

the very well connected who just happen to be friends of friends or contributors. Bull Shit.

The persona non grata is real. It's like this deal with the states being able to initiate
impeachment resolutions; a rule nobody knows of.

Funny thing, if we kick them out, who will take them?

[neoblues]

8. Seems like if...

we were to impeach shrub, he couldn't pardon anybody. Then again, his replacement would probably do it. (aha, if we impeached every replacement until we got to someone outside the list of loyal minions... uh-huh, sure... yeah, that'd work... sure... oh well) The republican screw capacity seems as prodigious as ever. I look forward to the day, however, when we can break their screw off and hand it to them on a platter (or flush it).

[jerry611]

11. ignore...nm

.....

[AndyTiedye]

10. Impeach Them and SEND THEM TO THE HAGUE!

pResidential pardons are not accepted by the International Criminal Court.



I don't think there is an parole, either.

One bit of good news for them, no death penalty from the ICC.

[jerry611]

12. We rejected the Rome Statue

The treaty was rejected unanimously in the Senate because it would conflict with our constitution.
And that won't ever change...The Senate will never ratify that treaty.

It wouldn't matter anyway...the Belgian government gave the Bush admin and American soldiers immunity from prosecution for the Iraq war.

So forget that idea...

[AndyTiedye]

19. If We Can get The Votes to Impeach & Convict,We Can Send Them to the Hague

The Senate may have a different attitute towards that treaty after
Bush** pardons everyone, including himself, as they are casting the
vote to remove him from office. Edit: Or he pardons everybody except himself, and
then the VP (will that still be Cheney or will it be Rice by then?) pardons him.

Like impeachment, this will have to be a bipartisan effort.
At least some Republicans will have to see what this regime is doing to our country
and be willing to put a stop to it, and to hold the guilty parties accountable.

In what way would the treaty be in conflict with our Constitution?
Could the Senate pass it with reservations to resolve those conflicts?

We do have a serious problem here. The junta is above the law.
They KNOW they will be pardoned if they are convicted of any crime.
All of their actions show an utter comtempt for the rule of law,
and an absolute confidence that they will suffer no consequences for flouting it.

[jerry611]

13. The Hague can't do anything

We are not part of the ICC, and the ICC has no subpoena power in the United States. And the senate is not going to start sending any Americans to international courts. Both Republicans and Democrats made that pretty clear in a unanimous vote a few years ago to reject the ICC.

Can Bush pardon himself? No. But he can pull a nixon by resigning, and then Cheney can grant a pardon.

The purpose of a pardon is check of the judiciary. It was originally supposed to be used only when the president feels that a person should not be prosecuted or that someone has been wrongly prosecuted. It has been used for some good. And there are people wrongly prosecuted, so we probably should not get rid of it. But it has also been abused by many presidents.

Nothing can be done to override a pardon. It is final.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

15. Oh great! Criminals will be pardone like flies!

N/t

[rucky]

14. Bush already has issued a blanket pardon.

He did it via executive order in 2002. It was actually a pre-pardon for crimes later to be committed in Iraq. I wish I had the link handy, or the time to look it up.

[APPLE314]

17. Some crimes can't be pardoned.

It's in the Constitution.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Investigations and impeachment are NOT a waste of time as both

procedures get otherwise unknown information out to the electorate. The MSM has to cover a certain proportion of that information and that becomes fodder for the democrats to use during various campaigns for the House and Senate. The republicans have to either endorse, disavow, or remain silent about their "fearless leader" and his actions, but they certainly won't be able to ignore the reality.

Oh yeah, impeachment and/or prison would be like icing on the cake. But I'm looking for political mileage that counts. I'm not vengeful. I want my country back even if it's incremental.