The Bush Pardon List
- Thread starter techs
- Start date
Paulson!
Cheney!
Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. (all those neocon cretins)
A ton of guys in the military who ran Gitmo in one capacity or another.
A few CIA people.
Moonbeam!!!
-Robert
Cheney!
Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. (all those neocon cretins)
A ton of guys in the military who ran Gitmo in one capacity or another.
A few CIA people.
Moonbeam!!!
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
Paulson!
Cheney!
Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. (all those neocon cretins)
A ton of guys in the military who ran Gitmo in one capacity or another.
A few CIA people.
Moonbeam!!!
-Robert
I beg your pardon. My sin has been to be full of conviction.
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
And we all want you to escape further conviction!Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I beg your pardon. My sin has been to be full of conviction.Originally posted by: chess9
Paulson!
Cheney!
Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. (all those neocon cretins)
A ton of guys in the military who ran Gitmo in one capacity or another.
A few CIA people.
Moonbeam!!!
-Robert
yeah we should totally be allowed to shoot brown people when it's still politically expedient to hate them.
And your problem is?
Ok, flippancy aside, aren't the two Border Patrol guys "Brown People"? I'm not sure it's about race at all, but whether their convictions are a perversion of justice. Those guys have a very very hard job to do. No innocent people should be shot, and even the guilty shouldn't be shot unless absolutely necessary. I've seen only the newspapers' 'facts' about this shooting, so I'd llike to hear all the real facts. If you have them, let's hear them.
-Robert
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: chess9
Paulson!
Cheney!
Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, etc. (all those neocon cretins)
A ton of guys in the military who ran Gitmo in one capacity or another.
A few CIA people.
Moonbeam!!!
-Robert
I beg your pardon. My sin has been to be full of conviction.
Those convictions will get you hung in America. Now, if you'd be willing to go to re-education camp in Gitmo, we might have you loving George Bush in no time.
-Robert
John Yoo, war criminal extraordinaire
CIA employees and government contractors that engaged in torture/murder, as well as members of the U.S. armed forces; I see some type of blanket pardon invented by Bush's people to keep from actually naming those involved.
CIA employees and government contractors that engaged in torture/murder, as well as members of the U.S. armed forces; I see some type of blanket pardon invented by Bush's people to keep from actually naming those involved.
To be effective, I believe a pardon would have to name the individual. But, I may be wrong about that, particularly if Mukasey or Scalia is deciding the question.
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
To be effective, I believe a pardon would have to name the individual. But, I may be wrong about that, particularly if Mukasey or Scalia is deciding the question.
-Robert
True, but he could also try to do a blanket amnesty, as was done after the fact for anyone who dodged the Vietnam era draft.
Libby doesn't need a pardon; he's already been convicted and sentenced, and commuted.
Edit - removed AAman's bullshit.
Originally posted by: seti920
Originally posted by: chess9
To be effective, I believe a pardon would have to name the individual. But, I may be wrong about that, particularly if Mukasey or Scalia is deciding the question.
-Robert
True, but he could also try to do a blanket amnesty, as was done after the fact for anyone who dodged the Vietnam era draft.
Libby doesn't need a pardon; he's already been convicted and sentenced, and commuted.
Edit - removed AAman's bullshit.
I wonder how that would work for someone like Rumsfeld? Amnesty and pardons are two different animals. Amnesty might work for one administration, but subsequent administrations could prosecute. They didn't in the case of Nam because the war was politically unpopular.
-Robert
I'm not sure I understand what you've just said - are you suggesting that an amnesty might legitimately be ignored in the future, and people prosecuted anyway? Or do you mean that subsequent administrations may need to seek alternate routes to insulate subordinates from legal consequences?
If you meant the former, I don't believe that's the case; once you're in the clear, it is over. No more legal liability.
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: seti920
Originally posted by: chess9
To be effective, I believe a pardon would have to name the individual. But, I may be wrong about that, particularly if Mukasey or Scalia is deciding the question.
-Robert
True, but he could also try to do a blanket amnesty, as was done after the fact for anyone who dodged the Vietnam era draft.
Libby doesn't need a pardon; he's already been convicted and sentenced, and commuted.
Edit - removed AAman's bullshit.
But a commutation doesn't remove the conviction from Libby's record. A pardon is like it just never happened.
Can President pre-pardon someone? Like if Bush pardons someone for any and all crimes that may or may not have been committed by someone prior to a certain date, like the day he leave office?
Or can the President only pardon someone who has been arrested, charged, indicted or convicted?
That isn't true. I work with immigration issues, and part of our instructions state, specifically, explicitly, that even a presidential pardon doesn't 'count' when evaluating things. This is administrative law. I realize it's an obscure bit, but a presidential pardon doesn't mean that 'it never happened'. Also, I'm pretty sure that the criminal history still shows up on a NICS check.
Tom Clancy and his grandkid proposed that in 'Teeth of the Tiger'. I have no idea if it's been done before, or if it is legal.
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Hmm. As a President Nixon could only be charged and convicted by Congress. Since the House of Representitives impeached (indicted) him, then doesn't Ford's pardon seem to fall under the category of arrested, charged, indicted or convicted?
Oh yeah. How coud I forget?
Karl Rove!
Impeached is not indicted. Impeachment isn't a criminal trial.
More importantly, he wasn't impeached. The consitution bars pardons in cases of impeachment.
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
I believe you are 100 percent wrong on Nixon. He WAS impeached by the House of Representitives, just not convicted by the Senate.
And what I said is impeachment is LIKE an indictement. It basically says there is enough evidence to bring you to trial, in this case in the Senate.
EDIT:
I was right about what impeachment is
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...t_in_the_United_States
Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.
At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.
I was wrong that Nixon was ever impeached. He basically lost in the House Judiciary Committee and with impeachment by the House a certainty, he re-signed before the actual vote to impeach.
Civics isn't your strong suit, eh?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_...rd_Nixon_was_impeached
Richard Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before a full vote could be taken on the articles of impeachment, although the outcome of that vote was inevitable. Only two presidents have been impeached, that is, formal charges brought them: Andrew Johnson and William J. Clinton.
And no, its not a trial, since you don't end up in jail.
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Our posts crossed. Here's what you missed:
I was right about what impeachment is
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...t_in_the_United_States
Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for conduct committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges is separate from the act of impeachment itself: impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.
At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.
I was wrong that Nixon was ever impeached. He basically lost in the House Judiciary Committee and with impeachment by the House a certainty, he re-signed before the actual vote to impeach.
Yes, amnesty depends on the TERMS OF THE AMNESTY. Amnesty can be contingent on a host of factors, e.g. doing community service, paying a fine, voting Republican.
It can also have a time limit. Amnesty wipes away a conviction for a crime or the possibility of conviction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty It appears that amnesty and pardon are often used interchangeably, as Jimmy Carter did with the Amnesty for Nam deserters, many of whom had been tried and convicted in absentia.A pardon has a similar meaning though you won't even be tried. Often, no crime is specified or if it is, additional language includes wording such as "and any other crimes and misdemeanors", etc.
"In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[1] All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II).[2]" -from Wikipedia.
Obviously, the Supremes distinguished pardons and amnesties. The difference seems to be one more of tone than substance, eh?
-Robert
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter