ASU2003

I guess it isn't really the President pardoning himself, but it is the Republican controlled house and senate that are passing this bill. And I only am hearing this info from the far left, so is this really true, and how can this be acceptable?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

dc_dux

The President cant pardon himself under US law
I havent seen the language in the wiretap bill, but the language in the prisoner interrogation bill would provide immunity in International courts to US elected and appointed officials and military forces.

Its highly questionable whether this is constitutional and if the US can do this unilaterally; one of the issues the Supreme Court will have to decide if (or more likely when) it is challenged.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

He doesn't need to pardon himself. He could devour a room full of innocent school children and simply by claiming that there were suspected terrorists amongst the children he would be labelled a hero by the republican party(as long as the elections were already over).

Seaver

According to some he killed off 3000 civilian Americans in order to start a war, compared with this allegation yours is hardly trolling.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Ustwo

Only after we torture them, muhahahahahaha.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Only if everyone else can pardon themselves aswell.

The president is the highest office of service to the people. He serves me and you and every other citizen of this country, not the other way around. Lately we've all been pretending that we should be loyal to and serve the president, as if we were his representatives. This is not so. Black is not white, up is not down, and the world has not become the inverse of it's natural state. The presidential office is that of a public servant, and as such those presidents who are found not to be serving their citizens should not have the power to excuse themselves from justice. No man should have the power to excuse themselves or anyone else from justice.

Escape from justice is injustice, and I think we can all agree that injustice should not be allowed (is that a double negative?).

The_Dunedan

Wanna know the -really- fun part? This new law forbids the Supreme Court, or any other court, from hearing challanges to the law itself. The text of the law places it outside Judicial Review. Section 950j forbids any challange to the new legislation, including the President's authority to permit torture before any court, at any level.

You now live in a third-world Police State. Congradulations.

surferlove007

I am a Republican, I do support the war however it is shameful that Bush must pass a Bill inorder to pardon himself, no pun intended!
It seems as if our way of government is turning into totalitarian-esque type of system with these types of bills being passed in our senates, who knows what else is possible. Hopefully things will settle down and americans won't allow our government to evolve furthermore into such a regime. Oh, Brave New World...

dc_dux

I think you've misinterpreted this law, as atrocious as it is.

Sec. 950j does not forbid any challenge to this law; it forbids challenges to any ruling of a military commission as defined by the law:

Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

This, in and of itself, is probabably unconstitutional, if the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld is a precedent. The Supreme Court held (5-3) that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions".

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

What sad is this is true. If they say you're en enemy combatant or terrorist and if they can do with you whatever they please. No more rights for the accused. This legislation is sick...

I dont understand the sarcasm. Our country is falling under very dark times and they best you can muster up is a I mean if you make a joke about everything does that make it less true in your mind or able to rationalize it somehow?

dksuddeth

It seems that this military tribunal commissions law is setup completely to distinguish terror suspects/enemy combatants and isolate them from the main system of justice, but I have to wonder if this law will actually pass constitutional muster.

Considering the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the USSC, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Matthews, noted that it was clear that the administration of the law was discriminatory even if the ordinance was not. Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He also noted that the court had previously ruled that it was acceptable to hold administrators of the law liable when they abused their authority. He denounced the law as a blatant attempt to exclude Chinese from the laundry trade in San Francisco, and the court struck down the law, ordering dismissal of all charges against other laundry owners who had been jailed.

Yick Wo had little application shortly after the decision. In fact, it was not long after that the Court developed the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), in practice allowing discriminatory treatment of African Americans. Yick Wo was never applied at the time to Jim Crow laws which, although also facially neutral, were in practice discriminatory against blacks. However, by the 1950s, the Warren Court used the principle established in Yick Wo to strike down several attempts by states and municipalities in the deep south to limit the political rights of blacks. Yick Wo has been cited in well over 150 Supreme Court cases since it was decided.

So, any guesses as to how the USSC will rule on this, if they take it, and which judges will rule in favor of the president?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

I've got $50 that says clarence thomas agrees with the president. It's a standing bet for all cases the supreme court might hear.

dc_dux

The Supreme Court declared Bush's first military tribunals unconstitutional earlier this year.

The five member majority (Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Bryer, Ginsburg) rejected the assertion of the administration that it had "broad executive power" upon which Bush based the creation of the tribunals, and futher, that the tribunals were neither authorized by law or in accord with our obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

The only thing that has changed is that the tribunals are now "authorized" by this new law. But the new law still give Bush excessive executive powers and does not conform with the Geneva Conventions, even more so than the previous tribunals, with the absence of habeus under the new law.

I dont see why any of the five would rule differently now.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

NCB

And I'll give 50 dollars that ruth bader-bader disagrees with the president.

See how easy that was?

__________________