Alternatively, Pardons

Peter Baker in The Washington Post: "For an administration that [i.e. the Libby trial] has been unusually opaque and mostly insulated from aggressive congressional oversight and prosecutorial investigation, it may seem like a gut-churning harbinger." There's much truth to this. The list of persons potentially facing criminal liability for actions undertaken at the behest of George W. Bush or on behalf of his administration is extremely long. Of course, in practice it's exceedingly unlikely that Bush himself or, say, Donald Rumsfeld will ever face prosecution for war crimes they've ordered, but there's at least a chance. And from the top various forms of criminality go all the way down and fan out throughout the agencies.

This, it always seemed to me, was one of the great unreported pretexts of the 2004 election. Team Bush was, substantially, fighting for its continued freedom. The mere fact of re-election, however, greatly shields them. Without a successor to try to put into the White House, there's really very little impediment to the administration not only stonewalling at any turn, but simply handing out pardons whenever necessary. That's how his dad did business and it worked.

3/7/07 8:48AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

How do pardons effect civil suits? Does a pardon mean the law considers the crime never to have occurred? Is there no legal implication yet some sort of track record where pardoned individuals fare better in subsequent civil trials?

Posted by: steve duncan on March 7, 2007 09:09 AM

That's an interesting question, Steve. One important thing to remember is that this is not an OJ case, where the civil and criminal suits involved the exact same acts; Libby was convicted for perjury, but he (as well as Cheney and Rove) are being sued for the leak itself. So the perjury conviction doesn't definitively establish that Libby leaked, and thus a pardon is irrelevant. The trial testimony, on the other hand, does provide evidence of Libby's role in the leak, and that doesn't disappear just because a pardon is issued.

Posted by: Steve on March 7, 2007 09:40 AM

Chapter 28 details Walsh's unsuccessful attempt to get to the bottom of GHW Bush's Iran-Contra role. All the evidence is that Bush was in it up to his neck.

Theaide who served as a firewall for Bush was John Schmitz, of the famous and influential L.A. John Birch sex pervert family. His sister was Mary Kay LeTourneau. If LeTourneau were a Democrat, she'd be right up there with Woody Allen as a family-values cliche. (So would Susan Smith, the Republican woman who drowned her two children

The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete. Before Bush's election as President, the investigation was primarily concerned with the operational conspiracy and the careful evaluation of the cases against former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver L. North of the National Security Council staff, prior to their indictment in March 1988. This included a review of any exculpatory material that might have shown authorization for their conduct. In the course of this investigation, Vice President Bush was deposed on January 11, 1988...... Had a final Bush interview occurred, the questioning regarding the non-production of Bush's diary would have focused on the decision of Bush and or Gray not to disclose the existence of the diary initially in April 1987, in response to OIC's document request, and to delay its ultimate production until December 1992. The questioning would have addressed Bush's familiarity with the 1987 OIC and congressional document requests, and his knowledge of the production of the Reagan diary in 1987. It would have sought an explanation of his previously described July 20, 1987, diary note condemning Shultz for producing Charles Hill's daily notes of Shultz's thoughts, discussions and activities.

It also would have covered Bush's diary entry of November 25, 1986, regarding a telephone call he had with North following his firing, and the substance of information he obtained from North and relayed to President Reagan regarding the fact that Israeli officials were extremely upset about the day's events.

Posted by: John Emerson on March 7, 2007 09:59 AM

Best line of that Baker article--

"...If you're looking at legacy, this episode gets prominently mentioned in every recap of the Bush administration, much like Iran-contra and Monica Lewinsky."

The Libby case never reached the level of those scandals, of course....

Posted by: Doh on March 7, 2007 10:32 AM

Another effect of a pardon is to preclude the sued person from taking the Fifth. If the pardon is phrased broadly enough ("..for any acts performed between the dates of X and Y.."), the defendant can't claim a right to avoid testifying on the grounds of self-incrimination, because the defendant is in no jeopardy. Maybe there'd be an artful way to phrase the pardon, or Libby could refuse it, but he couldn't accept a broad pardon and still refuse to testify in his civil case.

Posted by: dbomp on March 7, 2007 11:44 AM

Because of the taking-the-Fifth issue, as well as because of negative effects in the 2008 election, the White House will delay the pardon as long as possible, probably until after November 2008, while Libby keeps out of jail through appeals and other stalling moves.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 7, 2007 12:30 PM

"It worked" because that chickenshit Clinton decided to let bygones be bygones and close down the investigation as soon as he had the keys.

Posted by: citizen k on March 7, 2007 01:54 PM

Would it be fair to say that any evidence of a pardon being promised to Scooter in advance would be prima facie cause for impeachment? Not that I expect such evidence to show up, but y'never know.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc on March 7, 2007 04:20 PM

"Of course, in practice it's exceedingly unlikely that Bush himself or, say, Donald Rumsfeld will ever face prosecution for war crimes they've ordered, but there's at least a chance."

Please provide a documented instance of Bush or Rumsfeld specifically ordering a war crime. (As compared to something like Abu Gharib occurring due to their gross negligence.)

Posted by: Lefty on March 7, 2007 04:39 PM

Why we need trials

The administration didn't start up the American gulag because gulags are at all useful in prosecuting a "war on terror". Quite the contrary. They started the gulag, despite the hit that our struggle with al Qaeda took as a result, for the domestic political benefit. They have hitherto been allowed to get away with the unchallenged assertion that torture and other mistreatment work, and that such measures are necessary to protect us from al Qaeda. Accept this thinking, and not maintaining a gulag becomes a luxury this nation cannot afford.

A Democratic administration will not be able to face down the political consequences of ending the American gulag until and unless it is ready to face down the proposition that torture works. We will not be able to win this argument and convince the electorate to abandon the gulag, with campaign speeches, or campaign commercials, or editorials, or blog postings -- no matter how eloquent and persuasive these might be. We've already tried that, but not enough of the electorate is amenable to arguments from theory, no matter how basic and constitutive such theories may be to those of us who live more through words than most Americans. The only forum in which we will successfully carry the point with the public will be in a courtroom, either a criminal courtroom or the well of the Senate in an impeachment trial. Our case must be built from the individual stories of those stupidly and pointlessly tortured, up to theory and general rules.

Impeachment trials would serve this purpose best, because they would best focus the attention of the nation on these stories. And these impeachment trials would be best timed for before this administration leaves office, but impeachment may still be neccessary and proper after this administration leaves office, if Bush issues mass pardons. Impeachment would be justified by the need to keep these criminals, admitted criminals if they needed to be pardoned to keep the ordinary processes of the law at bay, from ever again holding public office. After their successful conviction in impeachment trials, their publicly proven guilt would then justify extradition to countries whose citizens they tortured and murdered, or to answer for their crimes before international tribunals.

The Presidential power to pardon was certainly not meant to help the criminal conspirators of political machines escape justice. Yes, we need to respect the ex post facto provision of our Constitution in bringing these criminals to justice, so we cannot simply set aside any blanket pardons this criminal in office may commit as his last act of disrespect for our Constitution on his way out of office. But immunity from criminal prosecution by US courts is certainly not immunity from all the legitimate processes of justice that exist on this earth. Should this President choose to make himself, and anyone else he pardons under a blanket process designed to frustrate, not further, US justice, essentially "men without a country", then let them get their justice from countries that they have made their victims.

Posted by: Glen Tomkins on March 7, 2007 08:31 PM

very good

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 19, 2007 07:24 PM

evden eve nakliyat

Posted by: evden eve nakliyat on September 19, 2007 07:24 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar