Who will Bush pardon?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cave Man, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #1
    Now that the election over, I suspect there are some jail-birds about to be released. I'm sure Scooter Libby is right at the top of that list...
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    That's who I'd bet money on.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    The republican that just became a felon I bet.
     
  4. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #4
    Libby's pardon will likely be one of the last things Bush does in office.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    He'll be proactive and pardon himself from any future wrongdoings: e.g., "I'm Rick James, b***h!" :rolleyes:

    On a more serious tip, when it comes to presidential pardons, who handles the Checks and Balances for that? Would that fall under the Senate, or SCOTUS?

    BL.
     
  6. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #6
    What checks and balances?

    If he pardons someone, that's it.

     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    So, War Crimes are still on the table, right??? :rolleyes:
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    Note to Barack: No moves against Cheney until after Bush goes. Thanks :p
     
  9. bobr1952 macrumors 68020

    bobr1952

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
  10. EricBrian macrumors 6502a

    EricBrian

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    #10
    I don't know if he could pardon himself since you can't pardon somebody who hasn't been convicted.

    Who will he pardon. Stevens, I am sure. Libby... probably.
     
  11. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    Or even charged.

    Not that I think it's likely that Bush, Cheney, or Rice will get charged (as they deserve) with war crimes, but that would be a wholly different ball of wax, as those are not crimes against the United States but crimes against humanity (and subject to international law).
     
  12. EV0LUTION macrumors 6502

    EV0LUTION

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Location:
    Florida
    #12
    I'm confused. what did they do that was so wrong.
     
  13. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Lessee.. invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation, torture of prisoners captured in aforementioned nation, incarceration without rights to a speedy/fair trial as defined by the Geneva Conventions..

    Granted, it is Iraq and Saddam was a git, but doing something wrong in the name of being righteous is still wrong.. Robin Hood effect: Stealing from the rich to give to the poor doesn't make the stealing right.

    I won't get into the crimes committed against their own country...

    BL.
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    Hundreds of thousands of people have died unnecessarily in Iraq as the result of a war that occurred specifically because these individuals lied to the people of the United States and the representatives of the United Nations. The excess mortality (i.e. mortality that would not have occurred had the war not occurred) is varyingly estimated between 400,000 and 1,000,000, not including the wounded survivors.

    As this war was based on the statements of these individuals and those statements were knowingly fabricated, that makes this a war of aggression. Per the Nuremburg trials:

    (source)

    In other words, this is not only clearly considered a war crime but is considered the worst of war crimes.
     
  16. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    so would you have to put all of the people in the senate who voted FOR that war on trial too?
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Mmmmmm, don't think so.

    They were acting on false information.

    Next question, please.
     
  18. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #18
    Of course not. It was all George Bush's fault. All of it. Maybe some Cheney, too. Nobody else deserves credit for starting the war. Not his administration, not those in charge of intelligence, not congress for approving, or the citizens for initial support. If you're gonna make it an issue of whose fault it is that we invaded Iraq, George is your man.

    And George wasn't?
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    It wouldn't be the first time a political leader said "I don't want to know!!!", in order to be able to maintain deniability. :mad:
     
  20. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #20
    I think this is possibly a question for a trial jury. I think he wasn't, but I don't know. I doubt that congress knew. But it's sensible to start at the top -- discovery in a case against Bush, Cheney, and Rice, who are most centrally implicated, would reveal to what extent they had co-conspirators. If the trail leads to other individuals who engaged in war crimes, it's appropriate to try them also. But no, in the case of individuals who voted based on credible belief of the lies they were told, I don't think that meets the international concept of a war crime.
     
  21. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #21
    giving bush the benefit of a doubt about starting the war...he certainly should be held accountable for the conduct during the war:

    torture
    extraordinary rendition
    violations of the geneva convention
    violations of the constitutional right to privacy
    violations of the right to due process


    and there's a whole list of violations to the sanctity of mankind...there's a reason he has the lowest approval rating of any president in history.

    but he'll walk.
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #22
    you forget one thing. Presidents approval rating also historically tends to be linked with the economy. Something they have relatively little control over. When you are in office at one of the worse economic down turns in history your approval rating tends to drop a lot. Mix that in with the other factors it is not hard to get that low but the economy is the biggest factor.
     
  23. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #23
    i totally disagree with you. it certainly would be convenient to say that he had nothing to do with the economy during his 8 years in office...but statistics about national debt, govt size and govt spending show things quite differently....ntm, overall financial policy.

    bush is an epic failure-his approval rating reflects that.

    and do we need to address his dismal global approval rating?
     
  24. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #24
    No, his policy most certainly didn't avert the inevitable economic downturn. Yet lots of people saw this coming ten years ago, when Bush had little to do with beyond what went on in Austin. This isn't about George Bush (or really the government for that matter) spending money which doesn't exist, it's about that entire trend in the country. It's been going on for more years than he's been in office. It's the government's fault as a whole for the financial policy, but anyone who holds debt in this country is proportionally responsible for this problem. Sure the candidates in this race were able to cover that fact with fluff blaming it on the big people, but that doesn't change the way that it really is. The spend-happy Americans didn't have to sign onto the loans from those greedy banks.

    Bush is on top. He's the easiest one to blame. That's how it always works. Look at VanBuren. He didn't do anything, but he was most certainly credited during his time for the economic disaster after Jackson screwed up Washington. Let's look back at this in the distant future and see what history says then.
     
  25. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #25
    glad you said it:

    his policy didn't avert the economic downturn...even though it was predicted "by lots of people" 2 years before he held office. which means he had 8 years to do something about it...and didn't. 8 long years. 2 terms.

    there's a reason even his own party disowned him during the election: it was the foul stench of failure.

    as far as history goes, i'll make a prediction that unlike other presidents( reagan, carter, etc), bush's approval rating will not rise significantly over time.
     

Share This Page