Turley Zin… good stuff, I hear… I could not get any either!

“With less than 60 days left in the Bush presidency, the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, Col. Lawrence Morris, has threatened publicly to bring additional charges against detainees before the military commissions.”

There’s more info and a letter writing campaign at their website.

He can’t give a blanket pardon to everybody for acting on his own illegal policies.

By doing so, in effect, is an admission of guilt and for that I think he needs everybody’s ‘permission’.

I say, let him go ahead and try!

President-elect Obama stated he will use executive orders to close Gitmo and stop torture. He will also keep his promise to begin to planning for withdrawal from Iraq.

*** Check it out on youtube.

I feel the same way and it has put our people in harm’s way, not to mention it is odious.

Jill

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/02/torture-memo-released-yoo-argues-self-defense-in-cases-of-interrogation-deathes-or-injuries/

http://torturingdemocracy.org/

“Last month, I interviewed Harper’s Scott Horton regarding a piece he had written on the efforts of several PBS officials, including Jay Rockefeller’s wife (the CEO of Washington’s PBS affiliate) to block broadcast of the documentary Torturing Democracy, which compellingly documents how virtually all of the torture and other illegalities and abuses of America’s interrogation programs were authorized and ordered at the highest levels of the Bush administration (of which waterboarding is but one small example).

That documentary is now available to be viewed in its entirety online — here — and I can’t recommend it highly enough. Though it includes a few standard documentary tactics that I could do without (ominous music, grave-toned narration, black-and-white up-close photos of the villains), it is an extraordinarily well-documented account of America’s torture program over the last seven years and, most informatively, the role that top Bush officials played in those programs. Notably, most of the sources on which it relies are former U.S. military and Bush administration officials who waged courageous though ultimately unsuccessful battles to halt these programs.

I’m particularly amazed that someone could be aware of this set of facts — could know that our highest government officials deliberately and knowingly authorized torture techniques that are war crimes under both U.S. law and international treaties to which we are a party — and still argue, as so many do, that it would be wrong to hold these political officials accountable for the laws they systematically violated. It’s easy to say how horrendous one finds torture to be. But those who simultaneously advocate that American political leaders should be immunized from the consequences of their criminality — that, in essence, we should refrain from enforcing these laws — are proving that those are empty words indeed.”

Unfortunately, there are other things more pressing at the moment and we are going to have to be a little patient. I don’t like it and neither do the rest of us ‘turlees’

I agree, you raise an excellent question. I put a link to an article speaking on whether the administration should be held accountable for their crimes. Evidently, many voices say it’s time to move on. I do not agree with that advice. I hope someone will be able to answer your question.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/13/cloaking-the-governments-crimes/

Since, the Constitution gives Congress the power to grant immunity and the President the power to pardon, wouldn’t any Presidential pardon granted before a conviction be unconstitutional as it would actually constitute immunity, a power not granted to the President?

I have never seen this point made anywhere, but it seems obvious.

This president from the beginning was a disaster in the making.

Just ask his anybody in his own family!

I know this because I worked at one of the best hospitals in the country and for someone, who I trusted invariably, who also went to Yale, who also had a long Yale family history, lived in the South, and who also knew the Bushes very well because his grandfather’s Urology practice in Virginia was one dedicated to ‘the stars’…

Our practice was no different in that regard except that we catered to all – not just the privileged. That’s why I loved working with him -in particular.

My former mentor is now deceased, but that does not diminish his first hand observations…

I have more ACORN squash recipes
-if you’re still interested…!

I just popped some 1999 Simi ‘Reserve’ Chardonnay!!

Cheers.

Article II

Section 2: Presidential Powers

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The President is the military’s commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war. Presidents have often deployed troops with Congressional authorization, but without an explicit declaration of war. (Since WW II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. “police action”, which are deemed legally legitimate because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Authorization for Use of Force by Congress, and various U.N. Resolutions. This is also true in the case of the Korean War, which was only retroactively deemed a war — 50 years to the day, after the fact — by a ceremonial Act of Congress.)

The President may require the “principal officer” of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. Thus, implicitly, the Constitution creates a Cabinet that includes the principal officers of the various departments.

The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich, however, the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that “a pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.”

-
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/08/justice-and-cia-launch-investiga
tions-into-destroyed-tapes/
=

Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.

–Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Article II

Section 2: Presidential Powers

Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

Ultimately, the framers of the U.S. Constitution gave the greatest power of all to the electorate. Recently, the voters registered their extreme displeasure with the criminal and corrupt Bush Administration and prevented the possible continuation of those abuses by voting against the Republican ticket in a clear mandate repudiating such malfeasance in high public office.

Now it is up to President-elect Obama and the Democrats to pursue the corrupt individuals that have ruined the once-proud global reputation the U.S.A. exemplified. The articles presented in the original post and links lay out the numerous possible pitfalls; however, if the Obama Administration does not investigate the abuses of office in a fair and firm manner, then a large reason for the voters’ mandate will remain unfulfilled.

Although I am a conservative 30-year registered Republican, Bush et al. has tarnished and denigrated the Republican Party and its platform of limited government and self-reliance that I still strongly espouse. Rendering fair and corrective punishment is critical to help ensure that no political party or individual can ever again abuse the powers of the Executive Branch as the Bush Administration has done.

Compassion and forgiveness are admirable traits and characteristic of most Americans. However, corrupt individuals like Bush et al. understand this and use compassionate forgiveness as part of their strategy while abusing their power. Meting out punishment commensurate with the crime must occur to serve as an effective deterrent and as a solemn reminder to other administrations or any public servants that might seek to abuse the U.S. Constitution or the rights of all citizens contained within that time-honored and vital document.

It’s not a partisan issue. They could be from the Moon Is Green Cheese Party for all I care. No one is above the law, let alone the core tenets of our legal system. Torture? Warrantless domestic spying? Blatant theft? I think not. The criminals MUST be punished. If not, I for one will consider future compliance optional. Let’s say I’d consider it a material breach of the social contract. Hey, what’s good for the goose . . . And I am patient. I realize these things take time and I am willing to give Obama the chance to set things right. But the time line for effectiveness in mending our international standing and the limits of my patience are finite. Justice demands they face the bar. Sooner rather than later.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2804/81/

p.s. I’m opening up a bottle of Spann Charbono (no Turley, here) to serve with Lobster ‘Fra Diavolo’ pizzas. Cheers! Everybody go buy some Maine lobster and make a stew or a bisque.

I must say, it’s been frustrating not seeing the masses ‘rise up’ more, which is what would have been required to put the brakes on this administration’s series of abuses.

Perhaps we can find some solace in the massive turnout for this election.

The fact that anyone looks up my academic work is enough to send me into a spasm of giggles.

JT

When I googled up Turley’s law review, I found this on the first page of hits:

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/31/speaker-pelosi-declares-that-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-crime-by-president-bush/#comment-19315

Professor Turley wrote a law review entitled “From Pillar to Post: The Prosecution of American Presidents” a few years ago; however while he did address the viability of state claims against the president, I don’t recall whether he broached the topic of blanket pardons.

Nonetheless, if you saw Prof. Turley on Rachel Maddow’s show last night, you’d see he’s pretty much taking a wait and (god forbid) see approach. The closest comparison he made to the possibility of Bush granting blanket pardons to his co-conspirators and himself was recalling how Clinton abused the pardon power by granting clemency to a family member.

The issue, so far as I see, is two fold; first, whether a president can pardon his co-conspirators and himself and second, whether the element of fraud & or tyranny vitiates such pardons, thereby negating any Article VI requirement that the states surrender their police power to such fraud.

That may seem like question begging or posing a semi-complex question at first blush; however in lieu of another definition of an executive using his office to commit crime and thence absolve himself and his co-conspirators under color of law, I’m afraid I’m at a loss as to how to characterize the phenomena any other way.

Regards,

Bob

“This would still leave them open to state charges as you mentioned before, wouldn’t it?”

Actually, the real issue appears to be whether Bush can pardon himself and his co-conspirators.

‘aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa’ No man can be the judge in his own cause.

And who can forget this little ditty?

“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

So, to answer your question Jill, I’d say a strong state argument could still be made against the validity of such a pardon.

By doing so, in effect, is an admission of guilt and for that I think he need everybody’s ‘permission’.

I say, let him go ahead!

This would still leave them open to state charges as you mentioned before, wouldn’t it?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

What are options here? It’s really looking like the fix is in.

I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments as they are used for political purposes. A structural change, on the other hand, I can be for. I have thought about this since the Scooter Libby disaster, and would propose one that would be something like “A president may not pardon or commute any one in his/her administration for crimes committed during the administration”