quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There's not a lot of legal issues about the pardons themselves: it's clear Bush can grant them, and he can grant them for classes of people, for all crimes, without naming them (Carter pardoned unnamed persons who violated the selective service act).
The legal effects will be two-fold: 1) there will be no grand jury or other executive-driven investigation or prosecution for the pardoned crimes, and 2) there will be no basis for those pardoned to take the fifth amendment in congressional investigations or in prosecutions of those not pardoned.
So what happens if Bush pardons a class of people involved in an unconstitutional act?
My question more specifically is: what if he pardons say, military or intelligence personnel who have (we assume for the sake of the question) violated the constitutional rights of terrorist suspects or detainees, perhaps by torturing them. In this scenario the 5th amendment would not, if I understand you, protect the testimony of those pardoned individuals against the detainees who were tortured, so the information gathered by the torture could be submitted to a court... but is there another right that protects the tortured individual from having that information used against them in court, if the act of obtaining it has been subjected to a pardon?
In the grander scheme, is there a way in which Bush could use a pardon in order to circumvent constitutional rights, either in theory or practice? If you don't mind, I wonder if you could give an outcome-oriented explanation of the pardoning process. What remains a crime, and for what purposes is an offense that has been pardoned still considered to be an offense?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what happens if Bush pardons a class of people involved in an unconstitutional act?
He has no need to pardon anyone for an unconstitutional act. Pardons relate only to crimes.
Some unconstitutional acts are also crimes. Torture is an example of such an act.
quote:In the grander scheme, is there a way in which Bush could use a pardon in order to circumvent constitutional rights, either in theory or practice? If you don't mind, I wonder if you could give an outcome-oriented explanation of the pardoning process. What remains a crime, and for what purposes is an offense that has been pardoned still considered to be an offense?
A pardon removes criminal liability for the act. It does nothing to affect the constitutionality of the act. Constitutional remedies arise due to the violation of a person's constitutional rights, not the level of criminal liability of the person who violated those rights.
Therefore, a pardon has no effect on the ability of a third party to raise a constitutional claim in any context, whether that be a 1983 suit for damages or to seek to have evidence excluded because it was gathered in an unconstitutional manner.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the difference now, thank you. On a topic related to my question, what do you think the outcome of the Guantanamo Bay detainments will be? Perhaps you've commented on the legality of it before, but I have for a long time scratched my head at what the military or the Bush administration believed they were going to accomplish with it. I suppose pragmatically it kept a number of suspects in limbo for a number of years, but what was the endgame to be? What could it ever have been? This is one of the issues that makes me distrust Bush the most- perhaps I missed something, but there never seemed to be anything close to a satisfactory answer to that question.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's really none of your business. I answered out of courtesy, so it wouldn't look like I was ignoring Orincoro.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
None are administration-related. It's not clear if any of the pardoned were still serving prison terms.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're curious where the Citigroup bailout money is coming from, its from the 850-odd (700 for actual bailout, 150 billion senate pork) billion dollar financial bailout from earlier.
quote: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, less than a week after indicating he would let the Obama administration decide how to use the second half of the $700 billion financial fund, is considering asking for the money.
Paulson may ask Congress for the remaining $350 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program as he puts together plans to boost consumer credit. Treasury and Federal Reserve officials are working on an effort to buttress the market for securities backed by auto, student and credit-card loans, Paulson said last week. He’s also assembling an office to address mortgage foreclosures.
...
Paulson has $40 billion left of the first half of the TARP funds, having yesterday agreed to inject $20 billion into Citigroup Inc. He previously committed $250 billion to invest in banks and then brokered a deal providing insurer American International Group Inc. $40 billion.
Paulson sure seems to change his mind a lot, but anyways, that means that Paulson is roughly one more AIG-size financial bailout before running out of money.
The 50% cynical part of me wonders if he made the deal with Citigroup quickly since lawmakers have recently been making noise about transferring away some money from the financial bailout and putting it towards the auto industry.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's really none of your business. I answered out of courtesy, so it wouldn't look like I was ignoring Orincoro.
:intrigued but will politely drop it, hoping at some future date, you may be be willing or able to discuss it:
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I can't make public comments about GTMO. Sorry.
Shadow government judge: We need your advice on this new form of waterboarding which is arguably more awesome than waterboarding. you basically just pour water on them until they stop complaining, or moving. It's tight. I call it "waterboarding II."
Dagonee: Maybe that is perhaps not the best idea. Moreover, it's really not helpful in the war on terrorism. Moreover moreover, it's kind of morally hideous. Moreover.
Shadow government judge: The way you keep using the word moreover makes your comments irrefutable to me, so I must accept your legal counsel. Fine, no more Waterboarding II. But as punishment you cannot speak of any related matter on any internet forum.
Dagonee: ugh.
Shadow government judge: See, you are displeasured. That means I win. Shadow governments always win.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth Vader would have liked Waterboarding II. So would that dentist from Marathon Man. So would 4chan. how could you not?Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Edit - I nearly spat coffee when I read "Waterboarding II: This Time it's Constitutional", by the way]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Cue Samuel L Jackson: "get this @#$@#%@#$@# @#@$@#$@ %#@@#$#@$ %#@# water off this @#$@#$ %@$#@$@#%# @#@#%@@$%!!!! board".
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A judge dismissed indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday and told the southern Texas prosecutor who brought the case to exercise caution as his term in office ends.
Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra had accused Cheney and the other defendants of responsibility for prisoner abuse. The judge's order ended two weeks of sometimes-bizarre court proceedings.
Guerra is leaving office at the end of the month after soundly losing in his March primary election.
"I suggest on behalf of the law that you not present any cases to the grand jury involving these defendants," Administrative Judge Manuel Banales said in court while ruling that eight indictments against Cheney, Gonzales and others were invalid.
He also set a Dec. 10 hearing on whether to disqualify Guerra from those cases.
Even in defeat, Guerra saw the outcome as confirmation of the very conspiracy he had pursued. "I expected it," he said. "The system is going to protect itself."
Banales withheld judgment on whether probable cause existed for the Cheney and Gonzales indictments because they were not represented in court and did not present any argument. For the other defendants, he found no probable cause to support the charges.
There were also some technical reasons for the dismissal:
quote:Banales dismissed all eight indictments because GEO Group attorney Tony Canales showed that two alternate jurors were part of the panel that day but had not been properly substituted.
The most damning part of all of this:
quote:Five of the indictments _ against two district judges, two special prosecutors and the district clerk _ were dismissed because Guerra was the alleged victim, witness and prosecutor. The indictments accused the five of abusing their power by being involved in a previous investigation of Guerra.
This is such a gross violation of conflict of interest rules that I can't imagine how he thought it was legal. Every time I hear more about this guy, he sounds shadier and more paranoid.
***
Can anyone think of a reason this isn't on the front page of the Post web site? The indictments were.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can anyone think of a reason this isn't on the front page of the Post web site? The indictments were.
That's because no one expected this to get any further, so the fact that it didn't get any further isn't news. The logic used to slap the suit down is irrelevant, because everyone knew that some logic would be used to slap it down. Even had he had a solid case, it would never have made it any farther than this; that he had a slipshod case just makes it even less interesting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can anyone think of a reason this isn't on the front page of the Post web site? The indictments were.
There is a simple obvious answer. Papers put things on the front page in order to entice people to buy the paper. Obviously the editors of the Post thought "Cheney indicted" would sell papers and "Cheney aquitted" would not.
No need to resort to some sort of liberal media conspiracy theory.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No need to resort to some sort of liberal media conspiracy theory.
I wasn't.
quote:There is a simple obvious answer. Papers put things on the front page in order to entice people to buy the paper. Obviously the editors of the Post thought "Cheney indicted" would sell papers and "Cheney aquitted" would not.
You're theory is most likely right. It doesn't make me feel any better about the media than a conspiracy theory would, however.
quote:Even had he had a solid case, it would never have made it any farther than this;
I seriously doubt that. Of course, it was obvious he had no solid case from the mere description of the indictments, so there's no real chance to examine this from any basis other than "shoddy case."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The text summarizes most of it, but I can provide a translation on any of the voiceover if people are curious.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
