Did Bush pardon himself for war crimes?

[gitfiddle]

I just saw this video. I did some searches to actually find the legislation, but since no title of the actual legislation is given nor are there any direct quotes, I can’t find it. Most of the things I find are quoting the claims Cafferty makes in the video.

So, is this true? Can anyone find the actual legislation?

[XT]

What war crimes would he need to pardon himself for? Has anyone brought actual charges against Bush that he would need to pardon himself for?

I seriously doubt a President could pre-pardon himself from any crime while he was in office. If they could all do that then they would do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to and simply hand wave it away with a pardon before leaving office…if they even bothered to leave office at all (couldn’t you just pre-pardon yourself for declaring yourself King of America and ruling for life?).

I couldn’t get the video to work…but I’m at work so it might be hanging up on the firewall.

-XT

[John_Mace]

Your link doesn’t work for me, so I could be wrong… but, I’m pretty sure there was legislation saying that no one could be prosecuted for actions taken wrt torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques” prior to the passage of the (supposedly) anti-torture bill last year.

But I doubt that a president can “pardon” himself. Besides, who is going to prosecute a US president for war crimes in the US? No one. For one thing, if they go after Bush, you could make a case for going after Clinton. And it will never stop. The idea that Bush is under any danger of being prosecuted for war crimes is a left-wing fantasy of the highest order.

[Shodan]

The only thing I could find is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but it doesn’t seem to say much about pardoning the President for anything.

The comments claim the video is from Oct 2006. Maybe it is about something else. McCafferty is hardly a legal scholar, so perhaps his interpretation of what was passed is not quite definitive.

Regards,
Shodan

[yojimbo]

This seems to be the Act.

American Service-Members' Protection Act

It doesn’t “pardon” but it removes the possibility of prosecution from what I can see from the video.

[AskNott]

The link worked for me. It brought up a Cafferty Files piece, introduced by Wolf Blitzer. It’s from October of 2006, and it describes a bill that would retroactively let off the hook anyone who violated the Geneva conventions on torture, and anyone who ordered it done.

Make of it what you will. At the time, Mr. Bush had a rubber stamp congress.

[Mr.Moto]

@yojimbo

This seems to be the Act.

American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia

It doesn’t “pardon” but it removes the possibility of prosecution from what I can see from the video.

That act is from 2002. The timelines don’t match at all.

[gitfiddle]

For those of you who can’t access the video, here’s what Cafferty says:

Yes, I don’t know, Wolf. If war breaks out between Pakistan and Afghanistan, you know, you may have some guys coming by andknocking on your door asking for transcripts.

Ordinarily, we don’t do a question two days in a row, but this is important enough to be an exception. The House just passed President Bush’s bill to redefine the treatment of detainees, and the Senate’s expected to do the same thing tomorrow. Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001.

At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford to do his dirty work. President Bush is trying to pardon himself.

Here’s the deal.

Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death.

When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution, they’re trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week when Congress adjourns. The reason there’s such a rush to do this, if the Democrats get control of the House in November, well, this kind of legislation probably wouldn’t pass.

You want to know the real disgrace of what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don’t see anything wrong with this.

I really do wonder sometimes what we’re becoming in this country. The question is this: Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for possible war crimes?

E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@ CNN.com or go to CNN.

[Mr.Moto]

@AskNott

The link worked for me. It brought up a Cafferty Files piece, introduced by Wolf Blitzer. It’s from October of 2006, and it describes a bill that would retroactively let off the hook anyone who violated the Geneva conventions on torture, and anyone who ordered it done.

Make of it what you will. At the time, Mr. Bush had a rubber stamp congress.

At all times, Jack Cafferty is a jabbering idiot. So I don’t know without having an act to actually read what to make of what.

[XT]

From gitfiddle’s link:

Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death.

Does anyone have a cite for that? What the hell is he talking about?

When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble.

When did this happen? Did I miss this? I don’t remember the SC ruling on this at all…I thought they ruled on something else.

-XT

[yojimbo]

@Mr. Moto

That act is from 2002. The timelines don’t match at all.

I just got it from the comments section. You’re right though they don’t.

[Shodan]

Do we even know when the Cafferty video was recorded? He speaks of the act as not yet having passed the Senate, and that Bush is trying to hurry because the Dems might take over Congress “in November”. So that sounds like Oct 2006, as advertised.

Might he be talking about an appropriations bill? I would hate to think that he is making this up, or talking about some bill that had been law for four years as if it were still pending before Congress.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

When did this happen? Did I miss this? I don’t remember the SC ruling on this at all…I thought they ruled on something else.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that the military commissions set up for the Guantanamo detainees violated Article 3 of the Third GC. That was not the only reason the court declared the commissions, as set up, were improper, but it was one reason.

[XT]

Why/how would ‘Bush and his boys’ be in big trouble from that ruling? AFAIK there has been no serious attempt to bring Bush or any other high level official of the Bush Administration up on charges wrt war crimes.

-XT

[Richard_Parker]

@xtisme

Does anyone have a cite for that? What the hell is he talking about?

Title 18 Sec. 2441:

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
© Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

Why/how would ‘Bush and his boys’ be in big trouble from that ruling? AFAIK there has been no serious attempt to bring Bush or any other high level official of the Bush Administration up on charges wrt war crimes.

I didn’t said they would be. I just answered your question about the SCOTUS ruling.

It is conceivable, though, that some of the CIA interrogators could be vulnerable sometime in the future. Not Bush, but some of the lower level guys. We don’t know the details about what was done and where, so it’s hard to say what their vulnerability would be.

[Richard_Parker]

Note about my above post: I bolded the wrong definition section, but that is the statute Cafferty was referring to.

[John_Mace]

@Richard Parker

Note about my above post: I bolded the wrong definition section, but that is the statute Cafferty was referring to.

That’s OK. We’ll make sure you’re not tried as a war criminal for that!

[alphaboi867]

@John Mace

…But I doubt that a president can “pardon” himself…

Actually yes, he can pardon himself, but only for stuff he did before the pardon. So if he is really planning on doing it he’ll wait until the morning of Januar 20th, 2009. The constitution grants the President unlimited power to pardon someone for federal crimes except in cases of impeachment, but all that limitation means is that he can’t prevent Congress from removing an officer (or himself) from office. He can still prevent any prosecution in a normal court from occuring.

[Gfactor]

@John Mace

But I doubt that a president can “pardon” himself.

Another issue raised by the conviction of a sitting president is pardon. Can the president pardon himself? Once again, there is no clear answer in the Constitution. Amar says a sitting president cannot pardon himself; ex-White House counsel John Dean says, in effect, “why not?”

While no president has ever pardoned himself, the law supports the president’s authority to do so. Scholarly inquiry into the subject was provoked first by fear that Richard Nixon would pardon himself to escape Watergate; later by thought that George H. W. Bush would do so because of the Iran-Contra grand jury; and most recently by concern about Bill Clinton’s problem of a possible post-Presidency indictment and trial. And while a few scholars have concluded that the president cannot pardon himself, many more believe that he can.

Who has the power to arrest the president?