Did Bush pardon himself for war crimes?

[XT]

Congress? Isn’t that what impeachment would do? The President can be removed from office and prosecuted under certain circumstances. Or why did Nixon resign? And why did Ford have to pardon him??

-XT

[Shodan]

@John Mace

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.

I thought the finding in that case was that the military tribunal, or whatever it was, had to be set up by Congress and not the President. Was that what was addressed by whatever bill Cafferty was talking about?

Cafferty seems to be claiming that Bush et al. were in trouble because they were torturing Gitmo prisoners. At least, that is what he seems to be claiming when he says -

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.

But Hamdan didn’t say anything about torture, and none of the bills that I could find that passed Congress in Oct 2006 were designed to pardon anybody for use of torture.

xtisme -

I don’t think a President can pardon himself to avoid impeachment. But Congress’ power of impeachment is limited to removal from office. A pardon extends beyond that, to make it impossible to impose any criminal penalties on a President after leaving office.

I imagine that Nixon did not believe that he could pardon himself, which is why Ford did it. Even if Nixon had pardoned himself, this would not have prevented the almost certain impeachment and removal from office that was to come.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

I thought the finding in that case was that the military tribunal, or whatever it was, had to be set up by Congress and not the President.

That was part of it. My reading of the decision (and I could very well be wrong since IANAL) was that the original bill, as written, implied that they were covered by the GCs because of references to laws of wars and wording like that. They also ruled, however, that the GCs had been complied with, and that the president was a “competent authority” to decide whether the detainees were POWs or not.

It does seem, though, that they left the door open to say that Congress could explicitly exclude them from coverage legislatively.

[Richard_Parker]

Cafferty is talking about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which amends the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 such that Title 18 Sec. 2441 (the War Crimes Statute mentioned above) won’t apply to people who thought (wrongly) they were following the law.

[Gfactor]

@Shodan

I don’t think a President can pardon himself to avoid impeachment.

That’s explicit in the Constitution:

The President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, **except in Cases of Impeachment. **

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/articles.html

Even if Nixon had pardoned himself, this would not have prevented the almost certain impeachment and removal from office that was to come.

And pardoning himself would be risky. If he was wrong about it, he might not find out in time for Ford to pardon him.

[Lemur866]

The pardon vs. impeachment thing is moot anyway, since an impeachment merely removes the impeached official from office. Impeachment can only remove the official, any other punishment must be undertaken through the regular legal system.

[alphaboi867]

If Bush (or any President) pardoned himself then he’d never be able to plead the Fifth Amendment if he was ever called before a Congressional committee or grand jury. The onlyway he could (legally) refuse to answer a question would be on grounds of nation security, but that wouldn’t fly in camera.

[Little_Nemo]

If I’m following the discussion here correctly, the use of the word “pardon” in the title is misleading. Bush is not attempting to give himself a Presidential pardon. What it appears is being claimed is that a law has being proposed which would prohibit the United States from prosecuting government representatives (which would include Bush) for some acts which otherwise might be illegal under existing laws.

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

The pardon vs. impeachment thing is moot anyway, since an impeachment merely removes the impeached official from office. Impeachment can only remove the official, any other punishment must be undertaken through the regular legal system.

An impeachment doesn’t remove the official from office. Clinton was impeached. The removal from office after impeachment is a separate act. I’m sure you know that, but your first sentence is unclear.