Someone needs to read the Declaration of Independence
Sound familiar to anyone in the present day? :dubious:
Why? I’m Canadian. 
In the “good old days” the President would use the IRS to do any needed dirty work. The harrassment in and of itself could make a person’s life miserable.
Nowadays, who know, it’s probably just a matter of using the Patriot Act or whispering a name into the ear of someone like Karl Rove.
Based on this post the NSA has probably initiated an investigation of Spartydog.
Eh? Ford pardoned Nixon of any wrongdoing in office even though Nixon hadn’t been indicted, much less convicted. George Bush, Sr. did the same thing for Cap Weinberger.
I think this would make an excellent thread.
(Short answer: No, I wouldn’t. Long answer: Depends.)
You’re right: I should have said accused of a federal crime, not convicted (or indicted).
one may also recall that bobby kennedy had general walker imprisoned in a mental institution because the general was embarrassing the administration, and the attorney general and president were free from legal recriminations for this act.
I noticed that right after posting. OK, you get a pass for not having been brought up on US history. But if someone is going to comment on the subject, a decent respect to the opinions of Dopers requires that they should declare the cites which impel them to the comment.
Bill Clinton hated Ken Starr. Goorge W. Bush hates Michael Moore.
Think Starr or Moore has lost a second’s sleep over it?
Relax
.
That’s the reason I screen my calls. 
Look what happened to Saddam Hussein when Bush got angry with him.
There was a Simpson’s episode revealing that the U.S. President gets one free assasination per term.
Oh, wait, that was in the future when Lisa became president. But I guess that’s where we’re headed, right?
What?!?! You say The Simpsons isn’t a reputable cite?
Yes, though I think there might be a bit more to it than that.
This leads to another way the President can harass someone; by loudly pardoning them of some crime they were never accused of.
“My fellow Americans. I’m addressing the nation tonight on all six networks in order to issue this pardon to John Q. Smith for any crimes he may have committed involving sexual acts with livestock. Smith has never been indicted or convicted of these crimes and, for reasons of national security, I cannot discuss any possible classified intelligence that might indicate any horrifying and unnatural perversions he may have done. So, despicable as all of us may find these actions, I think it’s time for us to move on. I will not be taking any questions.”
Herbert Hoover once suggested (a la The Simpsons) that the President should be able to order not one but three executions during his term, no questions asks, just to keep everyone on their toes.
I think we have to admit that there’s a difference between what the law permits, and what might actually happen in the real world. A determined, conniving President who was mad at you could do lots of things to mess up your life: a fullscale IRS audit (he’d only have to have a henchman make a very detailed but anonymous report about you to the IRS to get the ball rolling), arrest and interrogation on spurious War on Drugs or War on Terrorism grounds, etc., all the way up to ordering a hit on you. Dropping a word with a deferential, eager-to-help state official might lead to investigation for child abuse and removal of your children from the household.
Most presidents are surrounded by aides who are willing and eager to do just about anything to carry out what they perceive to be the wishes of The Big Guy. The possibilities are endless.
Look I am not a Bush basher but alot of the airy talk about rights and what a President can’t/wouldn’t dare do is plain wrong. Right now the law of the land, an appeals court panel has ruled, is that the president has the authority to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant, that is the long and short of it.
Perhaps this will be overturmed by the Supreme Court in 2006 or 07, or perhaps not. But the GQ answer to the OP as of this 11/14/05 is largely what others have already said:
**
He can identify you as an enemy combatant and put you in jail, in theory forever without a hearing or trial.**
I think the most important question is:
Shouldn’t the thread title be “If a U.S. President WERE angry at you…” instead of “was”.
I’ve heard the same story (though about a single execution) about LBJ. The setup, IIRC, was that he and some cronies were sitting around playing poker with the prez made the suggestion. Whereupon an aide asked “Would one be enough?”
LBJ’s supposed topper: “I could get word to a number of people that they were being considered for the honor.”
Hey, it’d work for me.
From the Disinformation archives:
- . . .“Even the US Army got into the act, taping Eleanor Roosevelt having an affair with a US Army Sergeant Joseph Lash in 1943, leading President Franklin Roosevelt to successfully order him out of the country and unsuccessfully into combat. Lash survived the war and wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book about the First Lady.”*
So, the President can order your superiors to put you in the front line to storm the beach. And if you survivie that one, there are more beaches to storm.
Picky picky picky!!!