 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 27, 2008 at 15:42:01
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 12/28/08: by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
4
3
1
On his third day in office President Grant revoked two pardons that had been granted by President Andrew Johnson. President Nixon also undid a pardon that had been granted by President Lyndon Johnson. There may be other examples of this, as these two have somewhat accidentally come up in a discussion focused on numerous examples of presidents undoing pardons that they had themselves granted, something the current president did last week. (See http://pardonpower.com ). In 2001, President George W. Bush's lawyers advised him that he could undo a pardon that President Clinton had granted.
Much of the discussion of this history of revoking pardons deals with the question of whether a pardon can still be revoked after actually reaching the hands of the pardonee, or after various other obscure lines are crossed in the process of issuing and enforcing of the pardon. If President Bush issues blanket pardons to dozens of criminals in his administration for crimes that he himself authorized, he will probably -- with the exception of Libby -- not even name them, much less initiate any processes through which they are each formally notified of the pardons. He will be pardoning people of crimes they have not yet been charged with, so the question of timing is something you are unlikely to have to worry about (except perhaps with Libby).
Virtually none of the discussion of these matters ever addresses the appropriateness or legitimacy of the pardons involved or of the revoking of them. The history would appear to establish that you will have the power to revoke Bush's pardons. I want to stress that you will also have a moral responsibility to do so and a legal requirement to do so. Morally and legally, you have no choice in this matter. When you take the oath of office, you will be promising to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Through Article VI of our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are the supreme laws of this land. Those laws bind you to prosecute violations, including torture and other war crimes of which Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates are guilty and which Bush is likely to try to pardon.
Bush's pardons will not be like other past pardons. Even when his father pardoned the Iran-Contra criminals, he was pardoning crimes for which President Reagan, not he himself, held ultimate responsibility. Here we are facing the unprecedented outrage of a president pardoning crimes that he openly admits having authorized. The closest thing to this in U.S. history thus far has been Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, to which he is expected to add a pardon. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in an investigation that was headed to the president. Evidence introduced in the trial, including a hand-written note by the vice president, implicated Bush, and former Press Secretary Scott McClellan has since testified that Bush authorized the exposure of an undercover agent, that being the crime that was under investigation.
The idea that the pardon power constitutionally includes such pardons ignores a thousand year tradition in which no man can sit in judgment of himself, and the fact that James Madison and George Mason argued that the reason we needed the impeachment power was that a president might some day try to pardon someone for a crime that he himself was involved in. If impeachment was created to handle the abuse of pardoning a crime the president was himself involved with, how can we imagine that the pardon power legitimizes such abuse, much less the pardoning of crimes authorized by the president, much less the pardoning of obstruction of an investigation into a crime committed by the president? In fact, all such pardons are themselves obstruction of justice, as well as violations of treaties requiring the president to prosecute the types of crimes involved.
The problem is not preemptive pardons of people not yet tried and convicted. The problem is not blanket pardons of unnamed masses of people. Both of those types of pardons have been issued in the past and have their appropriate place. The problem is the complete elimination of any semblance of the rule of law if Bush pardons his subordinates for crimes he instructed or authorized them to commit. We elected you to restore the rule of law, and you will soon have the opportunity to either do so or to place a final nail in its coffin. Bush is likely to attempt to pardon torture, warrantless spying, all sorts of war crimes, fraud and aggressive war, and the various abuses of the politicized Justice Department.
We will call on the courts to challenge these pardons and on Congress to reject them. We will demand that Congress reject any nominee for attorney general who accepts such pardons as legitimate. But we are also asking you for leadership. We've elected you for it. We strongly encourage you to uphold your oath of office and faithfully execute the laws, not the illegal decrees of your criminal predecessor. If you do this for us, if you help ensure that government of, by, and for the people does not indeed perish from the earth, we will commit to working with you in the years ahead as you advance the eternal project of improving our democracy.
In Solidarity,
David Swanson
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 10 comments |
|
Thank you!
Thank you for raising an important issue. Witout appropriate action to deal with the pervasive crimes committed by the highest officers of our government during the last 8 years, our Republic will not survive. It will thus be the paramount mission of the new Obama presidency to undo the past crimes. It will be a serious mistake to think that national reconciliation requires to gloss over the past. by Nathan Nahm (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 144 comments [61 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:33:06 PM  (0+)
|
|
We will soon know
If the "change" we seek is the same as the "change" we voted for. Thank you for pointing out the historical precedent. by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Respecting the Office of President
Well-reasoned and presented, your article reminds me of what Harry Truman said after firing General MacArthur. Truman could abide the personal insult, but not to the one directed at the Office of President. The would-be dictator degraded the Office and spat on the Constitution. Unless he is punished for these insults, we will never again stand as a free people. by Jason Paz (68 articles, 88 quicklinks, 112 diaries, 1387 comments [97 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 7:03:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Bush's unpardonable gang of miscreants
I find it difficult to respect the office when the office holder is an unconscionable anal sphincter. Bush claims he didn’t compromise his soul, but that is meaningless. If anything, he probably sold it when he was the Texecutioner mocking those he had executed, whether or not they were guilty of a crime. Conservative estimates have his not guilty execution rate at 10%, and the executions were possibly his favorite part of being governor. He enjoys seeing people die, which is the sign of a truly sick mind. by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 314 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: SOUL?
There is no soul but a soiled one in the body of people in the Bush administration who have so foully corrupted our country, our Constitution, our democracy. I'm thankful to you, David, for pointing out the historical precedents in undoing pardons made by previous presidents, because if the U.S. Congress does not pass HR 1531 to ban the Bush blanket pardons that we're all expecting, our country will be facing MORE than just the task of getting President Obama to overthrow of these pardons; we will be facing, once again, a U.S. Congress that refuses to do its duty: to fearlessly represent the will of the majority of its people and to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The "soulless" Nancy Pelosi rides the rail, a Democrat holding the nail that will forever close the coffin and bury our democracy if she does not call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Recently, Cheney admitted that he condoned torture and had a hand in the outing of Valerie Plame. There are plans to close Gitmo BEFORE Obama takes office. This is no surprise, mind you, but we are not stupid, blind, or deaf; we have been fighting in the trenches of this democracy war for nearly eight years. So we know that these admissions are uttered, these actions are being taken, to set up Cheney's and others' pardons. If people admit to crimes, they will have something to be pardoned for, no? Well, we will not stop fighting for accountability from top to bottom of the Bush/Cheney administration, pardons or not, even AFTER they are no longer in "power," for theirs has been a raw and fleeting power bound only in fear and immorality and hubric amorality, the utter lack of any good soul. Thanks for your ongoing efforts, David, and all. Especially, thanks for having the courage to continue to throw your own kind of "shoes!" Nan by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:56:14 PM (0+)
|
|
David Swanson Suffers From
BPDS. Battered Progressive Democrat Syndrome. Oh he told me he would CHANGE. He told me it was CHANGE I COULD BELIEVE IN. He told me I could have HOPE, that he would CHANGE. Maybe it's my fault that he does this. maybe I just ask too much. Put him under so much pressure. I can't leave him, after all I need the money (and grant funding) that he and his friends give me. I know. I'll sit down and write a strongly worded letter about what I want. I know, he won't read it but hey, it just may help lift my battered self esteem. It will make ME feel better. So what if he is beating others. So what if he is assisting other bullies and batterers. All those who left their abusers because their conscience could not take it, well they just don't understand. I need the money, grants and foundations. Anyway, he will CHANGE. I know it. He is just pretending to be an abuser. He will CHANGE because I LOVE HIM. I can CHANGE him. Myself and my other friends in PDA. Who also suffer from BPDS. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:53:39 PM (0+)
|
|
In Other Words
Nice letters about what Obama and Co SHOULD DO is not dealing with the reality of what HE WILL DO. Mr Swanson, all of our experiences on Impeachment has taught us all what that is. Stop pretending otherwise and stop leading others astray on what that reality is.. Yes We Can Si Se Puede We Support Wars Yes We Can We'll Support Wars Of Obama Man Si Se Puede by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:58:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Marbury v Madison
Mr Swanson wrote: If President Bush issues blanket pardons to dozens of criminals in his administration for crimes that he himself authorized, he will probably -- with the exception of Libby -- not even name them, much less initiate any processes through which they are each formally notified of the pardons. He will be pardoning people of crimes they have not yet been charged with, so the question of timing is something you are unlikely to have to worry about (except perhaps with Libby). This is ridiculous. The presidential pardon power is one specific to an individual; President Bush couldn't issue a blanket pardon for anything without naming the person or persons to receive the pardon. The only pardons which have been "undone" are those in which the pardon paperwork had not been delivered to the recipient. The controling case is the very old Marbury v Madison, decided back in 1803, though that case didn't concern pardons directly, but the order of President Jefferson not to deliver a late commission issued by President Adams. The commissiopns which were delivered were valid. The only way such pardons -- pardons which you are still assuming will be issued -- could be made is if specific people were named and the pardons actually delivered to them. by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:31:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Blanket pardoms
All those who sought asylum in Canada from being drafted to fight in Viet Nahm were blanket pardoned after the war. by Arthur M. Howard-Scotoni (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:43:16 AM (0+)
|
|
i'm still unclear.
can a person be pardoned who hasn't been charged with a crime? can a president pardon a person charged under state law? by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (1) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
