Yes We Can UnPardon War Criminals

Dear President Elect Obama,

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

criminals in control now. Ignoring them as if they are no big deal, as we have for the last 40 plus years will insure our own destruction as a free country. We are almost there already.

We are, in part, reaping the whirlwind of Clinton's turning a blind eye to the previous administration's illegal acts. The rule of law must be restored and, as I have been led to believe, the Supreme Court has no role here.
I still don't believe a president can grant a pardon to a person who has not been charged with anything, as is being contemplated. There should be no "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

"Even when his father pardoned the Iran-Contra criminals, he was pardoning crimes for which President Reagan, not he himself, held ultimate responsibility."

Nancy Reagan told George Will that her husband knew nothing about it so while David maintains Ronald Reagan was responsible it was really George HW Bush. Who as head of the CIA was already wheeling and dealing with Khomeini before Ronald Reagan even ran for president the first time.

There is so much intertwined at this point that even if Obama were to direct the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation it would go nowhere. Too many people with too many administrations are involved with too much. You all dream of something that will not happen.

Bush doesn't even have to pardon anyone. It is done. Finished. They are above the law. All of them. They all sit at the same table.

But I agree with you that it is just a pipe dream. Never in a million years do I think it will actually become a reality.

Nothing is going to happen to them. They will all walk off into the sunset to enjoy their quadrazillions made off the backs of dead US soldiers and the US taxpayer.

Disgusting and demoralizing, but that is how it is going to be.

I sadly agree with you but determined to fight to the end.

Who knew? That's interesting, though.

Maybe because Scooter Libby was the main guy behind it, I guess...

old slights or forgive old grievances. They exact retribution to the hilt.

We must use the rules of law to exact our justice, but it must be exacted.

Thanks again, David, for raising our awareness.

so far i've seen a few examples of presidential unpardons, but i've never seen the supreme court rule that such a power exists.

to me, the idea that a president, or any subsequent president, can dangle an unpardon over someone's head for the rest of their life is an unconscionable concept.

having said that, if i'm wrong and the power does exist, then by all means obama would be justified in reversing certain expected shrub pardons. not to mention a few of poppy's.

i haven't argued for the power to unpardon normal pardons but for the appropriateness of rejecting blatantly illegal pardons of a sort never before seen

and for self-pardons to be ruled unconstitutional as well, or at least to be recognized and prosecuted for what they are -- acts of obstruction of justice. pardons of those who might otherwise be compelled to testify against the president should be regarded as legal as far as the pardonee is concerned but possibly criminally obstructive on the part of the president to the extent that the intent was to self-immunize from prosecution.


ultimately, though, if unpardons ARE constitutional, then i certainly agree in putting them to good use by reversing dubious or even criminal pardons such as the ones we all expect on shrub's last day in office.

is nothing to "Un." A Presidetial pardon for an offense against a state would be an invalid pardon. A pardon for offenses against the Law of Nation AKA International Law would also be an invalid pardon. The President can only pardon offenses against the United States. A person receiving such pardons wouldn't be "Unpardoned." An overurned Pardon would be like an overturned law. It would be treatd as if it had never exited in the fist place.

after him?

K&R Good to know.

Unpardon the bastard, put him on the bench and assume any "I take the Fifth Amendment" answer is an affirmative.

criminals must be unpunished in their own country in order to be subject to prosecution by the world court.

:shrug:

The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, the People's Republic of China, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

I suspect the decision may be revisited by an Obama administration.....

But if Bush wants to insist that treaties, like the one he signed with Iraq, are binding upon a Presidential signiture alone. Who are we to argue with that at this point in time?

Thank you for this piece....
I've been dangling on a thread of hope, and it was ready to snap.
This bastard & co. has sucked the life out of us, our country, and the world...
Hope.



peace~

From the OP:

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.

Wold more people understood Justice, let alone the Constitution.

... what we should be able to assume is ours without asking -- justice. You've attempted to enlist Obama in our cause because it is the right thing to do.

But you've also used the word "demand." We the People must not let that word slip from our national lexicon.

concedes nothing

I'll spread this around to others. IMO, there's still plenty of time for impeachment. It could be done within a couple days or we could get something like: 1. Cheney steps down for "health reasons." 2. Bush appoints replacement VP. 3. Bush resigns. While a majority of us would say the chances are slim, by the same token, it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

obama is more concerned with "bipartisanship" and "not being ideological" and other such bullshit...

obama has alread proven himself to be a disappointment regarding equality...

Don't get your hopes up - obama will do NOTHING regarding this...

Of this I have no doubt.

but your tibbit of history regarding the "unpardon" is fascinating, to say the least...and I pray it will be so in the case of these WAR CRIMINALS...

I suspect that Obama has already assured Bush that Bush and his co-criminals have nothing to fear.

Of course, this is just the first mistake that Obama will make. He is, after all, just human. But I assure you, if I am correct in my assessment of Obama's situation and the extent of his desire to please, this is the mother of all mistakes.

Remember Clinton and how the right-wingers beat up on him mercilessly with the assistance of the press? The only way to prevent that kind of treatment of Obama is to come down very hard with criminal charges that keep the right-wingers' minds busy.

To restate an old fact, idle minds are the devil's workshop. That is certainly true of fanatic right-wingers. They will create all sorts of problems if allowed pompously to play the holier-than-thou card. They need to be relentlessly reminded of their dastardly deeds and the damage they have done to our country.

I have no problem with making peace and including reasonable people of all political points of view among Obama's counselors and discussion partners. But there is a dangerously partisan group in the Republican Party that would as soon destroy our country as to cooperate with a Democratic president. I hope that Obama recognizes just how vicious that segment of the Republican Party really is.

:+

....pardon of himself and/or Cheney?

The only reason Grant's revocation of the pardon worked was because the pardons hadn't been delivered to those pardoned. IOW, the process of a pardon at the time, issuance and acceptance, was not complete. He also tried to revoke the pardon of another man, but that man had already accepted the pardon so Grant's revocation was void.

All Bush has to do is make sure those he pardons accept their pardons. But even required acceptance is iffy these days. Many of the recipients of Clinton's last-minute pardons never officially accepted theirs. Ford's Nixon pardons were never officially accepted either. But those haven't been challenged in court.

Remember, the president's power to pardon is absolute, except for himself.

pardon is a "blanket" pardon and does not specifically name each person pardoned. And why would anyone formally "accept" a pardon if that person does not feel they have done wrong or does not want to admit to a crime that could later be prosecuted in an international court?

pardons aren't applicable in state courts.

They don't have to admit to any wrong, just accept the amnesty. Amnesty is part of the power of pardon.

As far as international courts, that is a dangerous precedent. We may hope to bring Bush and his thugs to justice, but the same principle will then apply to any future administrations, even ones where we feel an international court is trying to railroad our president. Be very careful of infringements on our sovereignty.

Please see my blog for information about numerous people who were murdered by George W. Bush:

Mark Lombardi (former Bush biographer)

Gary Webb (former Bush biographer)

Danny Casolaro (former Bush biographer)

Jim Hatfield (former Bush biographer)

Bob Stevens (former photo editor at The National Enquirer)

Mel Carnahan (former governor of Missouri)

Paul Wellstone (Jewish former U.S. Senator)

Mike Connell (the Bush IT expert who has been directly implicated in the rigging of George Bush’s 2000 and 2004 elections; he planned to tell all)

Margie Schoedinger (African-American woman who had accused Bush of rape and torture and sought action against Bush prior to her death)

Just type any of the names above into the “SEARCH BLOG” function at my blog, and hit “Enter” to find the relevant information (online research).

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG

http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/

:kick:

nt