Bush pardons self from war crimes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6QpMeaq4Y

 

What Caused 9/11 (see description)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhyyYefB4xg

 

IMO Bush should not be excuses from his actions and disisions.

 

Because:

 

In the end a leader of an country is responsible for everything that happens to and from that country.

This was a couple of years ago. Can you tell us if the bill passed the Senate? Even better, if it passed, can you tell us who voted for it?

This is disappointingly Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken-level material for this board.

 

I think it's wrong to hold Bush responsible for "everything that happens to and from that country" -- that's not a reasonable or useful standard. Hold him accountable for his decisions, actions and reactions, yes.

 

I guess the question of the pardon issue is valid grounds for discussion, but as far as "war crimes" are concerned, the issue is a complete non-starter. Show me an objective arbiter of such a thing, and we'll talk. Otherwise it's just partisan fodder, and not a serious subject for discussion.

Does a president have the lawful ability to pardon themself? Don't they have to wait until they are no longer president and hope that the next one pardons them?

I think it's wrong to hold Bush responsible for "everything that happens to and from that country" -- that's not a reasonable or useful standard. Hold him accountable for his decisions, actions and reactions, yes.

I agree. No one would take the job if that were the case.

 

I guess the question of the pardon issue is valid grounds for discussion, but as far as "war crimes" are concerned, the issue is a complete non-starter.

The administration did a lot of effective demonizing prior to the invasions (not that they needed much help). Whether it was their intention all along to torture prisoners or whether they just reasoned that Al Qaeda fell outside the GC definition of what a prisoner was, they acted as they did and they should have stood by their decisions instead of pardoning themselves on the sly like this.

If they did. I'm still waiting to hear. All I've heard so far is an allegation that they made an attempt to do so. It sounds like something that happened in January, but I couldn't Google up anything more recent on it.

 

But why is this being called SELF-pardon? Why does the speaker in Blade's video say Bush is trying to pardon himself when this is a bill before congress? Pardons aren't a matter of law, they're PARDONS. The president signs them and with the stroke of a pen that person is off the hook. This is a LAW, which means over 500 representatives of the people will debate the issue and sign off on it, or not. Self-pardon my ass.

 

Typical media nonsense and typical hit-and-run partisan posting. Blade has returned to this board since every post above this one was made, and yet has not replied. This is not DemocraticUnderground.com or MoveOn.org. Opinions are fine, but the subject of this thread is a bald statement that is not backed up by the post.

 

Frankly it's embarassing, and I think we're better than this sort of thing.

So how's about Bush insisting we pardon the telcos for their crimes? With an ex post facto law, as it were... that's a great reason to veto!

when news comes from CNN, i trust it.

 

CNN alway's have real journalists without an agenda.

when news comes from CNN, i trust it.

 

CNN alway's have real journalists without an agenda.

 

You might be interested in assessing the following link:

http://www.cnnexposed.com/why.php

You might be interested in assessing the following link:

http://www.cnnexposed.com/why.php

 

lolz at the link on the cnnexposed website

http://www.csmonitor.com/usa/index.html

 

and the guardian lol.

 

as far as news goes

 

BBC world news and the CNN world news are the best and most trust worthy.

But why is this being called SELF-pardon? Why does the speaker in Blade's video say Bush is trying to pardon himself when this is a bill before congress? Pardons aren't a matter of law, they're PARDONS. The president signs them and with the stroke of a pen that person is off the hook. This is a LAW, which means over 500 representatives of the people will debate the issue and sign off on it, or not. Self-pardon my ass.

I agree the terminology is all wrong. This is a case where the administration did something on an assumption that it was legal and now that the assumption proved wrong, they're trying to pass a law to cover themselves. It is NOT a pardon.

 

I wish we knew the outcome but I didn't find where that bill passed. I still think there would be no problem admitting that they acted on bad information and by the time it was pointed out, they'd already done the deed. Hell, they did the same thing with the whole Iraq invasion, why wouldn't we forgive them a little torture?

Did you actually visit the page Blade, or did the sensationalist title put you off? I don't agree with how they propose to tackle the problems they mention, but I do think there are problems with the conglomeration of news media. Also, I think you were being a little quick embracing CNN as some sort of "holy grail" of unbiased media, as I think that is pretty far from the truth.

 

I don't even have a problem with news media being owned by a few companes as long as there is no chance for intervention by the government into their businesss. This reduces their incentive to "meddle", and politicise the news.

 

PS: Sorry for digressing to this issue, I know I should probably start a standalone thread if I want to discuss this issue more.

Ok, so you're a corporate news junkie. That's fine, but don't pretend a corporate business who's legal obligation is to profit for investors, just like AT&T, Wal-Mart and etc are trust worthy news folk. They are trust worthy profiteers, as that's their mission for their business.

when it comes to world news it's diffrent.

 

there are laws that prevent biased reporting.

The bill is called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and according to the Center for Constitutional rights:

 

The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.

. . . .

This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the "war on terror" from prosecution.

when it comes to world news it's diffrent.

 

there are laws that prevent biased reporting.

No. Any such law would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.

 

Edit: Good thing for the people at Weekly World News that no such law exists.

No. Any such law would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.

 

Edit: Good thing for the people at Weekly World News that no such law exists.

 

as far aas i can see that never spread byond anmrica on telivision.

 

and where i am from there is no such thing as the first amendment

when news comes from CNN, i trust it.

 

CNN alway's have real journalists without an agenda.

 

Plus they look SO good in high definition (CNN HD). That's important. If they're also accurate, well, all the better!

 

=============

 

Mod Note: Just a little heads up, this thread has prompted a discussion in leadership, and we will be pruning or "civilizing" mud-dwelling partisan threads like this one during the upcoming months as we move into what I predict will be a heavy Bush-bashing period. Threads like this one (cheesy, unsubstantiated, unbacked partisanship), the "betray-us" name slur in another thread, won't be tolerated. By all means Bush criticism will be allowed, but the level of discourse WILL be kept at the normal, high level we're accustomed to here at SFN.