If Henry Kissinger can win the Nobel Peace Prize, there's no barrier for a torturer winning the Medal of Freedom.

There is a remedy for the Bush administration perfidy that operates independently of the pardon power. Bush, Cheney, Fredo Gonzales and others can still be impeached even after leaving office.

Paragraph 7 of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. [Emphasis added]

The expiration of the current president's term does not make impeachment moot; the House can still investigate and vote articles of impeachment, with the Senate to determine disqualification from holding federal office in the future.

This is not a mere academic question. After serving as president, John Quincy Adams served in the House of Representatives and William Howard Taft served as Chief Justice of the United States. After serving as vice-president, Richard Nixon served as president and Hubert Humphrey served as a U. S. Senator. Walter Mondale served as Ambassador to Japan and was nominated to run for the Senate from Minnesota when Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash.

Here's hoping that the next Congress will pursue articles of impeachment as to whether President Bush has taken care that the laws be faithfully executed as to electronic surveillance, torture and such other topics as the Congress may deem appropriate.

This makes me want to throw up. Seriously. This is what unmitigated evil looks like.

The M.O.F. stands for "Medal OF Fuck-ups."

If Kristol believe they should be pardoned it logically follows that he obviously also believes torturing was against the law right? After all why need a pardon for something that was legal. Basically Kristol has been advocating for breaking the law for the last few years. Isn't that aiding and abetting? And people should listen to this ass-hat why?

Why can't responsible news outlets (I leave Fox out of this) stop giving this guy "air" time?

It is evil, but it's also a classic negotiating gambit. It's been proven that in a negotiation, the more you ask for, even if it seems outrageous and unrealistic, the more you get. Conservatives know this, and constantly try to set the bar as far to the ridiculous side as possible to start, so that becomes the starting position, and trying to move things back to where they should be becomes the extreme. That's what he's doing here.

I have the impression that the type of commission Obama is proposing is modeled after South Africa's "Peace and Reconciliation Commissions." If so, this is quite different from the usual congressional commissions, and more likely to provide the American Public with the catharsis needed, after Bush, than prosecutions would.

Kristol can't imagine prosecutions happening in the pursuit of justice, but just as partisan revenge. He's a bad bad man.

Apart from service members, which high-level civilian assholes served in good faith?

The Vietnam-era draft-dodging, "national security experts" of questionable patriotism, Wolfowitz and Feith? Or Dick "five draft deferments" who had "other priorities" Cheney? Or maybe John "I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy" Bolton? An abuser of the system, who obtained a National Guard spot to avoid combat, like, er, Dubya(!)

How about Scooter "'Nam is for suckers" Libby? He only outed a CIA agent for the greater good. Was that good the United States of America? I don't think so.

Which lawyers should receive pardons? Desk-riding tough guys kimchi Woo or David Addington?

NO! No! No! No!!

Kristol is, simply put, morally repugnant and as such, no one should spend any time reading or listening to him.

Bred to stand on third base, he could never understand what it is like to actually hit a triple, let alone hit one himself!

And so, his imbecilic observations are there to ignore for all who have the sense to. -Kevo

If Bush does give blanket pardon's to all those involved, that also means that most, if not all, of Congress will be pardoned. After all, they voted on and passed the bills that gave Bush the power to do what he did.

Investigate Congress, along with Bush and his gang of crooks, with open televised hearings, so all American citizens can see just what was done in our names. Then if it warrants it, charge them with whatever crime, and have a fair trial.

If found guilty of treason, immediately a firing squad is formed and carries out the penalty. Otherwise, the maximum sentence for whatever crimes committed, without parole. Plus forfeiture of any and all assets.

After Dubya issues sweeping pardons, we'll have to rethink just how wedded the administration is to the notion that its "torture policies are. . . legal."

What I'd like to know is where in the Constitution it reads that the president can pardon people ex ante. In other words, if a person isn't even indited for a crime, why can he be pardoned before trial and conviction?

Anyone willing to put up a reward for torturing Kristol? Since the PCers cancelled good cartoons on Saturday mornings, there's nothing entertaining to watch.

Once Bush pardons someone, anyone, that person can no longer seek legal protection of their fifth amendment rights relative to the crime for which he/she was pardoned. The question of self-incrimination would be moot, since they were already pardoned.

If Bush does as Kristol says, those pardoned must testify under oath what they know about the crimes committed under the guise of "protecting our freedom".

Bush isn't going to allow that to happen, and Kristol is an idiot for suggesting it. Kristol has proven to be an idiot time after time, so this is no revelation.

So I guess it's perfectly all right with Kristol if a couple of these guys come over to his house and make him and his family form a naked pyramid, punch him around until his head is swollen up like a pumpkin, and then take pictures of each other giving the thumbs-up next to his bloated face. As long as they're acting in good faith, of course. And since anyone could be a terrorist, and the government has to have the tools to investigate without being impeded by frivolous lawsuits and similar poor-sport initiatives, I further assume he's OK with never seeing the "evidence" that caused their attention to focus on the Kristol family.

People like Kristol and Yoo and Rumsfeld are up for anything, as long as it's happening to somebody else. Put tne battery-clamps on Bill's nipples and watch him go through a 5-second perspective-altering experience. What a sociopath.

Who will pardon the pardoner?

In other words, if a person isn't even indited for a crime, why can he be pardoned before trial and conviction?

Because. See Nixon, Richard. Upheld by Supreme Court.

Kristol's proposal makes sense in institutional terms for Republican and neocon practitioners. One of the most salient, but least discussed, features of the Nixon-Reagan-Bush presidencies, is the historical thread binding each scandal to the ones before it. The younger players in Watergate - Cheney, Rumsfeld and others - survived untouched to play more prominent roles in IranContra and Koreagate and come to full flower in the Bush 43 administration. George H.W. Bush was intimately involved in Iran Contra, and as President pardoned Casper Weinberger and other team players. Even Gordon Liddy was allowed to keep a certain fringe respectability through the years and survive to give public support to assassination of politicians like Obama. And it goes without saying that the dirty tricksters in the 70's - Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, et al - became the bigtime political scofflaws of the 90's and 00's. If Republicans cut off their young badasses at the knees, how will they survive to become major players in the political-criminal enterprises of the future?

These bozos remind me of the treehouse club formed by Calvin and Hobbes, without the funny parts, of course. Whenever one of their schemes would go horribly sideways, it was medals and promotions for everyone.

The legal/constitutional issues posed by one president giving out Medals of Freedom while a subsequent administration investigates/indicts the medal winners for war crimes etc., is a delicious prospect. Perhaps there will be no more Medal of Freedom winners, as no one will want to receive one.

The decline and fall of American government began when Nixon didn't go behind bars.

That set the stage for Reagan escaping prosecution, and now it looks like Bush II will also walk away scott free.

Tragic.

Someone should waterboard that grouper-faced git. Then he can have his torturers pardoned.

This 'Dainty" is the most irritating excuse finder for the Bush corruption around. He would have us believe there was just one incident of torture or one incident of illegal wire tapping and these should be rewarded as absolutely necessary in the war on terror. We should decorate his office with the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the lawsuits from renditions for starters.

Like giving out the Medal of Honor to everyone who dawns a uniform would diminish it's meaning, the Medal of Freedom winners from Bush have diminished the honor of receiving the award. It's almost an embarrassment now to receive one from Bush.
Knowing their "enhanced interrogation" techniques constituted torture, this administration set about after the fact to get legal opinions to use as justification to cover their butts for what they clearly knew to be illegal.

Now that is Kristol's area of expertise...covering asses... by taking an extreme position like rewarding criminal behavior to make it seem heroic. Kristol has earned the reputation of always being wrong while being sneaky about it as if there were an ulterior motive behind his actions besides stupidity. Pure cocktail fodder for condescending assholes.

John in Nashville @ 11:20,

You make a very interesting point. I hope this idea catches on.

As for Bush issuing pardons. I hope he breaks from his usual habit of being a spiteful and cowardly bastard and issues pardons from a blunderbuss. The result would certainly generate more public information about the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremities than a whole six-pack of milk-toast Truth and Trust Commissions run by a bunch of (spit) congressmen. And it might well lead to the impeachment and prosecution of Retired Fraternity Boy himself. I can't wait.

I voted for Obama, and I don't get all this lurve for him. His supporters, like his detractors, are projecting like crazy and making him out to be someone who, well, someone we have no idea who he will turn out to be.

I don't want to see a 9/11-type of commission investigating Bush. I want a special prosecutor. The 9/11 Commission was a farce, a cover-up, like the Iran-Contra commission before it. It's long past the time we need to throw open the doors, windows, and filing cabinets of the last thirty years of presidential administration and find out exactly what's been done by all of these people, in our names.

pardons for those involved might lead some to think the policies weren't legal.

BING-O!

If criminal Republicans and traitorous conservatives are not held accountable and punished now for their acts of treason over the past eight years, then what will stop criminal Republicans and traitorous conservatives from committing similar acts of treason against our country, our Constitution, against our nation's children, in the future?

William "The Bloody" Kristol no doubt hopes for a Medal of Freedom for himself, since he is one of the ringleaders of the right-wing cabal who believe that it is not treasonous as long as a Republican does it, like their outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, their starting a war based on lies, their bypassing the FISA court to illegally spy on U.S. citizens, their sinking our nation's economy due to their deregulatory greed, their stealing of elections, their trashing of the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all in pursuit of their deranged goal of establishing a permanent, totalitarian, monopolistic, elitist, uncontestable Republican majority, with tinges of religious fanaticism and racism thrown in.

Either President Barack Obama takes seriously his oath of office on January 20th and diligently seeks to root out and expose all the crimes committed over the preceding eight years, and punish those criminal Republicans and traitorous conservatives most responsible, or these same people will show up again down the road, just like after Nixon and Watergate, Reagan/Bush I and Iran-Contra, with these sociopathic psychopathic conservatives figuring that they can do exactly what they did before because no one raised a fuss and punished them.

If President Barack Obama wants to see his own children face this recurrent Republican/conservative madness in the future, then he will let these Republican/conservative madmen get away with it.

If he cares about his children, our nation's children, and the children of the world, and honors his solemn oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, then President Barack Obama will not wait for Congress to do something, but will have his Attorney General choose a Special Prosecutor, with full investigatory and subpoena powers, someone independent like Jonathan Turley, with impeccable credentials, who will see that justice is done.

Otherwise, ten to twenty years from now (or even sooner) our nation will endure another round of criminal acts by criminal Republicans, many of whom no doubt will be traitorous alumni of the Bush/Cheney years.

Wednesday, I saw a middle aged woman pull a copy of The Weekly Standard off the local Barnes & Noble magazine rack and pay for it. It was all I could do to hold back from saying something like "I never knew who read that crap" or "You know that rag is total propaganda, don't you?" I kept quiet, "respecting" her choice.

Weekly Standard? OK. I see how he gets his idiocy printed there. However, I never understand how Kristol still gets an audience in any other media. He's so wrong all the time. His whole life seems based on inaccurate history, deliberate falsity, unsustainable deduction, and constantly inaccurate prognostication. You'd think he'd be spending so much time at the shrink he wouldn't get words to print. Let alone appear anywhere else.

Ignore him.

I vote with The Oracle. Sweeping this problem under the carpet does our future no service.

Republicans have been on a curve. Nixon-Watergate. Reagan-Iran/Contra and more. George W. Bush = secret energy policy, illegal war, illegal rendering, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, detention without end with no charge, corruption of the Constitution of the United States, illegal wire/net-tapping, god knows what else.

Put it under investigation. Give it public scrutiny. Make it a public debate. And if prosecution is needed, then do it.

The United States is so much better than these last 8 years, and that is what the whole world is looking to.

I think president Obama should consider retiring the Medal of Freedom in disgrace. He should explicitly employ another form of recognition in its place to emphasize how its use by the Bush Administration has so debased it that it's no longer possible to consider it an honor.

To John in Nashville, who said,

Paragraph 7 of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution states:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. [Emphasis added]

Dammit! I hit the button too early!

I meant to praise John in Nashville for pointing that out, that there are TWO punishments.

But I also point out and emphasize that the OTHER part of the paragraph is important, too:

but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

William Clinton lost his law license for five years, as part of the terms of his perjury trial for which he was impeached. This was a criminal indictment.

per Wikipedia:

President Clinton was held in contempt of court by judge Susan D. Webber Wright. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas and later by the United States Supreme Court. He was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony.

Bush will be indictable for War Crimes for the rest of his wife, as will be Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo, Gonzo, and the generals who commanded Abu Ghraib and Gitmo according to law. All it will take is for someone to press charges, a DA to run with it, and a Grand Jury to indict him/them.

.

I have given it some thought over a fairly extended period of time, this thing about preemptive pardons.

I am not a lawyer, but I do think I have a fair understanding of it all.

After thinking so much about it, I think preemptive pardons - including the one given to Richard Nixon - are something that needs to be clarified in the courts. I think a fairly string case can be made that the pertinent passage in the Constitution does not explicitly give the President the power to give pardons for offenses not already adjudicated in a court of law.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Now, there are two approaches to this:

1. The argument can be made that the offenses are not offenses until proven in a court of law. Until that time they are only allegations. For example, the courts ruled long ago that defendants may not be referred to in court as "murderers," "thieves", etc. They only become so after the court has found them guilty. THIS IS CLEARLY IS FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE, and should be brought before the courts for them to make a determination, one way or another. THIS IS FREAKING IMPORTANT. If I WAS a lawyer, I would be researching the HELL out of this.

2. Even if that argument does not hold sway, as John of Nashville says, they are still subject to impeachment, with two aims: that they never be allowed to fill a government post again, and that the facts be brought out in SOME legal proceeding. And make no mistake, an impeachment IS a legal proceeding.

.

JC Hammer:

If Bush does give blanket pardon's to all those involved, that also means that most, if not all, of Congress will be pardoned. After all, they voted on and passed the bills that gave Bush the power to do what he did.

Investigate Congress, along with Bush and his gang of crooks, with open televised hearings, so all American citizens can see just what was done in our names. Then if it warrants it, charge them with whatever crime, and have a fair trial.

If found guilty of treason, immediately a firing squad is formed and carries out the penalty. Otherwise, the maximum sentence for whatever crimes committed, without parole. Plus forfeiture of any and all assets.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that anyone outside the very top people in Congress were given any access to the real story on most of these issues. Even those who were allowed to see ANYTHING, I seriously doubt they got to see the whole story.

The rest of Congress was flying blind. And the GOP was in the majority while most - if not all - those votes were taken, about those programs, so DON"T FREAKING BLAME "CONGRESS" IN TOTO FOR RUBBER STAMPING THOSE PROGRAMS. The Dems had ZERO say in ANY of it. Do you forget how they had to fight to even SEE some of the documents, and then weren't even allowed to take notes? And what in the HELL makes you think BushCo showed them the whole story? If you do, there IS a bridge in Brooklyn we have on sale, just for you...

Now, could the Dems have fought harder,dug in their heels? Sure. I was one of them yelling loudest about their caving in, time after time, bending over - and over - and over.

But don't blame the Dems in Congress, and don't blame Congress as a whole, as if the 2001-2005 Congresses were the same as the 2005-2009 ones.

Yes, they should have had more backbone. But it is a LONG way from being weak to being complicit.

.