WHOZITREPORT Special Report. by whozit

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

WHOZITREPORT Special Report.

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Thursday, November 27, 2008 17:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1702
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:40 AM

Today in a Rose Garden speech, President Bush stated that there would be no more pardons granted for the remainder of his administration. After he finished the statement he walked over to "Pumpkin", the Whitehouse turkey and shot it. People were shocked because the President was suppose to pardon the bird. Wittness's say the President was giggling when he pulled the trigger. www.whozitreport.bs

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:48 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Must we really wait until 2010 to be freed from the Whozit report menace?

-Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:55 AM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Must we really wait until 2010 to be freed from the Whozit report menace?

-Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

COOL! I'm a menace! I thought I was just a pain in the ass.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:59 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

On a serious note tho, does it really make sense that the president has the power of full pardon? Every admin does the same thing, dole out the 11th hour pardons to politically influnential scumballs.

Clinton pardoned that scuz Mark Rich as he was packing his things in the White house to leave. Bush will do the same thing for R cronies.

I've often thought that this presidental power should be amended such that the president determined if someone should be pardoned...if so he presents his recommendtion before Congress. THAT would end the sillyness in a heartbeat.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:04 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I never did understand the purpose behind the pardons. Was it a custom of the age? What did the framers see the usefulness of the pardon to be?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:05 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
On a serious note tho, does it really make sense that the president has the power of full pardon? Every admin does the same thing, dole out the 11th hour pardons to politically influnential scumballs.

Clinton pardoned that scuz Mark Rich as he was packing his things in the White house to leave. Bush will do the same thing for R cronies.

I've often thought that this presidental power should be amended such that the president requests pardonable people for congress to consider. THAT would end the sillyness in a heartbeat.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

I'm sure Bush will pardon Scooter Libby and the Dems will scream.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:14 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
I'm sure Bush will pardon Scooter Libby and the Dems will scream.

Well, here's something that might make your head hurt. There is talk of Bush giving out some kind of FORWARD PARDON to NSA/military men who waterboarded terrorists.

What?

I didn't quite understand it because I always thought you had to 1st be found guilty of a crime in order to be pardoned for it. The rational is that as soon as Jan 20 arrives, all people that waterborded terrorists will be charged with crimes, even tho they did so under orders from the very government that is now bringing charges. If Bush pardons them early, then no punishment can be doled out, even if found guilty. Wrap your head around that one. I'm not sure what upsets me more: The use of he pardon power in such a way, or the terrible people coming into power that are forcing it to occur.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:20 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

A pre-emptive pardon seems absurd to me as well.

However, I would like to see some charges against the people who ordered the torture of detainees. I'm not interested so much in the low-man who carried out the orders, as I am in the highly placed man who gave them.

Of course, there is a legitimate school of thought regarding illegal orders, and that following them is still illegal.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Ford broke out the "pre-emptive pardon", by pardoning Nixon for "any crimes he MAY HAVE committed". As such, Bush is arguably within his power to do so.

Like many of you, I'd like to see the pardon power curtailed a bit - or at least see something in the lines of good judgement regarding their use.

Instead, what we seem to get is an ever-escalating use of pardons and "pre-pardons" for scummier and scummier people. It's believed by many that Marc Rich was pardoned as much for a "fuck-you factor" to the Republicans for the Nixon pardon, as for anything he actually would have been pardonable for.

And his pardon didn't sit well with me then, and doesn't now. That's the one BIG knock I've got against Obama so far - he's appointing the guy who vetted Rich's pardon as the new Attorney General. I'm not comfortable with that.

And we may well see Bush "pre-pardon" a whole slew of people. Again, it probably won't sit well with me, to which the obvious response would be, "Tough shit. He's the President, and he has the power to pardon people, even on his way out the door."

I'll probably howl in protest, but the fact is, it's within his power to do these things.

I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:36 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

A pre-emptive pardon seems absurd to me as well.

However, I would like to see some charges against the people who ordered the torture of detainees. I'm not interested so much in the low-man who carried out the orders, as I am in the highly placed man who gave them.

Of course, there is a legitimate school of thought regarding illegal orders, and that following them is still illegal.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, I feel your pain and agree with you, but trust me when I tell you that the only people likely to face ANY charges in the torture-gate fiasco are going to be the people who carried out the orders, not those who gave them. That's just the way the system seems to "work" (if you could call it that).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:39 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I never did understand the purpose behind the pardons. Was it a custom of the age? What did the framers see the usefulness of the pardon to be?

An excellent question.

Pardoning had been a practice of western governments for 2000 years prior to the formation of the union. The main usage of it derived from a king who, those of the age believed, was invested with the supreme power of God. In ancient greece Socrates argued that the only person fit to rule a free people would be a philosopher-king, who he argued, should be vested with supreme pardonable ability owning to great wisdom. It was the philosophy of Socrates molded by the subsequent powers of kings, that influenced the framers' desires for the chief executive to possess Pardonable power. Their inital hopeful belief was that each President would possess the "Wisdom of Solomon".

This has never happened. It will never happen.

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74.

Modern usage of the pardon is frought with abuse. The sheer fact that each president doles out pardons on his last day in office is proof positive that no president possesses the Wisdon of Solomon.

And in further research of my own question about Forward Pardons, I found this:

"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime."

So that means the president could pardon himself for a crime he intended to commit...then commit the crime? This whole thing needs to be ammended. I don't think the power to pardon should be deleted, it needs to be put to congressional vote.

And BTW, the presidental pardon only applies to Federal crimes. State crimes are the provence of Governors.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, I was gonna mention that, Blue.

Basically one of those loopholes Hamilton, Jay and company slipped in, planning to immediately exploit to their benefit.

It was their way of ensuring they'd never be prosecuted for what they planned to do.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it.

Bullshit, Mikey.

See, that's the benefit of a sideways thought process, not making those kinds of assumptions.

Exactly WHY do you have to accept it - are you not one of we the people, the intended rulers and sovereigns of this nation ?

Do you not have a political representative who you can put the fear of mikey into and start raising hell about it ?

Accept it my ass, borrow Tonya Hardings favorite crowbar and go "discuss" it with your reps, man.

You ain't gotta meekly ACCEPT a damn thing.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:46 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

This whole thing needs to be ammended. I don't think the power to pardon should be deleted, it needs to be put to congressional vote.

How ' bout this one?

" A President may not pardon any person after an Election Day in which his successor has been elected."

Pardon 'em before, and if the people get pissed off, they get the chance to express their opinion.
I have heard that there was originally a Constitutional Amendment that a legislator could vote himself a raise, but it could only take effect after the next general election. If I remember right, Alexander Hamilton proposed it-- it would'a been the 12th . Never been ratified.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:25 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it.

Bullshit, Mikey.

See, that's the benefit of a sideways thought process, not making those kinds of assumptions.

Exactly WHY do you have to accept it - are you not one of we the people, the intended rulers and sovereigns of this nation ?

Do you not have a political representative who you can put the fear of mikey into and start raising hell about it ?

Accept it my ass, borrow Tonya Hardings favorite crowbar and go "discuss" it with your reps, man.

You ain't gotta meekly ACCEPT a damn thing.

-F

What I mean by that, Frem, is that I have to accept it as written in the United States Constitution, if that document is to continue to be my bedrock. I don't have to LIKE it, but I have to accept that the Constitution of the United States of America does indeed give the President that power.

Quote:
...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Interestingly, those last five words are where the controversy over Nixon's pardon by Ford began. The House had introduced Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, but they had not yet been voted on by the full House and the Senate when he resigned, effectively forestalling the impeachment process. To insure that Nixon wasn't subsequently hauled up on criminal charges, Ford issued his pardon for any crimes Nixon MAY have committed.

Again, I don't have to like it, but I have to accept it. That doesn't mean that I won't claw, crawl, and scrabble to get the attention of my Representatives and Senators should the need arise, and let them know that if they support such measures against people like Marc Rich or some of Bush's staff, I will absolutely do everything I can legally do within my power to make sure they are voted out of office.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE