Members J. Posted January 21, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 21, 2009 I gotta admit Bush went out with a lot of class, even though I disagreed with him on many, many things. His only two Pardons weren't even that... just commuted sentences for the border patrol agents. Craigv is right - last minute pardons are usually forgot. If they weren't, Bill Clinton would be a national disgrace considering the absolutely inexcusable pardons he gave his last day in office. I hate to break it to you, but Jorge Bush certainly isn't the first President to authorize warrantless wiretaps. In fact, it's been going on for a long time. The executive branch has an established right to conduct such things as matters of national security, both domestic and foreign. War isn't a criminal matter, and should not be conducted through our court system. Now if the local police thought you were doing something illegal like selling marijuana out of your house, they would have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and rightly so. If I was in contact with a few of my terrorist buddies in the UK and in Iraq to get components for a dirty bomb shipped to me so I could detonate it in the middle of an urban area, the Feds have the prerogative to intercept my communications without going through a court. What about the Iraq war being illegal? I definitely think it was a huge mistake and an unnecessary sidestep in our mission, but it wasn't illegal. I'm a strong believer in "Realpolitik." Each nation-state is an independent and sovereign actor on the world stage, acting primarily out of its own self interest. There is no legitimacy to international law; rather it's usually just an exercise of a stronger state (or group of states) forcing its/their will on other, weaker states. That's why I think Bush was 100% right in withdrawing from the international criminal court. I'm not against military tribunals or anything like that - they just need to be seen for what they are. Even the Nuremberg trials were simply excercises of the victors punishing the remnants of the vanquished. If the US and the Allies had lost the war, certainly our top military officials and our President could've been tried for "war crimes" by the Axis powers. So, Bush didn't need to issue any preemptive pardons because there's nothing to pardon. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted January 21, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2009 Did Clinton? Has Clinton been pardoned for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted January 21, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 21, 2009 I gotta admit Bush went out with a lot of class, even though I disagreed with him on many, many things. His only two Pardons weren't even that... just commuted sentences for the border patrol agents. Craigv is right - last minute pardons are usually forgot. If they weren't, Bill Clinton would be a national disgrace considering the absolutely inexcusable pardons he gave his last day in office. I hate to break it to you, but Jorge Bush certainly isn't the first President to authorize warrantless wiretaps. In fact, it's been going on for a long time. The executive branch has an established right to conduct such things as matters of national security, both domestic and foreign. War isn't a criminal matter, and should not be conducted through our court system. Now if the local police thought you were doing something illegal like selling marijuana out of your house, they would have to get a warrant to tap your phone, and rightly so. If I was in contact with a few of my terrorist buddies in the UK and in Iraq to get components for a dirty bomb shipped to me so I could detonate it in the middle of an urban area, the Feds have the prerogative to intercept my communications without going through a court. What about the Iraq war being illegal? I definitely think it was a huge mistake and an unnecessary sidestep in our mission, but it wasn't illegal. I'm a strong believer in "Realpolitik." Each nation-state is an independent and sovereign actor on the world stage, acting primarily out of its own self interest. There is no legitimacy to international law; rather it's usually just an exercise of a stronger state (or group of states) forcing its/their will on other, weaker states. That's why I think Bush was 100% right in withdrawing from the international criminal court. I'm not against military tribunals or anything like that - they just need to be seen for what they are. Even the Nuremberg trials were simply excercises of the victors punishing the remnants of the vanquished. If the US and the Allies had lost the war, certainly our top military officials and our President could've been tried for "war crimes" by the Axis powers.So, Bush didn't need to issue any preemptive pardons because there's nothing to pardon. Sorry. Where do you get "only two pardons"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted January 21, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 21, 2009 Where do you get "only two pardons"? Well, they weren't technically pardons, they were commutations. I was referring to just the last minute ones... he's done about 200 pardons and commutations I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators isaac42 Posted January 22, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well, they weren't technically pardons, they were commutations. I was referring to just the last minute ones... he's done about 200 pardons and commutations I believe. That sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.