Well, if one president can

Well, if one president can pardon himself, why can another not wipe out the pardon, under the same law ?

What is the legal eagle opinion on this ?

On the other hand, the next president might be reluctant, as then he, or she, couldn't pardon himself, without having the next bum sending him to jail.

What a beautiful, democratic world we live in !

Ed Deak.

look at the upside

Hey, at least these guys care what we think of them. Some of their predecessors didn't give a rat's derriere.

Maybe, in time, if we stick with it, they'll start to think of it BEFORE they make clandestine, self-serving decisions...remembering that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

Too much power in the hands

Too much power in the hands of one person. He will never be seen as a sharpe fellow working for the good of the average citizen. But he and many of his friends won't end up in jail either The US Constitution needs a few updated sentences.
In many parts of the world, Bush is seen as a war criminal

We can always ask questions.

Does the fact that Bush pardons himself mean that he believes he is/was a criminal?

Oh, I don't know

When the smartest bother in the family is named "Jeb", I think history will still judge Bush as required....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puMz1Q3E000

the madness of king george

Very funny stuff, Steve Burgess.

After all, historically-speaking ;-), that guy in the white house with a wife named Laura and a brother with "the funny name of Jeb", did once say:

"They misunderestimated me."

Pardon me?

I hope this is just satire by Steve Burgess.

King George II

You can still throw a shoe at him!

Corrupt Judges

Gore would have done pretty much the same thing (though spun differently) as Bush did. America wanted a war-making president, and now Canada wants one too. They serve the (in this case, very perverse) needs of the time. Maybe History senses his/her own mea culpa, and therefore is not all that disappointed that goofy (but not evil?) Bush found himself an out.

It makes no sense that he

It makes no sense that he can pardon himself. Even if though, there have always been "stories" passed on for generations without anything having been written down. And the thousands of young lads being trained in ji-had over yonder will keep reminding us for many, many years to come.

Whack-a-weasel

The shoe toss was pretty good, all right.

I had no idea Bush was such a good bobber and weaver. Watching him popping up and down on that video reminded me of my favorite arcade game.

I wonder if they will have to start searching people for big felt mallets at events? Or make the press attend only in pajamas and slippers?

Pardon?

Well if he pardons' himself he'd better look to what he can do for the idiot that really pulled the strings. The Veep.

Like when Prince Charles didn't flinch after the gun shot

Yeah, the shoe toss probably worked more to show up Bush's athleticism than it did to show him up.

impeachment

If Bush were impeached after he was out of office, Congress could rescind any executive orders he had issued - including his own pardon. A president can be impeached after he has finished serving his term.

From: Grounds for Impeachment (.com)

"Impeachment requires a simple majority vote in the House. Upon impeachment, the issue becomes a matter of trial before the Senate, which if successful would result in removal from office. ... ... A considerable volume of research and argument has already been advanced in favor of impeachment, and this alone warrants proceeding with an investigation. It is also possible and proper to bring charges against federal officials even after they leave office, both here and abroad. Impeachment should not be simply a matter of party politics, it should be about upholding the Constitution."

http://www.groundsforimpeachment.com/background.htm

One small shoe...one big symbolical moment

O' I think the shoe toss showed Bush up ...in ways a thousand articles couldn't. The utter contempt the Arab world holds for Bush stripped down to one bare but powerful and revealing symbol........ one of those spontaneous and galvanizing moments for the Arab world and one the West could not deny ....when the unexpected happens....and over-rides The Elite "mass media control button" that usually rules the day.

"historians"

Can "historians" in the US really be muzzled by this?

What were their other excuses?

Can he be impeached if he's zonked in Paraguay? Or did he really buy all that land?

Rulers

of, course he can get away with it!
We too have had crooks who wrap themselves in the national flag and manage to get the media to praise them.
Does Mulroeny ring a bell? "the greenest primeminister ever", who lies under oath and still is a celebrity.
While old Dief had no scandals that we know of, he too had a very high regard for his own achievement and felt justified in thinking of himself as a legend in his own time!
Altogether to many large egos, who have swayed the media to make them seem infallible.
Basically we still behave as if our political leaders somehow are royalty, s'cuse me guess we still are stuck with Royalty here, (in some form or another.)
Maybe in a thousand years the average citizens will stop having complexes that they need some superperson to lead them?
It is a crutch just as the idea of having a god is a crutch!
We need to trust our own instincts, not just sit back and nod in agreement, like a bunch of sheep.

Just to be clear, it's satire

Steve is having fun, not reporting fact.

The tip-off is the second paragraph:

"Insiders confirm that the outgoing president will grant himself a full and formal reprieve from the court of public opinion."

So far, no one has figured out a way to become immune to the court of public opinion!

Cheers.

War Criminals

While I'd be surprised if Bush is ever charged with war crimes in the US, I'd be equally surprised if the threat of arrest for his very real crimes does not force him to avoid travel outside the US.

Bush and the members of his administration should be behind bars. All of them, from Powell to Rumsfeld to Cheney to Rice. I'd even like to see propaganda acolytes like David Frum on trial for helping to instigate that massive slaughter based on utter lies. There should be consequences for that kind of evil.

There are very few dictators responsible for more deaths than the Bush Administration. Only the names of Mao, Stalin, Johnson and Hitler surpass the amount of blood Bush and crew have on their hands. They are all guilty not simply of lying to go to war, but for the worst of war crimes: engaging in a war of aggression.

Take a look at the history of the Nuremberg trials, and you'll find it wasn't simply genocide that the trials considered the Nazi's greatest crime. Genocide was just a part of their primary crime of engaging in a war of aggression resulting in so much death, and so much horror.

Will Bush and the others ever be brought to justice? I doubt it, but I can dream.

Admin

we not dumb.

lynn

Yeah, it did point this out. But to many it also showed that despite everything, maybe Iraq has changed for the better: rowdy protests are possible without it leading to the end of your, your family's, your clans', your descendents' live(s).

Bush's Victory?

It is interesting that even in left-leaning or far left journals and newspapers (like the Tyee and Salon), there is still a tendency at times to want to "summarize" Bush as the dumb (rather than as the evil) president, and rather than show an urge to get at him for his war crimes, one senses a looking for a way just to get him out of our sight. I wonder if at the end of the day, even amongst some who call themselves left, many are pleased that Bush and his crew changed the country's dynamic from fear of what others would do to them, to an anger over what they were doing to others. Bush made the world less safe for everyone, but he also made many in America (and maybe in Canada) feel more than aggressor than the wimp (victim), and because at some level they are aware of this, they feel uncomfortable really going after him (just call him dumb and shove him off the stage, for anything else might make us uncomfortably aware of our own subconscious desires?).

Indeed, SharingIsGood...

the point of good satire is to skewer and expose a truth -- but not always factually. I agree with you. The best satire not only laughs at power, it undercuts it.

dog of war

Patrick, it was the stark truth of the journalist's emotionally-charged words as he tossed the shoes that should be noted.....that the shoes were from "the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." ( Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children dead.) (Infrastructure: water lines, highways, medical facilities, schools - all part of the obliteration.) (Many of Iraq's historical antiquities gone forever in the ravaging of their country.)

Quite the liberation.

Must all be in "the small print" when the US brings "democracy" to its "chosen" corner of the world.... guns blasting, bombs raining, corporations smiling.

Funny how they don't mention that.

Or how they killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in order "to save them".

May we all be spared the suffering of that kind of blood red "liberation".

revocability of pardons

Well, if one president can pardon himself, why can another not wipe out the pardon, under the same law ?

It is settled law in the US that once granted a pardon cannot be revoked. (Note that the withdrawal that has recently been in the news was of a pardon that was never formally granted - what actually happened was that Bush's intention to grant it was announced. Then he changed his mind.)

impeachment

If Bush were impeached after he was out of office, Congress could rescind any executive orders he had issued - including his own pardon. A president can be impeached after he has finished serving his term.

No, a President cannot be impeached after he has left office. The only penalty on impeachment and conviction by the Senate is removal from office as of that date. It isn't retroactive and would not have the effect of undoing his executive orders.

The passage that you cite does not say that a president can be impeached after leaving office. What it says is that a president can be charged with crimes, by the regular process, after he leaves office.

David Beers

I was surprised that so many usually perceptive commenters took Burgess' satire at face value.

But then Burgess has achieved achieved his goal of making the preposterous appear rational, which is is what good satire - and Bush - is all about, eh?

If we had more Steve Burgess', perhaps the Karl Roves of this world would get away with less of their BS.

impeachment - billposer*

From the Wikipedia:
"The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Given that Bush can be post-inaugurally impeached, I would be willing to spend a good share of my meagre personal fortune to have lawyers argue in the US Supreme Court that any executive action he took as president to protect himself could certainly be nullified.

*Just because a citation doesn't support everything I write, it doesn't mean that what was not attributable to the citation is not true.

ME2

Might be that it's hard to satirize Bush as someone who would try to pardon himself -- in every court, including public opinion. He's apparently got that much hubris, so I can't blame a lot of readers for assuming the worst.

Pardon?

Can all the people who voted for "W" a second time pardon themselves for doing so?

defacto pardon already accomplished

A couple of years ago, while he still had a majority in the House and the Senate, the American news was all atwitter over legislation Bush had passed that amounted to a defacto pardon for himself. I have been looking at the criminal prosecution possiblities ever since and I believe that if he were impeached, Bush's actions could then be considered indictable, even with the legislation. Moron that I am, this is where I have been coming from on this whole debate.

http://www.newstrend.com/2006/10/war-crimes-detainees-bush.html