Newsweek: Rumsfeld, Ashcroft Could Soon Face Legal Jeopardy

[CatWoman]

It would be good to see them face charges for their torture policies. We can only hope the new administration feels the same. (h/t Avedon):

In early December, in a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York agreed to rehear a lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft brought by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. (Arar was a victim of the administration's extraordinary rendition program: he was seized by U.S. officials in 2002 while in transit through Kennedy Airport and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.) Then, on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld by four Guantánamo detainees alleging abuse there—a reminder that the court, unlike the White House, will extend Constitutional protections to foreigners at Gitmo.

Finally, in the same week the Senate Armed Service Committee, led by Carl Levin and John McCain, released a blistering report specifically blaming key administration figures for prisoner mistreatment and interrogation techniques that broke the law. The bipartisan report reads like a brief for the prosecution—calling, for example, Rumsfeld's behavior a "direct cause" of abuse. Analysts say it gives a green light to prosecutors, and supplies them with political cover and factual ammunition. Administration officials, with a few exceptions, deny wrongdoing. Vice President Dick Cheney says there was nothing improper with U.S. interrogation techniques—"we don't do torture," he repeated in an ABC interview on Dec. 15. The government blamed the worst abuses, such as those at Abu Ghraib, on a few bad apples.

High-level charges, if they come, would be a first in U.S. history. "Traditionally we've caught some poor bastard down low and not gone up the chain," says Burt Neuborne, a constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer at NYU. Prosecutions may well be forestalled if Bush issues a blanket pardon in his final days, as Neuborne and many other experts now expect. (Some see Cheney's recent defiant-sounding admission of his own role in approving waterboarding as an attempt to force Bush's hand.)

Constitutionally, Bush could pardon everyone involved in formulating and executing the administration's interrogation techniques without providing specifics or naming names. And the pardon could apply to himself. Such a step, however, would seem like an admission of guilt and thus be politically awkward. Even if Bush takes it, civil suits for monetary damages could still proceed; such cases, though hard to win, are proliferating. Yet most legal scholars argue that a civil suit would not the best approach here. Neuborne calls it an "excessively lawyer-centric" strategy and says judges are extremely reluctant to award damages in such cases. Conservative legal experts like David Rifkin (who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations) argue that no accounting is necessary, since the worst interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, have already been abandoned and Obama is expected to make further changes.


http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/newsweeek-rumsfeld-ashcroft-could-soo

[BOSSHOG]

1. Wow, more conservative logic

rifkin says hey we quit doing the really bad stuff (assuming he isn't lying now) so what the fuck would we want to investigate anything for? Hey bush intentionally lied us into a war but that was years ago. Hey he deserted his military unit to avoid a drug test but did the National Guard want cokeheads flying their jets?

[peacebird]

2. Isn't there precedent for Presidential pardons being overturned by the next administration?

[Winterblues]

3. I have never heard of any such thing.

Maybe you could give us an example...:shrug:

[peacebird]

4. ok - here are some....

"Ulysses S. Grant's first clemency decision, on his third day in office, was to revoke two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. Both men challenged Grant's power to do so, and lost their case in federal court. A central passage in a judicial opinion read:

If the president can arrest the mission of the messenger went the messenger has departed but ten feet from the door of the presidential mansion, he can arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison.
The fact that "the president" - in this case - meant two different presidents (Johnson and Grant), and the fact that - in this case - the warden had actually received the pardons but simply stuck them in his desk for a while, did not matter. The pardons had not actually been placed in the hands of Moses and Jacob DePuy, so the two men stayed in prison and were pardoned (by Grant) later.

Grant also revoked the pardon of James F. Martin, but the New York Times, reported that the official order from the State Department reached the U.S. Marshal in Massachusetts "too late." That is to say, Martin had accepted his pardon and had exited the premises. No effort was made to put him back.

Finally Grant revoked the pardon of Richard C. Enright, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $2,500 for conspiracy to defraud the government. Johnson granted a full pardon 12 months into the sentence but, before the pardon could reach Enright's hands, Grant revoked it. Enright had to cool his heels another 8 months."
<snip>
http://pardonpower.com/2008/12/on-revocation-of-pardons.html

further....
"In a 1975 article for Case and Commentary, distinguished attorney Melvin H. Belli referred to an instance in 1969 when the President "managed to head off a pardon granted by the previous President." According to Belli, a telegram was sent to "waylay" the pardon "just before it was delivered into the hands of the intended receivers."

[malaise]

7. You're wrong

One was mentioned last week when they were discussing Bush rescinding the pardon. There is precedent.

[LanternWaste]

5. With one exception, I don't think so...

I'm, working off of twenty year-old knowledge from a heated discussion in my Poli-Sci course from many moons ago, so my info may be outdated, but...

The Presidential Pardon is absolute and may not be overturned for any reason from a proceeding administration.



Here's the one exception...

The Constitution voids presidential pardons for criminal (but not civil :shrug: ) convictions or indictments stemming from "Cases of Impeachment" when and only when the Senate has voted to convict.



On edit-- I read with interest the cases you subsequently posted, so it would seem that not only am I wrong, I'm DEAD WRONG! :P

[peacebird]

6. the "loophole" seems to be if the pardon has not been delivered yet to the pardonee....