Cheney Lays More Pardon-Pipe
The current administration faces a potential tsunami of lawsuits and indictments once it leaves office. For the past 8 years the Bush administration has used claims of Executive Privilege and the power of intimidation to fend off Congressional and prosecutorial investigations, but once out of office their ability to protect themselves will be greatly diminished.
In a series of legacy interviews, soon to be ex-V.P. Dick Cheney argues that history will regard the actions of the Bush administration positively. In an interview with The Washington Times, he turns to the example of Gerald Ford who was vilified for pardoning ex-President Richard Nixon before any zealous prosecutor could pursue him for Watergate-related crimes:
President Ford made a decision that was extraordinarily unpopular at the time when he pardoned former President Nixon. He suffered -- he dropped 30 points in the polls in one week as I recall.
By the time of his passing a couple of years ago, opinion had totally turned on that. In fact, most people by then, even many who had been very critical 30 years before, were in agreement that in fact it was a good decision, it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of the country. ...I'm personally persuaded that this president and this administration will look very good 20 or 30 years down the road in light of what we've been able to accomplish with respect to the global war on terror.
In the context of the interview, the focus on "the global war on terror" gives Cheney the opportunity to talk about abuse of prisoners and "enhanced interrogation techniques". Denying that either is torture, he goes on to argue that it was morally imperative for he and others to use what some have called "torture" in the pursuit of national security:
Was it torture? I don't believe it was torture. We spent a great deal of time and effort getting legal advice, legal opinion out of the office of legal counsel, which is where you go for those kinds of opinions, from the Department of Justice, as to what the red lines were out there, in terms of, this you can do, this you can't do. ...
You come to the question of morality and ethics. In my mind the foremost obligation we had from a moral or an ethical standpoint was to the oath of office we took when we were sworn in, on Jan. 20 of 2001, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And that's what we've done.I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11. We made the judgment -- the president and I and others -- that wasn't going to happen again on our watch. And I feel very good about what we did, I think it was the right thing to do. If I was faced with those circumstances again I'd do exactly the same thing.
And why is the vice president doing all the talking about the administration's record?
In terms of whether or not [I was] the most powerful and influential [vice president], I'll let somebody else make those judgments. I think, um, I do believe that the vice presidency has been a consequential office, if I can put it in those terms, in this administration. But that's first and foremost because that's what the president wanted.
He's the one who asked me to take the job, he's also the one who decided during the course of the process eight years ago that he wanted somebody who would be another member of the team, who had a certain set of experiences and so forth, who could be an active participant in the process.
If you're a prosecutor pursuing charges against members of the Bush administration for authorizing torture, then you look for a smoking gun that connects individuals with specific activities. Cheney is now on record as one of the officials who authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, among other enhanced interrogation techniques. So you have his own words to use against him.
But in this latest interview Cheney has added a twist to the argument. While seeming to be deferential to his boss, saying "that's what the president wanted," he's actually laying blame clearly at George W. Bush's feet. Whatever he, Cheney, did during the course of 8 years, he did because his president told him to do it. Cheney has laid the blame-pipe right to the door of the Bush White House.
In effect, Dick Cheney is letting George W. Bush know that if there are prosecutions, they won't stop with the VP, they'll lead all the way to the soon to be ex-president. So, in the best traditions of the Republican Party, as exemplified by Gerald Ford and his own father, George W.H. Bush, Bush better pardon all those members of the administration who could be prosecutorial targets, because if you don't, you're only opening the door for them to come after you.
Vice President Cheney has laid his cards on the table and he's a hard-nosed competitor. The only thing that would trump his play would be if President Bush does use his pardon power, but not to pardon Dick Cheney but George W. Bush. Then the game's over and Dick Cheney and the others will be left to deal with whatever history has in store for them.
Follow David Latt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidjlatt
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't believe that state and civil penalties (civil lawsuits for damages and such) are covered under presidential pardon.
If not, and if criminal indictment(s) or threat of indictment(s) are negated by act of presidential pardon, it would seem that any injured parties, I believe whether they were US citizens or not, could still go after Bush, Cheney, Gonzoles or anyone else in the crew either separately or as co-defendants for monetary damages.
Successful judgements could essentially bankrupt them and successful injunctions could essentially encumber their use of personal financial assets even before final judgment. Civil rights violation charges could also be interesting. It would seem that there would be interest to support such an effort in the legal community.
I think that this could be much more devastating than any international indictment or conviction that was not enforced. Revenge is "a dish that is best served cold" and the irony here is that our system of law, which they are suspected of distorting, could ultimately be used as the instrument of justice.
Can this guy do anything but lie?
"You come to the question of morality and ethics. In my mind the foremost obligation we had from a moral or an ethical standpoint was to the oath of office we took when we were sworn in, on Jan. 20 of 2001, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And that's what we've done."
Except for 9/11. They didn't put any effort into protecting or defending against that. They brushed off every warning that was handed to them and then claimed that "nobody could have predicted it." Bush's vacation was more important to him than reading the memo which warned him an attack was coming. Morals and ethics? These people don't know the meanings of those words.
"He's the one who asked me to take the job."
Lie. Cheney was the one who reccomended himself to Bush for the job. He was the head of the search team for the VP. Of course, it sounds more creditable the other way. And what's one more little lie by Cheney? He's told whoppers way bigger than this.
Oh, just what I was about to say! Both points you make are so right on! Thank you.
Yeah right - - in 20 or 30 years history will look back at the Cheney/Bush White House in a positive light.
If anything the history books will etch in stone that Bush was the worst president in American history. This administration is a profound example of what can happen when an election is stolen and the” Will of the People” is not served. Furthermore it will most likely take 20 or 30 years to fix the damage done by Bush and his mindless gang of neoconservative thugs...
The Democrats in congress will enable the Republicans to block any AG nom Obama presents. No AG, no DOJ, no DOJ, no prosecutions. I would not be surprised if Mukasey refuses to leave and challenges his ouster in court. There are already Republican federal prosecutors that have announced they will not resign no matter what Obama does. This will be a great opportunity for Obama to shrug his shoulders and walk away from any action against the Bushies. He really doesn't want to piss Rush off.
Rush??? Or was that a typo? Rush has no power. He's a neocon wannabe, spouting retoric fasisms like any good republican puppet. Thinking that the Dems or Obama are going to "shrug" their collective shoulders... no wonder you call yourself "hopeless", hopelessly corrupt.
A major mistake was made by the pardoning of Nixon; and there will be an uproar if any pardons come into play here, but I don't put it past Bush to try. Some major healing needs to take place and the present cabinet will be hurting in their pockets trying to defend themselves. It's true that Pelosi needs to grow a pair, but at least we now have a doctor in the house.
Those resignations are just a courtesy. Half of them got the job because the POTUS can replace them anytime he wants. I wouldn't attach any importance to the ones too stupid to take a more graceful way out.
Bush CAN'T pardon Cheney for INTERNATIONAL crimes; Obama and the Democrats should present all their info and evidence to the World Court.
Pardoning international crimes? Don't make us laugh.
i'm not a lawyer but don't you have to be accused before you can be pardoned?
"I was just following orders" does not fly, Dick.
I believe that was Goering's defense, wasn't it?
Goering also is the one who said that it didn't matter if a country has a Fascist dictatorship, Communism, a parliament, democracy, or what, but that if a government really wants to start a war, they tell the peole that there's a threat, that war is inevitable, that anyone who advocates peace is an un-patriotic pacifist. Sounds like the run-up to the Iraq war, doesn't it? Bush/Cheney and the PNAC crowd read the history of the Nazis,
and learned the lesson and passed the test.
Blanket pardons from the out going president doesn't mean crappola to the International, or World Court.
Let's find a way to round them all up and extraordinary-rendition them to the Hague. I'm not kidding. Jonathan Turley said the other night that it is now up to the people.
Perhaps it should be up to the people.
A blanket pardon means nothing in the United States either unless we stick our heads in our asses and let the killers get away. We stifle our common sense to find some constitutional or perhaps some biblical reason to thwart justice. The lies and deceit to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in order to gain control of that sovereign nation's oil reserves has resulted in the deaths of untold thousands . It had nothing to do with terrorism or the attack on 9/11. Guess who was in charge of guarding the gates when the nineteen terrorists entered the four planes--Bushies--and even that failure is suspect. The Bush/Cheney reaction was tantamount to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater and lied the USA into an illegal invasion of Iraq complete with decks of cards putting a price of the heads of the people to be killed which in itself is an act of genocide. The justice must be served at the Hague and if they are found not guilty so be it. America will not amount to tinker's damn, until there is a reckoning.
I hope Dumya calls Cheney's bluff, pardons no one... and we can throw the whole corrupt lot of them into prison.
Nixon's pardon was a bad decision then... and looking back, it looks like an absolutely HORRIBLE decision. The criminality of future generations of Republicriminals was assured then. Had Nixon been prosecuted, we could have never had Iran-Contra, the S&L scandal, Enron, etc etc, leading up to the current outright bilking of government money that was the Iraq war and the "bailout".
While the President maybe can pardon Cheney in advance of charges, I don't think he can pardon himself. So, does he want to hang with others or hang alone?
"oath of office we took when we were sworn in, on Jan. 20 of 2001, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic" (From Cheney's words).
This is interesting, because the actual oath of office contains the words "to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Notice how Cheney removes the constitution and acts like the oath only required protecting the country.
I hate to use this example, but, if someone has sworn the oath of office, and is given the choice between defending the constitution or saving 3000 people from getting killed by terrorists in two buildings, that person has to allow the deaths or be an oathbreaker.
Now if someone is in that position, I guess I can see picking lives over our nation and our freedom, I really can (even though the military, for instance, is an example of Americans willing to give their lives for the nation and their freedom). However, if someone does violate their oath, they should Cowboy up and admit it. Yes, they will have committed an impeachable offence, but if their actions were truly noble the congress and the court should show leniency...
Breaking the law "for you, not me," and confessing is one thing, hiding it is evidence of wrongdoing.
I think you are making Bush far too honorable here. Remeber, he concocted the reason to go to war with Iraq. He selected only the intelligence that supported it. He LIED!!! There was nothing in that action that defended our country. In fact, there was considerable intelligence that indicated a war with Iraq would endanger America (foretold what has acually happened). He never protected or defended the constitution when he spied on US citizens, when he held people while denying habeas corpus, while he revealed CIA spies names to the public, etc. He is an evil man who needs to experience accountability.
Show trials are always an option for Dems. But in the past our politicians were wise enough to understand that they might have to face trumped up legal charges after leaving office. The civil war between Caesar and Pompey and offers a vivid account of what can happen when Senators become vindictive.
BS, get on with it! If this SOB is not held accountable, what precedent is set for future Presidents?
"The only thing that would trump his play would be if President Bush does use his pardon power, but not to pardon Dick Cheney but George W. Bush."
As a vehement opponent of this administration, I hate to invoke humor involving crimes of this magnitude, but that would be hilarious.
David Latt.. you said: "The only thing that would trump his play would be if President Bush does use his pardon power, but not to pardon Dick Cheney but George W. Bush."
_________________________________________________________
That is an interesting question... can a President pardon himself for his actions while in office? Isn't that essientially king-making?
This question has never been put to a constitutional test. But what he could do is pardon Cheney, resign (20 minutes or so before he would be out anyway), and let 'president Cheney' pardon him.
You can't take anything at face value. The conjunction of the Senate report on torture and Cheney's admissions provide cover to anyone below him in the chain of command; it will be easier to stifle public demands for accountability for those underlings by laying the blame on Cheney for issuing orders under the cover of law as interpreted by Chu and Gonzalez. However, Cheney likely will be pardoned. Thus, this record of illegal excess will be cleaned up without anyone held accountable (unless Cheney and his cohorts are brought into court by some foreign government if they make the mistake of traveling anywhere outside of Dubai). Then again, we shouldn't underestimate the cravenness of Bush who may just deny an elderly and unhealthy Cheney a pardon in anticipation that the Angel of Death will outrun any Obama-restrained prosecutor.
"The conjunction of the Senate report on torture and Cheney's admissions provide cover to anyone below him in the chain of command."
Nope, sorry, the "I was only following orders," plea didn't work in nuremburg, and it will be even less effective here because the US only requires adherance to legal orders. For the military members, obeying an illegal order gives no "cover," and refusing an illegal order is both encouraged and required by law.
You are legally correct, but perhaps politically over-optimistic. It's highly unlikely those down the chain of command will be prosecuted if the higher-ups walk.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
