4 ms·

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

25 points by teamgb 13y ago

grecy 13y ago
It boggles my mind the path of "cover it up" that America is going down. Before a court case has even been held to determine if anyone did something wrong, those people have already applied for immunity so they can't be held responsible. There are no consequences for people that do something illegal, only for those that talk about it happening.
ryandvm 13y ago
Presumably the point of such a request is to set some sort of precedent that would protect the current administration from similar suits?
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Presumably the point of such a request is to set some sort of precedent that would protect the current administration from similar suits? No, the reverse -- if an explicit ruling is needed to protect past administration officials from a lawsuit, this suggests that such a lawsuit has merit and standing. That would be the precedent, and it's significant.
cromwellian 13y ago
Is this a fucking joke? I'm done with defending Obama. Bradley Manning gets 35 years, no mercy. People responsible for trillions in debt and 100k+ dead or injured don't even get investigated. Obama is naive if he thinks this will prevent a future GOP administration from hauling his ass into court like they did with Clinton. The GOP will go after him for crimes committed with drones if it is politically advantageous.
pan69 13y ago
Hmm. So they're implying that that little group of criminals did something wrong in the first place.
tzs 13y ago
Read the PDF linked in the article, and then read the statute cited in the PDF, 28 USC 2679 (d)(1). Also read section (d)(3). Link to statute: [1]. This seems a lot less interesting or significant than the article is making it out to be. Any lawyers here who can explain if there is something deeper going on? [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title28/html/USCODE-2008-title28-partVI-chap171-sec2679.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title28/html/USCODE...
lutusp 13y ago
Item 1: "Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War" Item 2: "'The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,' chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said. So which is it -- (1) or (2)? If (2) (legitimate scope) is true, there's no need for (1) (grant of immunity). If (1) is deemed necessary, then (2) is false.

25 points by teamgb 13y ago

grecy 13y ago

It boggles my mind the path of "cover it up" that America is going down. Before a court case has even been held to determine if anyone did something wrong, those people have already applied for immunity so they can't be held responsible. There are no consequences for people that do something illegal, only for those that talk about it happening.

ryandvm 13y ago

Presumably the point of such a request is to set some sort of precedent that would protect the current administration from similar suits?

lutusp 13y ago
> Presumably the point of such a request is to set some sort of precedent that would protect the current administration from similar suits? No, the reverse -- if an explicit ruling is needed to protect past administration officials from a lawsuit, this suggests that such a lawsuit has merit and standing. That would be the precedent, and it's significant.

cromwellian 13y ago

Is this a fucking joke? I'm done with defending Obama. Bradley Manning gets 35 years, no mercy. People responsible for trillions in debt and 100k+ dead or injured don't even get investigated. Obama is naive if he thinks this will prevent a future GOP administration from hauling his ass into court like they did with Clinton. The GOP will go after him for crimes committed with drones if it is politically advantageous.

pan69 13y ago

Hmm. So they're implying that that little group of criminals did something wrong in the first place.

tzs 13y ago

Read the PDF linked in the article, and then read the statute cited in the PDF, 28 USC 2679 (d)(1). Also read section (d)(3). Link to statute: [1]. This seems a lot less interesting or significant than the article is making it out to be. Any lawyers here who can explain if there is something deeper going on? [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title28/html/USCODE-2008-title28-partVI-chap171-sec2679.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title28/html/USCODE...

lutusp 13y ago

Item 1: "Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War" Item 2: "'The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,' chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said. So which is it -- (1) or (2)? If (2) (legitimate scope) is true, there's no need for (1) (grant of immunity). If (1) is deemed necessary, then (2) is false.