[Heretic]

This is a tricky line of events starting in 2006, and I am not even sure I have it right.

I believe this is referencing the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was recently struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court.

New York Times Article on This

Timeline:

November 2001

* President Bush asserts authority to try captives taken in the war on terror before "military commissions".

January 20, 2002

* Camp X-Ray is opened in the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
* The Bush administration asserts that since the Naval Base is not on US soil, the captives there are not subject to US law and have no rights under the US Constitution nor protection through the United States Justice System.

2002, 2003, 2004

* Friends and family of approximately 200 captives initiate habeas corpus submissions. These submissions work their way through the courts.

June 28, 2004

* Rasul v. Bush is the first habeas corpus submission to reach the United States Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court dismisses the argument that the Naval Base at Guantanamo is beyond the reach of US law.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the authority to deny captives access to the US justice system, and that the captives did have the right to initiate habeas corpus submissions.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch was obliged to provide the captives with an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants". As a result the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

December 31, 2005

* The United States Congress passes the Detainee Treatment Act.
* This act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War who had been tortured in enemy custody, explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture.
* This act also restricted subsequent captives from initiating habeas corpus submissions.
* Existing habeas corpus submissions remain in the system.

July 27, 2006

* Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, another habeas corpus submission, reaches the US Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives taken in the "war on terror". It rules that this authority lies with the United States Congress.
* The charges against the ten captives who had been charged were quashed.

Fall 2006

* The US Congress passes the Military Commissions Act, setting up Military Commissions similar to those that the Executive Branch had set up, retaining most of the features that had concerned critics.
o The Commissions could still hear and consider "hearsay evidence".
o Suspects would still be restricted from attempting to refute, or indeed even learning about, evidence against them that was classified as secret.
o Evidence extracted from the suspect, or other witnesses, through the use of "extended interrogation techniques", would be permitted, so long as it was extracted prior to the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005.
* This act asserted that all outstanding habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed.

February 20, 2007

* A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals considers Lakhdar Boumediene's habeas corpus submission, and upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding habeas corpus submissions through the Military Commission Act.

April 2, 2007

* After a petition for a review of the Circuit Court decision, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ writ of certiorari, thereby declining to hear the case at that time.

June 29, 2007

* The Supreme Court of the United States grants a writ of certiorari to Boumediene and his co-defendants, indicating that it would hear their challenge to the Court of Appeals' decision when the Supreme Court's next term commences (the first Monday of October 2007).

August 24, 2007

* The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights file an Amicus brief on behalf of Boumediene and al Odah.
* Over 20 supporting Amicus briefs were submitted simultaneously on behalf of Boumediene, including, the American Bar Association,[26] retired military officers, retired federal judges, former U.S. diplomats, a sitting Republican U.S. Senator, law professors and legal historians, Canadian, British and European Parliamentarians, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and domestic and international non-governmental organizations.

October 9, 2007

* The United States government submits its opposition briefs for Boumediene.

November 13, 2007

* The petitioner files its reply briefs.

December 5, 2007

* Arguments begin before U.S. Supreme Court.

June 12, 2008

* The Supreme Court announces its decision.

Supreme Court Again Says
Guantanamo Prisoners Should Have Rights
DAVID G. SAVAGE / Los Angeles Times 12jun2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, for the third time, rejected President Bush's policy for holding and trying foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ruled today these men have a right to seek their freedom in a hearing before a federal judge.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court struck down as unconstitutional an administration-backed law that barred the detainees from going to court. The right to habeas corpus is fundamental to American law and cannot be suspended except in times of national emergency, the majority said.

George W Bush could pardon spies involved in torture
George W Bush is considering issuing pardons for US spies embroiled in allegations of torture just before he leaves the White House.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 5:20PM GMT 15 Nov 2008

Why the constitution isn't an issue elude me.

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of the United States
Article I, Section 9. & Section 10.

Section 9. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

The supreme court has previously ruled that by its nature the pardon cannot apply to any act for which the pardoner is himself implicated, nor can it apply to a trial of impeachment. Now I cannot find this anywhere, anyone else?

Did Bush sneak in his pardon clause in one of these two Sections?

"Section 7 of the MCA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on 12 June 2008.

Section 6 remains in contention

There is a movement that has been trying to impeach Bush simply to keep him from being able to pardon in general.

President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stand accused of 39 grave and impeachable offenses, including war crimes, torture, warrantless wiretapping, and outing a covert CIA operative.

Most of these offenses are felonies for which Bush and Cheney can be criminally prosecuted after they leave office. But prosecutions will be impossible if Bush issues blanket pre-emptive pardons for Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, other senior officials, and even himself.

Can Bush do this? Absolutely. Gerald Ford set the precedent in 1974 when he gave Richard Nixon a blanket pre-emptive pardon for any crime he "may have committed."

Democrats Unite Against Bush Pardons
Their Petition

Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Interesting Times!