

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War - teamgb
http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war

======
cromwellian
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.

------
tzs
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...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title28/html/USCODE-2008-title28-partVI-
chap171-sec2679.htm)

------
lutusp
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.

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

~~~
lutusp
> 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.

------
pan69
Hmm. So they're implying that that little group of criminals did something
wrong in the first place.

