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

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.