Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time--regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

As the Explainer has pointed out before, there aren't many limits to the president's pardon power, at least when it comes to criminal prosecutions under federal law. The president's clemency power has its origins in the practices of the English monarchy, and as a result, the Supreme Court has given the president wide leeway under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. There are some exceptions: The chief executive can't pardon someone for a violation of state law or nullify a civil ruling, and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. (It's also not clear whether the president can pardon himself for future convictions.)

While pre-emptive pardons remain very rare, there are a few notable exceptions. Perhaps the most famous presidential pardon of all time occurred before any charges were filed. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he ... has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. In other cases, presidents have pardoned individuals after criminal proceedings have begun but before a judgment has been handed down. In late 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been indicted earlier that year on perjury charges surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. (A lawyer for Roger Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee claimed the pitcher might receive a similar pardon from Bush if he were ever indicted.) In addition, broad presidential amnesties--like the one President Carter issued to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam War--are essentially pre-emptive pardons issued to a large group of individuals.

Whenever the discussion gets too dicey for neo-conservative tastes, these repeated attempts to change the subject to one more of your liking through the use of dubious equivalencies are nothing more than standard neocon operating procedure.

And while we're on the subject of original thought on this particular topic, here's what I wrote about it on Dec. 11 of this year:

"Torture is spiritually immoral in its conception. It is ethically impractical in its consideration. It is statutorily illegal in its implementation. And its victims are wholly unreliable as a credible source of useful information. I honestly don't think it can or should be explained any more plainly than that."

So, if you want to defend the Bush administration's torture policy, then please go right ahead and knock yourself out. But speaking for myself only, I'm not going to talk about drone strikes simply because you desire to change the subject as a means of partisan spin. We've already discussed the morality and immorality of using drones here at TL any number of times in the past. Since you weren't around for them, you can look them up in the blog archives.