Beg Your Pardon

A friend of mine--I'd better give attribution here; his name is Pete Tannen--who periodically writes humorous columns which he sends via the Web to his list of subscribers--is having a contest. Actually, he had this contest once before and is running it a second time. I guess people enjoyed it the first time around, and since there is no actual winner yet, he is letting us take a second crack at it. He is asking us, his audience, to make our best guesses, out of a rather long list of perps, as to who will be the lucky recipients of the much discussed pardons bestowed by our lame duck you-know-who, as he waddles ungrammatically from office. (That was unkind: rhetoric has nothing to do with this issue.)

The list has about twenty names on it, and they range from Eliot Spitzer to John Walker Lindh. We players are to choose our favorite five--by which I mean the ones we think most likely to get sprung. Mr. Tannen, not a dictatorial type, has given his contestants the option of write-ins, just in case we think there are any hot candidates he missed, like for instance Dick Cheney, who--I know, I know, isn't a convicted felon--yet, but Bush can pardon before the fact, so it would seem to me that people like Cheney ought not to be exempt. After all, he may have more right to be on the list than anyone actually on it. (You can get on to Pete's mailing list at www.TannenWeekly.com).

This presidential pardon-before-the-fact deal is pretty cool, if you think about it. You could get the pardon first and then go out and rob a bank, or shoot a relative you have been wanting to get rid of, all the time knowing absolutely that you will get away with the crime, that whatever it is you've done, no punishment will befall you. (Or, do pardons apply only to crimes committed before the pardon is proffered? I confess, I do not know.)

When mulling over the list of candidates--the winner gets taken out to lunch by Pete, no small reward and therefore a win eagerly to be sought--I decided that maybe we should pardon people who might actually deserve pardoning, rather than this given list of reprobates. So, I voted (there weren't any no dead guy rules) for Sacco and Vanzetti (not exactly saints, but probably innocent of the crime for which they were executed), Ethel Rosenberg (guilty only of typing while being Julius' wife), John Brown (a tad violent for my taste, but on the side of the angels), and my dad (he got dumped in three different prisons for refusing to name names when called before HUAC, and I personally think he deserved an award, not a prison term, but I'm willing to settle for a posthumous pardon.)

I was being cute.

But ever since I sent in my list (for which I immediately won "most creative" and will, I am told, receive a special prize), I've been pondering, thinking about the way things are. Isn't it odd that presidential pardons are given to people who have actually done deeds illegal, hurtful to others, bad on their face, rather than people who have been imprisoned for principled stances they took, for fighting for the rights of others, and especially people who have broken a law but hurt no one but themselves? Doesn't the ability arbitrarily to grant pardons smack of a non-democratic, royal-ish rule, like that of the very Royalty against which we revolted and which revolt we celebrate on our much touted Independence Day? Well, guess what? The pardon is a royal-ish rule; it comes directly from the British, from whom we so proudly separated. George Washington hand-picked this particular privilege and took it right along with him, just adopted it as our own. Or perhaps, more accurately, failed to discard it. Doesn't it seem, well, dare I say, a little fascistic that one man (or maybe some day, woman) can bypass our whole judicial set-up to free anyone he or she chooses for any reason? Like, I pardon you because you are my guy, because you have done what I wanted you to do, because I've always had the hots for you, because I have the hots for your mother/sister/daughter or father/brother/son, because you have made me even richer than I already am, because after I pardon you, you will make me richer still, or because well, you promised to keep your mouth shut about you know what....

In these often puzzling United States we have, sad to say, plenty of people who have been jailed for acts of conscience.

Like Joan Baez, for example. Didn't she go to prison for refusing to pay taxes during the Vietnam War? --Yes, I know refusing to pay taxes is illegal, but this was an act of Civil Disobedience (see Henry David Thoreau.) Wasn't that refusal an act that took courage? Admirable courage. The courage to say no, I will not contribute my money to support this war? She sacrificed freedom to make a very loud and impassioned statement. Surely she knew they would lock her up. And she made this expensive sacrifice in the effort to save lives.

Someone, perhaps Edmund Burke, said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Dr. King said, "Noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good."

I supose that at this point it goes without saying that I believe that killing is evil.

So, how about the Berrigan Brothers, Daniel and Philip, both of whom spent years in prison for anti-war demonstrations. You know, you take a hammer and whack a big piece of metal that is a BOMB, and off you go to the slammer for messing with government property, when the only things that actually suffered were the hammer and your wrist.

I heard a Jesuit Priest named John Dear (cohort of the Berrigans) speak last week, at a church here in Sarasota, and in passing, he mentioned that he cannot vote, because he is a felon, arrested some eighty times for participating in peace demonstrations. He is devoting his life to pursuing peaceful solutions to problems, rather than violent ones. How about a pardon for him? He has never hurt a fly. Why is the right to vote denied him? Because he is a felon. But he is a felon because he is a pacifist. Is it the custom in this Democracy to deny the vote to pacifists? Or only to pacifists who refuse to keep their opinions to themselves?

What has happened to us?

This is clearly an issue with thorns. I wonder if the whole custom of the presidential pardon should be sacked, or failing that, perhaps we ought to rethink our tradition of this heretofore unquestioned plenary amnesty and appoint a supreme Judicial Ethicist-in-Chief to oversee presidential pardons, to study them, and then to determine whether or not the pardons themselves are by any stretch of the imagination deserved, whether they are decent in sense and motivation, whether they are acts of integrity or, conversely smack of whim, arbitrary choice, reward, self-interest, or even criminal conspiracy. Perhaps the pardons themselves call for prosecution. Prosecution of the once-and-for-all type.

Comments

[Partisan59]

Here's a thought. How about we limit the Presidential power to pardon to making those pardons only PRIOR to an election. If they had to issue all their pardons with a deadline of, say, two weeks prior to an election they would have to face the consequences of their choices. Allowing them to pardon people when they and their party will suffer no accountability is why we get things like preemptive pardons. This way they aren't limited in their ability to pardon but they will have to consider the political implications of those pardons.

[AbbieXHoffman]

No system is justice is without flaws.
A presidential pardon can right that wrong.

[fpie]

Preemtive pardons are a travesty. Have they ever been challenged? If not and W issues the wholesale preemptive pardons that seem likely we may get to visit this. How will the "strict constructionists" come down on this limit to executive power?
I have a great respect for the wisdom of the founders. I wonder if the intent of executive pardon power is intended as a firewall against judicial abuse againt the executive branch. In the course of executive opperations it would seem almost impossible to not cross some legal line without being tied in knots by undue timidity.
This vestige of royalty may be important to keep the space between the branches lubricated. Even if that is the case W & Dick have shown themselves more that willing to take many miles when they are offered an inch in terms of privilage. I hope the Obama justice department takes any abuses to the mat. This stuff has gone on far too long.

[Parrothead]

Pardons should be reserved for those CONVICTED of a crime, State,Federal,International. As Governor of Texas he never pardoned anyone why start now? Especially anyone who not been convicted, If he should that would indicate that he may have known in advance that the person was engaged in criminal activity, thus making him an accomplice in said criminal activities.

Pardon only after conviction.
Pardon only after Sentencing.
Pardon only after conviction.

3 Simple rules.................

[TheBrimeCow]

The Authority to pardon for executives is an important way to combat injustice. It allows for the conscience and sense of one individual to see a wrong and right it. The idea is that we elect somebody into that position that we trust to posses a level of common sense. The fact that we have failed in that regard the last 8 years does not make the authority a bad idea.

Yes, it is inherently undemocratic, and that is good. The Founders were rightly suspicious of Democracy, as without restraint it is a fancy word for Mob Rule (as any California Homosexual can attest to). The representative system is meant to elevate the consciences of those governing above the governed. Remember, we are all created of equal worth, but some people are more worthy of running a country (another one we've fubared the last 8 years). The pardon authority exists because justice cannot always be guaranteed by the courts (especially if the law they are bound to follow is constitutional but unjust) and justice should not be left up to a plebiscite (or even a legislative vote).

I'm choosing to be OK with the whoever it is that Bush pardons, though I suspect I won't personally like the list. His authority to pardon ensures that executives whose moral compass I trust will have the same authority.

Also, there is already somebody who reviews the pardons for the President to see if they are a good idea, the Pardon attorney.

[Calprog]

Since the pardon power is conferred by the Constitution, any change would require an Amendment. Since the purpose of the power is well-intentioned, a wholesale change is not in order. The problem is really created when an unaccountable executive (i.e. - lame duck) is granted this power. The abuses we see, from Mark Rich to the inevitable Scooter Libby, stem from Presidents who don't care about consequences, because there are none. The only change I think we need is one of timing -- enact an amendment to preclude the exercise of the pardon power after September 1 of each Election year, until the swearing in of the next Congress. Even a lame duck like Bush would then need to take into account the political impact of his pardons, lest it harm his party's electoral chances. Some accountability is needed, but let's not forget that such pardons can be part of a healing process also (don't forget Carter's forgiveness of objectors to the draft).

[Helzapoppin]

At a bare minimum, the President's pardon power should be limited only to those who have already been convicted. Pardons should NEVER AGAIN be allowed to be used to interfere with, or in many cases entirely destroy, investigations into criminal or unconstitutional conduct.

[larrybeinhart]

The power to pardon comes from the Constitution.
The president "shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." Article 2, Section 2.
It is not a custom. It is not a perk. It was not something we simply failed to discard.
Like everything else in the Constitution it was debated and argued over.
It may no longer be a good idea. There may be reasons to discard it. But it will require a constitutional amendment.

[Whinger]

If there was no possibility of a pardon people in high office would think twice before breaking the law!

[vivalamigra]

Pardon Ramos and Compean, not criminals.

[Galt907]

I too would like a pardon for Howard Fast. Having read all his books, it is my opinion that he was far too great of an American writer to be relegated to such an ignominious bio as merely having been another unjust victim of Sen. J. McCarthy and the 20th century version of the Salem Witch trials.

Since "The Shrub" does not/cannot read, there is no chance. My guess is that most of the Presidential pardons this year will be political, and granted to close friends of Shrub 'n Thugs, most of whom have committed horrible crimes, but have neither been charged,tried nor convicted of their crimes. (With the notable exception of Scooter Libby.) Personally, I believe that the concept of Presidential Pardons is a good idea. It is the only hope for those languishing in prison who were wrongfully or questionably convicted of crimes.

[joanton]

Rachel continues to impress with her thoughtful questioning of what many of us have taken for granted. Perhaps it is time to review this "royal-ish" perk? And does this smack of the ancient "thumbs up vs thumbs down" that only the supreme God like leaders enjoyed?
We had already been accepting of the "imperial Presidency' so why would we not expect that "quack quack" will leave his throne without several more imperial or royal acts?

At least it is not "off with his head"!