pardon me
In his column in today's paper, Frank Rich essentially agrees with my position that Scooter Libby will certainly be pardoned sometime after election day 2008. There is no reason to think that President Bush will err on the side of the Rule of Law thereby allowing Libby to serve his debt to society. But the Rule of Law is the citizenry's protection against the capriciousness of rulers. Far too often President Bush has used Fear itself to coerce the result he desires instead of allowing the processes of the democracy. The Republic is ill served when leaders the law into their own hands--a pardon is nothing if not vigilantism. Although Libby's crime was against the Institution of the Judiciary, the subtext is deeply political. The President will give Libby a get-out-jail card because political calculations are more important to him than upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law. That the President will wait until December 2008 to pardon merely Libby betrays the White House lack of principle.
Labels: Bush, current events, Libby, policy, political theory, rule of law
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
2:40 PM
44 Comments:
I definitely agree that the use of the Presidential pardons is a dirty business. The use of pardons has definitely been morphed from the original purpose to “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth" to a way for lame-duck Presidents to grant political favors that sometimes amount to nothing more than bribes and patronage. I guess what bothers me about the Democrats indignation is the shortsighted hypocrisy. Especially when the last Democrat in the White House granted some of the most egregious pardons in American history. Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, one of America’s most wanted criminals, was clearly tantamount to bribery and a miscarriage of justice. Of course I do not think this would justify President Bush pardoning Scooter Libby, but I also do not think we should crucify him for an action he has not even committed and an action that almost every other President has used.
No Person will disagree that Libby is a criminal. Presidential pardons are also a very dark part of executive power. However what i say is that Bush should not pardon Libby but he will. There really is no argument in that case that Libby should serve his time in jail. The real issue is that not one democrat can complain about this pardon. Because Bill Clinton in 2000 pardoned fugitive Marc Rich whose wife basically paid off the Clinton family. At least Bush is not taking money and furniture from Libby's wife. So are pardons right no they are not it is a very bad part of politics. But no Democrat has the right to complain about Libby.
Last week, Americans discovered that justice is blind when former members of the Bush Administration are on trial. Scooter Libby, VP Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, was found guilty of his involvement in the CIA Leak case. Scooter consequentially represented the ‘fall guy’ in this trial and demonstrates the lack of morals within the Bush world. Potentially, Libby could serve 20 years for his conviction- however that is highly unlikely due to President Bush’s power to pardon. When- not if- President Bush pardons Libby hours before Bush leaves office in 2008 is a non partisan power which several presidents employ, including President Clinton. Nonetheless, regardless of political party, the power to pardon convicted government officials should be eliminated from the scope of presidential powers.
President Bush is not your typical president who would otherwise respect the fundamentals of the Constitution. President Bush, love him or hate him, follows his own agenda and essentially executes his own Rule of Law during our war on terror. Fear was a highly successful factor as a tool to help President Bush win the 2004 election. Creating the environment of fear worked terribly well for the Republicans in the last federal election. However, whatever happened to the so-called color code terror threat level that was very present leading up to the 2004 election?
President Bush’s view of the Rule of Law includes side stepping many constitutional rights such as wiretapping by the NSA without a warrant. Moreover, Mr. Bush’s victory recently in the courts which decreased the legal rights of terror detainees demonstrated his will to spread fear among Americans rather than effectively combating the source of the disease known as terror.
There’s no doubt that President Bush will pardon Scooter Libby—A Democrat president would do the same for a friend previously convicted. However, the core principles of paying for crimes committed must be restored in the White House- regardless who the president is.
I do agree, like most of the other people posting on here, that presidential pardons can be used as political favors and are not often used in any other way. I think however, that it would be wise to wait until after the president has pardoned Libby before we make judgements. This is a problem on both sides of the aisle and has been used by most presidents. It is an issue that is not often something that we talk about but is probably something that we need to address. It is interesting to look at how it has been used to pardon political criminals in the past such as President Nixon. I do not think that the power of the pardon was suppose to be used that we, but it might be interesting to think about how it was supposed to be used.
I have no doubt Bush will pardon Libby from his sentence and I have no doubt that it will take place once the 2008 election results are in. I believe he will think heavily about this before signing it because of the Supreme Court election decision in 2000. Bush might think he owes them one but I doubt he takes into consideration that Libby's crime was in fact a crime against the Institution of the Judiciary. Therefore because Cheney's his man and Libby is Cheney's the pardon will be his and Bush will unknowingly spit on the judicial system and the pardon process itself.
The conviction of Scooter Libby last week offers this country a chance to see Bush abuse his presidential powers. If Libby’s appeal fails, President Bush will most likely pardon the former aide. Presidential pardons have been used for beneficial and sometimes egotistical purposes. What makes this case unusual is that the President would clearly benefit from Libby being pardoned; because if Libby is pardoned, he most likely will keep quiet about the deceitful and potentially illegal activities this administration has been hiding. This blatant use of a constitutional power for political gain is clearly not what the framers intended. The pardon should be used at the discretion of the president except when the president benefits politically. I think Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich was actually less detrimental to the judiciary than Libby’s because Libby is attempted to undermine the justice system for the protection of his superiors. Libby was one of the most powerful political advisors in the world, and his concoction of stories, repeated memory failures, and outright lies, speak appallingly of his character, and of the administration’s credibility. Pardoning him is only an encouragement to illegal behavior for political gain.
President Bush, or at least his advisors, are probably weighing the political decisions of a pardon. And like Frank Rich says, the benefit of keeping him quiet through a pardon would out-way the country’s anger of Libby getting out of his jail time. Whether or not the decision is made soon, or at the end of Bush’s term, is up for debate. I think Bush will pardon him as soon as possible because in the scheme of things (Iraq, Immigration, War on Terror, Iran, North Korea) Libby is just a liar who tried to interrupt the institutions of democracy. However, in no way is he as serious a threat to democracy, and liberty, as having George W. Bush in power.
I agree that no democrat should complain about the sweeping power of the presidential pardon. I do think that Libby should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, but the fact that he probably won't is no surprise. It is a shame that the pardon is used for all the wrong reasons and that the circumstances in which it surfaces would clearly warrant a conviction.
-Mike Rudolph
The use of the Presidential pardon is thoroughly ingrained into the American political system. Though it may represent one of the evils of democracy, it is a relatively minor evil that the United States has been able to cope with for more than 225 years. In my estimation Scooter Libby should serve some hard time behind bars. His crime was heinous for such a high profile character who has made his career within the "moral" party of American politics and he should be punished for it. It would be great to see a high profile figure from Washington groveling in a state prison and may give hope to millions of Americans that the system is not completely corrupt. But it just will not happen. The President will pardon Libby and will do it for political reasons but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exactly betray democracy- it's just a wrench in one gear of democracy. Like I said, things have turned out relatively well for the last 225 years and Presidents have pardoned people throughout all of them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
EQUALITY!! cough cough....Where is it? this man just fired 7 or 8 judges too? it is finally becoming, after 4 long years, that this war was established on false pretexts!! W/ the prosecution of Libby and an obvious bureacracy cover up, we now know that this regime and its covertness needs to be taken care of. chances are it will not, but only be forgotten about through another large scandal that republicans dig up, to give support to this football game of politics that exist in this country. Bush might pardon Libby, but who cares, the important thing is the lives lost, and the money wasted to fight a war w/ no apparent affect on the pursuit of happiness for American citizens.
IIAN
This whole charade goes to show the differences in punishment between working class people and ruling class people. If a person steals a slice of pizza because they're starving and has had two previous convictions, they may go to jail for the rest of their lives while white collar crimes that put millions of people out of jobs go unpunished. There is a dirty war going on right now. Not only in Iraq but also in our excuse for a justice system.
Regardless of how we feel, presidents are going to do as they feel. Pardons I believe are for friends, for example if you do something for me, I will do something for you in return. If you know that the person did not do anything wrong or illegal then why not pardon them. But too many people take advantage of the real concern, abusing their powers. What president has not did something that everyone does not agree with. Some abuse their powers more than others so we really can not expect that much from them. should Libby be pardon, no, but Pres. Bush is going to do what he wants and those to come!
Why doesn't everyone realize that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy? The people are at the bottom of the hierarchy just as Hobbes suggests. The government does not exist to make us equal, it exists to keep Order. The government is supposed to protect us from ourselves. We elect people who are supposed to be more enlightened than us to make decisions for us. Heaven forbid if the rabble came to power. The president is allowed to pardon because he is the leader. It comes with the territory, and the rest of us are expected to fall in line. Republicans tend to understand why this is important better than Democrats do. To get anything accomplished, you have to give up your little piece of the pie and put your energy in the same direction as your group. We made a social contract just like Plato by living in this society all our lives. We are thus bound to follow the leader. For the system to work, we have to count on the fact that he knows what he’s doing. If you disagree on one pardon, too bad. Let it go. It’s not worth the disruption in the system that challenging the leader would create. I’m sure Hobbes would agree. You have to pick your battles, and a pardon is just a pardon. Get over it. He’s the president, and he’s entitled. America has bigger problems right now.
Naturally President Bush will grant Libby a pardon, as would any other president of either party. This however is not an excuse. The pardon may have more impact on politics if people weren’t largely ignorant or apathetic is a slap in the face of the judicial system and the American people.
Through out this entire CIA leak case the WH has been full of shit. First the president says he will not allow anyone to work for him that took part in the outing of Valier Plaime, but when it looks like Rove was involved he has nothing to say. It boggles the mind that the conversation would even take place to use Ms. Plame’s identity to discredit her husband. I mean Joe Wilson is an idiot anyway, why would you have to end the career of a woman that has busted her ass to get to a select position.
Furthermore, the position of this WH that everything is political scares me. Even something as important as a national security is more about politics then about finding the true dangers to the American people. We can see this politicization of issues that shouldn’t be in the recent firing of federal prosecutors on purely political reason. I know these people “serve at the pleasure of the president,” as has been said over and over again, nevertheless the dangers of federal prosecutor that determine who and when they prosecute based off fear of political backlash or losing their jobs are not difficult to see.
-Mat De Pompei
Of course President Bush will pardon Libby. Though Libby did something criminal, I'm convinced he was not the highest ranking member of the White House to be involved, and so he is their scapegoat. This administration loves having scapgoats, and Libby is just another in a long list. I just hope that voters will remember all of this come next November, but we have very short memories, so I doubt they will. But I don't think that anyone will be shocked come December 2008 when Libby gets his Christmas Gift.
I think that we should not judge President Bush for an action that he has not taken. Is it a possibility that he will pardon Scooter Libby? Yes, it is very possible but until then its only speculation of what he will do. I hope that the president will not pardon Libby for the sake of justice.
This is the importance of an independent judicial power, and the hypocracy of the pardon, is highlighted here. The rule of law requires an independent judicial system, and not a power that can overturn it and their will.
The rule of law is a theoretical concept that is not guarenteed upon our own entrance into society.
Scooter libby will be pardons but we are the ones that gave the executive that power. Whether we agree with it is irrelevant. Carter pardoned nixon, how "fair" was that? it wasnt. To this day the actions of nixon in watergate are still widely used in our political system. Scooter libby is just another on a long list of people who will get away with "murder" because he knew whos shoulders to rub and asses to kiss
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree that the Presidential Pardon is a very un-justified political tool, but lets not forget that every president before Bush has used this "power" before leaveing office. President Bush is just following suit and doing what any president would do. Doesn't matter if he was a good president or a bad one, any president will exercise his power to pardon individuals right before they leave office, and if they don't use those powers, then they are God awful politicians, as well as a God awful president I would presume.
The Constitution says the president has the right to pardon criminals, and virtually every president has taken advantage of the pardoning system. Bush 41 pardoned 44 people by the end of his 4-year term and Clinton pardoned I believe 36 people in his 8 years in office. The fact that Libby will most likely be pardoned does not surprise me. Clinton pardoned some of his own friends and even his own brother. Bush has every right to pardon Libby - but that does not make it right. Clinton's friends and his brother - as well as Scooter Libby - are criminals and should pay for their crimes. Even though presidents have the right to pardon people, I've never understood, why. In my opinion, the pardon does little more than provide the president with the opportunity to get some of his friends out of trouble. I don't think Libby should be pardoned - he committed a crime and criminals should be forced to pay the price. Some argue that because Libby was probably a scapegoat he should be given a break. I disagree. Sure, he probably was nothing more than a scapegoat, but he is still knowingly protecting the person(s) that are covering it up. In my mind, that's just as bad.
-Kevin Higham
Scooter Libby is a scapegoat for Cheney and Karl Rove. They leaked the info. and he took the blame. So, I think he deserves a pardon. Unless they can get Rove and Cheney, then I think they should all go down, but that won't happen. Jon Stewart brought up a good point the other day about Valerie Plame Wilson working as a spy in the middle-east, she certainly would stand out. That makes this whole thing a little stranger to me. It's messy, but if Nixon got a pardon, why not Libby.
I love how people believe that pardoning Libby is a crime when so many other people get pardoned just not in the national eye like the Libby trial is. Does nobody remember when President Clinton pardoned his brother-in-law Hugh Rodham for money laundring. Where were the liberals who are calling on President Bush not to pardon Scooter Libby back when Clinton pardoned his own brother in law on several counts of money laundring. This is just how politics works. My point to people out there is to not be twofaced about it. Just because a Republican is doing it does not make it worse than when a Democrat does it. Just do me a favor that next time you start aruging partisan ways you know a little more about American history not too long ago. I don't think its that hard to ask.
Well, when you look at this administration's code of ethics, it makes sense that Libby will be pardoned. They didn't see a conflict of interest in setting up a Haliburton HQ in Dubai, they didn't see a problem with manufacturing the cause for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly haven't shyed away from benefitting politically from the disasters of 9/11 allthewhile ignoring the disasters of hurricane katrina as much as possible. Why should a guy named Scooter be any different?
I really don't understand why presidental pardons were started in the first place. Assuming that the intentions of our founding fathers were good I must agree that pardons are now out of control. They should not be used to gain political power by unjust means. What is our government coming to when our politicians are given an easy out instead of answering to the people.
~Danielle Hurley
Well of course King George III is going to pardon Libby. That is, of course, assuming Libby and his lawyers don't waste too much time appealing the conviction so that (hopefully) President Giuliani will have to deal with this. King George III is one of the most corrupt Presidents, and so far as I'm concerned, he wasn't even legitimately elected. In 2000, his minions IGNORED Florida election law (if in a statewide or nationwide election the votes in even a single Florida county are too close to call between the two leading candidates, ALL votes in ALL 67 counties MUST be recounted) when they argued before the Supreme Court, but since King George II's friends were on the court, they had to APPOINT King George III to the Presidency. And in 2004, it is so darned obvious that Kenneth Blackwell and Diebold conspired together to give King George III Ohio, along with the homophobic Animal Farm-esque amendment outlawing gay marriage in the state. I don't want King George III in the White House, but he is. His Illegitimacy will do what he does best--help his minions, while the rest of the country suffers.
One of the defining characteristics of this administration has been
valuing loyalty over competency. This had been so blindingly obvious
in certain arenas: the aftermath of Katrina, the rebuilding of Iraq,
etc. I find the most surprising fact of the entire Scooter Libby
trial not the conviction or the assumed pardon, but Libby’s defense
that he was a scapegoat. I really though the administration would
give him the standard “Keep-your-mouth-shut-and-take-one-for-the-team-
and-we’ll-pardon-you-later” speech. Not that I think he won’t be
pardoned now, but I can’t believe that he took a chance in looking
disloyal and suffering the wrath of almighty Dubya.
As for taking the law into his own hands, this pardon is probably less
harmful than some of the other stunts Dubya has been allowed to pull
off. I must admit, the man can manipulate fear with the best of
them. “There is nothing to fear but fear itself,” rings more true
today than ever. President Bush has used American’s fears of
terrorism to strip us of our rights, illegally spy on us, and force us
into war. The Patriot Act is the biggest pile of bullshit ever but it
passed because we are scared. It amazes me how easily Americans are
willing to give up their freedoms. And whatever you think about Iraq,
Dubya did use scary phrases, like ‘weapons of mass destruction’
and ‘if we don’t fight ‘em there, we will have to fight ‘em here.”
What was Saddam going to do, put uranium in a slingshot and fling it
at us? Does anyone ever remember 15 of those 19 highjackers involved
in 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia, the same country whose leaders hobnob
down at the ranch?
And to be honest with ya’ll I am really sick of the excuse that if you
aren’t guilty of anything you shouldn’t be worried. That’s no
position to take because what is criminal is sometimes left to the
discretion of the ruling power. And with loyalty number one on Bush’s
list my penchant for Al Franken books, John Edward’s websites, and
donations to pro-choice causes might just make me a terrorist. The
principles that made this country what it is, are the first ones that
we through to the wind when we are scared. I really think we have
bigger problems than this pardon. It is only a symptom of the disease
that this administration suffers from. Oh, and by the way I invite
you all to join me and start e-mailing copies of the Constitution to
everybody you know, it might be the only way someone in the Bush
administration will every read it.
I think the president will do what he wants to do, if he thinks that Libby should get a pardon, then obviously he is going to get a pardon. I think that people should pay for what the crimes they do. I mean I wouldn't get a "get out of jail card" if i did something illegal. So why should it be different for a politician or a political figure?
This is another prime example of how we are not all actually equal under the law. There is a disparity between the "justice" served to economic elites and average citizens. When special treatment under the law is based on economic class or who you know, it fundamentally undermines democracy and marches us toward facism.
I would not be supprised if Bush does let this pass becasue of Libby's social standing. Although i dont think that its right to give him "a get out of jail free card" that is how it is done today i guess. If it was my choice i would not let him get off scott free cause thats not the law.
I would not be supprised if Bush does let this pass becasue of Libby's social standing. Although i dont think that its right to give him "a get out of jail free card" that is how it is done today i guess. If it was my choice i would not let him get off scott free cause thats not the law.
-David Turkovic
I don't agree with the use of Presidential pardon (whether it is by a Democratic or Republican president) but that is one of the perks of working for the president.
I also feel that Democrats DO have a right to complain about it. That's the way it works: A Republican pardons people and the Democrats complain. A Democrat pardons someone, and the Republicans complain. Then, A Republican pardons someone, and...You guessed it! The Democrats complain.
It may be wrong, but that's just the way it is.
last post by Tom Banyas
It is definitely the right of president’s to use pardons, but a president should hold a higher accountability for doing so. I can’t imagine a president using a pardon to free a sex offender, murderer or terrorist. But a skittish political ally, no problem! If Bush does pardon Libby, which I do believe is inevitable, it is still very wrong to do so. This shows no trust for the justice system and in turn loses trust in the American public. Also, I believe a pardon would be a statement of guilt by Bush. If he pardons Libby, it is obvious there is something to hide, most likely a lot of things that could enhance the tarnished image of this president. I can buy Ford’s reasons, to help the nation move on, for pardoning Nixon in the 70s. However, this holds no comparison unless Libby rats out Bush and the next president pardons Bush. It seems we have another immoral madman in the white house.
John Fellabaum
I have held the opinion that Scooter Libby was taking the fall for Dick Cheney since the beginning of this ordeal. Some may disagree but the President needs to protect his people in order to give the Republicans any chance of retaining the White House. Obviously there will be public outcry if and when he pardons Libby, so he must wait until after the election. The presidential power to pardon has been abused for many years, most notably in Ford's pardon of Nixon. It is, however, a very obvious power of the president in the constituion and therefore, regardless of how it has been abused, will remain.
Brendan Mewhinney
I do agree that the use of a pardon should not be allowed. However, it is also true that almost all of the presidents give vetoes in the end of their lame duck term, Clinton did it as well. So to bring it up against Bush just because his approval ratings are low is unfair.
at this point, i am not surprised by any actions of the bush administration. pardons should be the least of our concerns with a president who lacks regard for the ultimate authority of the constitution. -justin finlen
This brings up the fact that sadly the executive branch apears above the law. The legislature would never impeach a president and because of this the executive has extreme power. Without the fear of losing elections to keep President Bush or in this case any one of his lackies from doing whatever the hell they want. The presidential pardon is an abuse of power and should be removed. If the people's court is so flawed that it is nesicarry for a president to over rule their decision it needs reformed. I see no use for the pardon other than to bail out the presidents buddies whenever needed.
-Craig Myers
So many presidents and other political figures have used pardons throughout our history, and it's a shame. Pardon's are ridiculous. It's basically a way of getting your friend out of trouble even though if a common person committed the offense they would be locked up. Why should these people like Libby have a special right to get away with a crime? It's not just Bush either. As much as I hate the guy, he's definitely not the only one to ever use a pardon.
-Vince Slomsky
It is unnerving to see so many people blaming President Bush for possibly pardoning Scooter Libby. When was the last time that a president has not used his power to pardon someone? It is the law that the President of the United States has the right to pardon anyone that he so chooses. Remember when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? People may have gotten a little angry but they got over it, and everybody knew that it was coming. Also, everyone knows that the President is going to pardon Scooter Libby, and I'm sure that people will get over that too. A few people say that the presidential pardon is an overreach of executive power but it's been the law for a very long time, therefore, more than likely, it will remain apart of our system for a good while. I bet that if any of those who are against presidential pardons were convicted of a crime (regardless or not if they actually committed it) and were pardoned by the president they would be ecstatic that there such a law exists.
Presidential pardons are completely understandable but incredibly sheisty (if thats spelled correctly). It's the whole idea that to the victor goes the spoils and anyone in Bush's position would pardon the people that helped him get to the top.
-Katie Shale
It can not be argued that Libby was charged and convicted, however it is well with in the powers of the president to in fact parder him if he sees fit. I believe that it is inappropiate to call the president a vigalanty. The president if he so choosed to to pardon Libby is simply excersising a power that has been vested in to the president at his own discression. Even using history as a guide president Clinton pardoned numerous people after the election of 2000. It is a perfectly legal thing to do, and for the moral judgement that is not my call to make
- Sean McCarthy
Yeah for Corrupted Politics!!!!
I think this was exactly what pardons were created for. Our founding fathers, if we recall, were only rich white slave-owning land-owning men who didn't want to pay their taxes. It's not like its gotten much better since then either. I think everyone knew exactly how pardons were going to be used when they wrote them into the constitution, and the political elite wanted their get-out-of-jail-free card.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home