Now, 200 + Years Later, Please "Pardon" The Mess, Al by Doug Wrenn

Now, 200 + Years Later, Please "Pardon" The Mess, Al

By Doug Wrenn

July 06, 2007

""Forget and forgive. This is not difficult when properly understood. It means you are to forget inconvenient duties and forgive yourself for forgetting. In time, by rigid practice and stern determination, it comes easy."

Mark Twain

On March 25, 1788 in Federalist # 74, Alexander Hamilton addressed the now very thorny issue of presidential pardons, as authorized as a form of executive privilege, also articulated in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. He said in observance of criminal codes in other countries that the practice was necessary for fairness and compassion to serve as a check to severe punishment, and that the power should be delegated to only one person to avoid what we now call peer pressure. Despite an apparent trend of abuses of this privilege for political expediency, the screaming voices from both sides of the ideological and partisan aisle give further credibility to the sage and savvy insightfulness of this founding father.

The scab of an already inflamed and festering national boil has been sorely reopened with the recent news of President Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby. Even with the absence of bubble gum, a skateboard, a yo-yo, a Mickey Mouse wristwatch and a little striped beanie with a propeller on top, it's still amazing how much the pot has been so stirred by a grown and middle aged man named "Scooter."

Democrats are pointing their fingers in a unified direction when the directions of their finger pointing should be, in parlance favorable to those folks, "diverse." Just like how the Bush Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired eight US Attorneys for admittedly questionable motives, the Clinton Justice Department under Janet Reno fired 93 US Attorneys. Now the Dems want to make hay out of Bush's admittedly controversial, if not politically motivated intervention of the Libby conviction, while Clinton pardoned 100 people including such community pillars as FALN terrorists, Patty Hearst, Mark Rich, John Deutch, Henry Cisneros, and just about anyone else ever accused or convicted of any violation or crime from littering to murder in the history of man, oddly barring only Pontius Pilate, John Wilkes Booth and Pee Wee Herman.

Republicans, or at least those who still aren't bought off and paid for by globalists and corporate cronies, are decrying the convictions and also calling for the pardons of Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, two US Border Patrolmen involved in the attempted arrest and subsequent shooting a fleeing drug smuggler. While I will not deny that these convictions somewhat bear the same stench as the Bush double-talking, open borders, North American Union, anti-US globalist agenda, Compean and Ramos aren't exactly as pure as the driven snow in this escapade either. After the shooting incident, Compean picked up his shell casings. As a professional law enforcement officer, by picking up his shell casings, whether the bullets hit their mark or not, he was knowingly tampering with a crime scene. Furthermore, neither officer initially filed a written report as required. For any cop to say that he discharged his weapon, or was present when another officer discharged his weapon and did not file a report is equivalent to saying that when he strapped on his belt that morning to go to work, he didn't know that he also should have put his gun in the holster. Obviously, the jurors in the case and US District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone thought so, too, despite allegations of jury tampering. Compean and Ramos were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years and one day, respectively. I will concede these sentences seem severe, but not unwarranted. Like it or not, Compean and Ramos are guilty as charged of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation. These charges were based on the two agents disregarding agency policy prohibiting pursuit, as ridiculous as that sounds. By breaking agency policy, both officers acted outside the legal bounds of their authority. The Border Patrol's inane policies and procedures may clearly need to be reviewed and/or revamped, but that does not dispute that both officers acted of their own volition outside of prescribed agency guidelines. I don't like it either and personally, I don't think either Border Patrol Officer is a bad guy, but they screwed up, and they knew it, because then they tried to cover up. It is what it is. While several members of Congress have also jumped on the Compean/Ramos defense bandwagon, the authority of these legislators extends no further than the same garden-variety First Amendment rights enjoyed by any other US citizen. Like it or not, and for better or for worse, only the President has the power to grant pardons of federal criminal convictions.

Scooter Libby may well have been the quintessential dolphin caught in the tuna net, but he was still wearing fins at the time of capture. While we now know that Libby did not out the identity of CIA operative or agent Valerie Plame, he was still convicted for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.

Valerie Plame's undercover status at the alleged time of the outing is still disputed. While some claim that she was an analyst, instead of an agent for the CIA, her filing of crime reports indicates she was at least acting in the capacity of an agent. Plame has also claimed that although she was in fact an analyst, she intermittently traveled abroad on official business and was during those times undercover. US District Court Judge Reggie Walton didn't appear to enticed by the "was she" or "was she not" controversy, citing that Libby showed no concern for the possibility that Plame may have been undercover and that her identity may have been compromised, than thus (presumably) her mission, as well as her life, endangered.

The lemon juice on this open wound is that former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, who was also apparently less than concerned about Plame's identity has been indicated to be the true source of Plame's outing and yet Armitage is still skating free. And yet, in a compelling July 18, 2005 National Review On Line piece, "Did The CIA 'Out' Valerie Plame?" Andrew C. McCarthy cites possibly more than one occurrence of Plame's identity being previously compromised, not only from columnist Robert Novak, but also from journalist David Corn, Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, and the CIA itself.

Some still even connect further dots to White House advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney, but whether a crime was committed or not, whether Plame was covert or not, despite who first outted or didn't out her, Scooter lied, even if he was set up to be the fall guy, and for whatever motives, now President Bush is upping the ante for the salivating conspiracy theorists on the sidelines by saying that he still isn't ruling out a complete pardon of Libby, which would also relieve the embattled White House staffer of his court ordered $250,000.00 fine.

In this shouting Tower of Babble from all directions, every imaginable person and faction seems to be forwarding their own agendas for their own reasons. I'm afraid to start something here, but this whole contentious debate could almost be labeled as "Pardon-Gate." Certain facts are irrefutable, however. The power of the pardon does rightfully belong only to the President, as documented by the Constitution. The spirit of that authority, as articulated by Hamilton, is to give balance to a perceived judicial abuse, not necessarily addressing the correct or incorrect finding of guilt or innocence, but rather a possibly overzealous or excessive application of punishment, as cited in the 8th Amendment.

What is up in the air is motive, and sadly, neither Hamilton nor the Constitution addresses that issue. There is the rub, and thus, the crux of the argument, as we, the American people, play judge and jury, or perhaps even Monday Morning Quarterback by our own perceptions, perhaps formulated through our individual and fallible prisms of motivation, ideology, and even bias and agenda.

Given that most of his pardons were done in one grandiose swoop, Clinton seems to have stuck one final thumb in the eye of his detractors, just before finally departing from his cherished but tumultuous "Oval Brothel." Such circus-like circumstances are hardly conducive to credibility, regardless if it is deserved or not.

Despite their genuine malfeasance, and the bumbling bureaucracy of their agency, Compean and Ramos nevertheless somewhat appear to be scapegoats for a callous, globalist president with questionable loyalties, and who only boastingly speaks Spanish while only making overt gaffes in English, and who considers our borders to be very much like Compean and Ramos, themselves, annoying and troublesome flies in the less than soothing ointment of unscrupulous international political agenda.

If Bush's partial, or even full pardon of Libby is not politically motivated, this president, who has had an abysmal and self defeating history of not communicating often or effectively enough with the American people, did himself no favors by already painting himself into a corner with previously made comments he now undoubtedly regrets, has forgotten, or hopes the American people have forgotten. On the short list of those seemingly hypocritical gems, now in retrospect:

"If there's a leak in my administration, I want to know who it is."

"If the person has violated the law, he will be taken care of." (Interpret that little morsel of irony however you deem fit!)

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job."

"I want to know the truth. Leaks of classified information are bad things."

And lastly, the President also denied knowing "…anybody in my administration who leaked information." (Ah, yes. That was President Grant's claim as well, but history has since treated his (Presidential) legacy with neither forgiveness nor forgetfulness, despite that same weak defense of scandals, whether known or unknown, that occurred under his nose and on his watch. Decades later, historians were certainly not any kinder to President Harding under similar circumstances. The classic but tired "I didn't know" defense for a high political office holder pretty much and probably rightfully pigeon holes the defendant as either an inept boob or a blatant liar.)

Hamilton and the Constitution did both address the boundaries to presidential pardons. Specifically, "impeachments" are off the table. Article 2, Section 2 specifies "impeachments," but Hamilton, after briefly mentioning impeachments, further expounds on treason. Yet, Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states, "The President, the Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What if those dots (hypothetically) do connect all the way up to Vice President Cheney? It's a stretch, but a prudent argument could be made that if President Bush has such knowledge, he then would be stepping over his constitutional bounds by offering clemency to Libby, maybe not necessarily because of a conspiracy to commit or aid and abet treason, but to possibly thwart a potential impeachment of Vice President Cheney for a "high crime or misdemeanor." Taking a few steps backward in time, one could also likewise speculate that Nixon very possibly drove a Ford.

In reference to executive privilege, cheerleaders of both parties are equally guilty of invoking, or defending the President's prerogative, even if politically motivated, whether the issue at hand is firing US Attorneys, granting pardons, nominating judges and justices to the courts or choosing what to eat for dinner.

The daunting question hanging in the air is what the difference is between an established check and balance between the powers of the three branches of government vs. the separation of powers. While the parameters of that question remain unanswered, we, the ham and eggers, out here in the cheap seats of the nose bleed section on Main Street, USA are only left to ponder and guess what is truly in the heart and mind of any elected president when he makes such decisions. Such limited and subjective resources for seeking truth are about as helpful and accurate as seeking direction from a compass without a needle.

While political motivation may seem to be either an intended right, or an unintended and negative by-product of naturally imperfect circumstances, ideally, the distinction should be determined by the combined spirit of our Constitutional framework and laws, as also expressed in the written text of such documents and supporting historical documents such as the Federalist papers and in historical tradition (for the intended good of our country and its citizens) vs. the sole interpretation and use of the written text of our Constitution and laws ("Because I can!"). While both distinctions may well be legally sound, only one can truly be ethically and morally sound as well. That is not to say that presidents should apply the modern and morally relative low standard of the trendy and shallow "living, breathing document" drivel, but rather, a full examination of what our nation's framers said in the past, as well as how they said it. We can now see a disconnect between the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist # 74, defining the intent of presidential pardons, and the apparent manner of how our executive leaders now affect such privileges.

Currently, not even the otherwise legitimate defense of national security holds much merit for the executive privilege of granting pardons, given a conspicuously bizarre and contradictory policy of a president who aggressively fights a "war on terror" at the front door of the Middle East while not only knowingly, but even zealously leaving the back door to that fight for survival vulnerably and dangerously wide open at our nation's back door along the Rio Grande River.

Some would brush this prickly quandary of presidential pardons off by simply and conveniently claiming, "That's politics." I'm a big boy and I can accept that as fact of life, but pardon me, if as an American citizen of slightly higher scruples and standards, I don't like it. "That's politics" as a supposed explanation rooted in any even remote semblance of logic is as ludicrous and typical as the other common versions of governmental and political responses, such as "That's the way we've always done it," and, "They (the opposing party or faction) did it too."

I think I'm now beginning to understand why George Washington, another sage forefather we have perhaps overly ignored to our own detriment, was so leery, if not disdainful, of political parties. Yes, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, but it can also be wrong ten times in the same amount of time, or "term" of disrepair, or even dysfunction.

Poor Mr. Hamilton. If he could have known what presidential pardons have turned into today since he penned Federalist # 74 over 200 years ago, he might well have spared his political and dueling adversary, Aaron Burr, the trouble and turned the gun on himself instead, thus granting himself clemency from witnessing and enduring our modern day bastardization of what was originally intended to be a much more just, magnanimous and humanitarian ideal for a civilized, stable and secure society. Nevertheless, may he hopefully rest in peace, and also pardon us for our ingratitude and license.