- As President Ford appreciated, prosecution of high-ranking members of the former government sets a poor precedent for the peaceful transition of power in our democracy;
- Stating the plan to pardon these individuals now makes it clear that even though they are not being impeached or subject to active criminal investigation, they are not off the hook;
- Acceptance of the pardon (or even silence regarding it) would serve satisfactorily as an acknowledgment of guilt, and partial act of repentance (see, e.g., Nixon);
- Refusal of the pardon, by contrast, would imply a willingness to be investigated and stand trial for these crimes;
- Acceptance of the pardon would make it clear to international courts that these crimes are not going to be tried in the U.S. (not likely in any case), and would thus allow any individuals to pursue their own remedy through these courts.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
A Call For Pardons
Allow me to be the first to suggest that one of the first official acts of our next President, whatever his or her party affiliation, should be to pardon our current President, George W. Bush, along with his Vice President and cabinet secretaries, for any conspiracy to violate and/or direct violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention on Torture (as codified in US law), and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. (I believe this list summarizes the bulk of the crimes known to have been committed by ranking members of the current Administration.) My reasoning goes as follows:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While habitual prosecution of former office-holders does indeed set a bad political precedent, permitting officials who, in essence, have already been declared to have exceeded the laws of war can also set a bad precedent -- in that there is no remedy for the country against such excesses, and there should be so that we as a nation can see that, in principle, should a President start rounding up people and shooting them, we would know that our system can appropriately stop and punish them. Declining to do so to "avoid setting a poor precedent" would set the precedent that the President is above the law. He should not be.
MOreover, I'm sure our President would disagree with your goal. In fact, someone should ask him: "President Bush, should US Government officials who break international law be prosecuted in US courts, should they be shipped off to be tried in the Hague directly, or should we simply allow a country like, say, Spain arrest them and try them should they travel through there?"
I'mm sure President Bush would be against prosecution of former officials in foreign courts.
Well, I have to say I think this is an interesting debate. I agree that the question you pose would be interesting to put to the President or Veep.
I maintain that the Presidential Pardon is a good intermediate option between the two extremes of either ignoring the violation of the law/Constitution entirely (consider FDR's administration and Japanese internment; or the Lincoln administration suspension of habeas corpus), on the one hand, and attempting criminal prosecution of high-ranking officials of the former government, on the other.
Bob, if you believe that we should attempt to try Bush & Co. in US courts after they step down from office in 2009, I wonder if you could expand on your reasoning in a new blog entry, and include a comparison to the case of Nixon and his pardon by Ford (whether you are pro or con).
Post a Comment