With all the speculation about the possible pardon of Scooter Libby by Bush - probably after the 2008 election, assuming Libby can stay out of jail that long - we are reminded of other outrageous pardons by presidents at the end of their terms. In 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. In 1993, George H. W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others involved in the Iran-Contra affair. Both were done at the end of their terms when there was no longer any political consequence for these pardons.

The US Constitution guarantees the President the right to pardon anyone. I think this should be amended. I propose that any pardon prior to 90 days before the end of a president's term (i.e. before the next election) shall be subject to approval by a vote in the Senate (a simple majority). This would discourage these last minute pardons. A president could still pardon anyone without Senate approval throughout the rest of his term.

Thoughts?

Andrew

I'm in favor of this.

I'm not even though one of the worst violators in recent times was Bill Clinton.

Being able to pardon for things that smack of protecting a friend isn't what I like to see it used for.

The only case I am familiar with enough to have a strong opinion about is Ford pardoning Nixon. Looking back, it seemed like the right move.

It was the right thing CJ. The country had been paralyzed with the Nixon thing and it was time to get it behind us and move on.

There's idealism, then there's what makes sense. They are not always the same.

And there is a big-to-me difference between that pardon and the others that I can remember. And from what I can tell, I would probably not agree with Bush pardoning Libby. I don't think there is a paralysis due to Libby - therefore a pardon seems more than a little self-serving.

Seems to me, such a change would still allow for making sense, would it not?

Such a change wouldn't prevent Bush from pardoning Libby. He just couldn't wait til after the 2008 elections to do it [moot point, it would take way too long for such an amendment to be passed in time for 2008]. Bill Clinton would have had either to pardon Mark Rich before the 2000 election (risky for Gore) or not have done it without Senate approval.

Andrew

Keep the pardon. It sounds like a cool "get out of jail free" card that the President (or governor) can hand out to his best friends - and in truth it can be used that way. But it is also an important check on the judiciary branch. The framers put a lot of thought into the checks and balances of the Constitution, and I would think long and hard before tinkering with that machinery.

You know what? You're right. Plain and simple. Seriously. NO sarcasm. If it's going to get abused ( by my definition ) I'd rather it does and me be allowed to make a note about that and know that it remains in tact for the good it CAN serve.

Maybe things will make it worthy of another look later - but for now, yep. You pretty much nailed it.

A presidental pardon is an extraordinary power. I think many would agree that the last few presidents have abused this power at the last minute when there are no consequences. I think presidents should either be held accountable for their pardons - meaning, the voters can vote against the president or the president's party - or give the Senate a check on the power ONLY once the president is a lame duck and no longer accountable to the voters. There is still a check on the judicial branch because the Senate has a say in the pardon (only during the lame duck period) and the judiciary branch is out of it.

Honestly, most of the pardons a president issues don't even result in a news story and wouldn't be affected by this. It's these egregious pardons like that of Mark Rich and Bush the Wiser's pardon of the Iran-Contra people that we'd be trying to avoid. In the case of Scooter Libby, it could be a big deal, because Libby knows he might get pardoned; if he knew the chances of a pardon were slim beause a Democratic Senate wouldn't allow it in the final hours, Libby might talk more than otherwise. If, by chance, Bush himself is guilty of a crime related to the Plame affair (I'm not saying Bush is guilty of anything like this), Bush could in effect protect himself by pardoning Libby. There are lots of other possible cases where this might happen in the future.

Andrew

I'd say that a president may offer a full pardon only to a former president, after all, only another president can actually understand what it is really like to make decisions (especially bad ones) under the pressure of being the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

As for all other Americans, perhaps a president can limit prison time to time served, but the verdicts stands.

Never happen, the right of a chief of state to grant pardons is too ingrained.

"A presidental pardon is an extraordinary power."

A court's ability to convict is just as extraordinary, if not more so. It's amazing how we have become a nation that seems to embrace "guilty (upon arrest) until proven innocent". Perhaps we have been watching "Cops" too much?

But when we talk about "inalienable rights" such as life, liberty and property (original to Locke; Jefferson changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' so as to not offend the landless commoners) we are talking about rights that should never be taken away; are "natural" and beyond the power of Man to change. Yet that is exactly what the government does to you when you are convicted of a crime - they either take away your life (death sentence), liberty (jail time) or property (fine).

The entire judicial system is based on presumed innocence. The Bill of Rights, due process, rights of the accused, etc. exist because our system believes it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent person. The power of the pardon is consistent with this belief.

Right. Once again, I wasn't advocating getting rid of the power to pardon - I was simply advocating curbing the power to avoid the way it's been abused by lame duck presidents at the end of their terms. I don't quite get the connection to limiting the power for a president's final three months in office with watchin "Cops..."

Andrew

Any power that can be used, can also be abused. I don't know how to curb a power so that it is not abused, without also limiting the power to be able to use it properly when necessary. There may very well be an appropriate limit for the power of the pardon, but I'm not sure what it would look like.

The "Cops" analogy: akin to the perp walk, and other things that have made our society think that law enforcement and the courts are somehow infallable. If someone is arrested, or convicted, they therefore uniquivocally "did it". It's a blind trust in the justice system that our society seems to have developed lately. Not a direct response to anything in your post Andrew; just venting I guess...

We've two issues here.

The stigma generally attached to those involved in the justice system. Not sure where that has come from, but it's real. Having been dragged in to that mess in the recent past, aquitted, and all of that, I still find some issues remain. On that note, I'm not sure if an expungment is good or bad! It's good in that the details are gone for all intents and purposes, bad in that now I've something to hide!

I'm currently letting the public record stand. Anyone who wants to look will see clearly what a clusterfuck that whole affair was. Problem is, they won't look and just will see charged with...

Oh well. No biggie for me, but it is real --that's my point.

The secondary issue is the nature of the pardon itself. Clearly we need to keep it. No discussion there. However, the end of term crap has been happening now on a fairly regular basis.

I'm not sure the founders would have let that stand longer term. Some elements of our system are supposed to be mallable. IMHO, this is one where a small tweak or two won't disturb the overall intent, but will bring the spirit of it back in to sharper focus.

It is this Andrew is getting at, not the concept of a pardon in general.

Not trying to be contrary here Missing, but what is the "spirit" of a pardon?

Remember the (I think) Illinois governor who recently pardoned all 165 people on the state's death row, commuting them to life imprisonment? The lack of certainty in such convictions prompted his actions. A Philosophical Decision.

And the average "end of term" Presidential pardon, which is to deliver some clemency or to extend a kind gesture to a person who clearly seemed to have learned their lesson. The expungement of the crime from the court records certainly makes it easier for that person to fill out job application forms the rest of their life ("Do you have any felony convictions..."). A Practical Decision.

And then there is the political pardon, which it seems clear a Scooter Libby pardon would be. This would not happen until the very end of Bush's term, after the 2008 election, so as to not taint the party with such a rogue action by Bush. A Political Decision.


But then again, isn't that time period between Election Day and Inauguration Day when the president is the lamest of lame ducks? John Adams had his "midnight appointments", infuriating Jefferson and much of the nation, but it was perfectly constitutional.

The political injury to Bush's legacy and the Republican party will be much greater than the gain Libby gets by being pardoned. I personally think it's a politically stupid move, and I'm kind of rooting for Bush to make it.

Ok. Now I don't know.

The Scooter thing rubs me tne wrong way. It's a perversion of the system really. He can be the fall guy, then get outta jail free from the Resident & friends who also sidestep the law in general.

It's wrong on a lot of levels, but the fix clearly isn't easy.

IMHO, we should be able to adjust to people gaining the ability to game the system that is supposed to be working for us!

Plus, it's awkward giving the Medal of Freedom to someone in prison. Yet another reason to pardon Scooter.

This was in the "O" yesterday:

Since 1945, there have been 7210 presidential pardons:

Truman - 1913
Eisenhower - 1110
Kennedy - 472
Johnson - 960
Nixon - 863
Ford - 382
Carter - 534
Reagan - 393
Bush I - 74
Clinton - 396
resident president - 113

Wow ... looks like Truman, Ike, Johnson and Nixon were busy guys. Granted all served more than one term ...

In comparison, Papa and Son are lagging. Better step up the effort, Dubya!

I'm going to take a guess that Eisenhower's and Truman's pardons stemmed from World War II-era crimes.

Nixon's are really high, when you consider that he didn't even have a lame duck period after the 1976 election like the other presidents have to issue pardons.

Perhaps Bush I's pardons were so low because he hadn't expected to lose in 1992 and thus hadn't thought about whom he might pardon?

Andrew

Nixon's is surprising as well considering how many enemies he made and how few people he trusted.

Gerald Ford was a busy guy, too, in his 2 1/2 years in office.

It might help if we knew what kind of people and their crimes got pardoned? Truman -- WW2 AWOLs and deserters with mental health issues? Understandable.

Your leaving out the thousands of draft dodgers and deserters carter pardoned.

And does it include the pardom Clinton gave to Gen Robert E. Lee?

Go look it up yourself, dilrod; Carter pardoned 534.

Pardon me.

Dilrod. That word makes me smile. Dilrod.

Is Nwokie also DD's???

http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/conscientious-objection/Vietnam-war-resisters.htm

Carters pardon of draft dodgers covered hundreds of thousands.

It also probably allowed John kerry to get his discharge upgraded.

From your source above:

"It was a blanket amnesty granted to all draft evaders whether they had been engaged in a legal process or not. This is why no figure exists for the real number of draft evaders who benefited from the Carter program."

Carter opened the door for potential pardons, but we don't know how many took advantage of it.

Plus, this was a program started (badly) by Ford and continued/changed/improved by Carter. So let's at least be honest enough to call it the Ford/Carter program.

Fords pardon program required the person to actually do something, IE reaffirm an oath to the US, and minimal community service, Carters required nothing.

I dont like ford either.

Well here's the question stated another way;

Bush pardons Libby.

Who is ok with that?

Who is not?

Why?

#2. A train leaves Chicago at 4:45 heading S X SW...

Of course the President should pardon him.

This is strictly a political situation.

When Ms Wilson recommended her husband for a position, she violated the anti nepotisiom laws of the federal govt. Then Mr wilson decided to use his appointment for political reasons, at which point the entire situation became a matter for public debate.

If Ms Wilson had of been any kind of undercover agent, she would have known the first rule is keep a low profile, by she and her husband starting the political discussions, she had to known the newsmen would look into her background.

OK. So the ends justify the means when it is a political situation. Got it. Tit for tat. Two wrongs. Payback. Loyalty. America.

Pathetic.

Valerie Plame did not have the authority to approve her husband Joe Wilson for the mission to Niger. And considering Ambassador Wilson had a history in Iraq, a wealth of diplomatic experience in Africa, and great contacts in Niger (serving in the embassy there for 2 years in the 70s), he was an ideal candidate for the job anyway. It's hardly a case of nepotism.

Anyway, it's not clear whether Plame herself came forward offer Joe's desire to go to Niger or whether someone asked her, "Hey, Val, do you think Joe would want go to Niger and check out this yellow cake thing?" and she responded. In any case, there's no law against suggesting someone for a job. She had zero authority to approve him or make it happen.

Joe Wilson could have (should have!) spoken out before the war even began but instead waited until longer after the invasion to make his case. I know all you goose-stepping Republicans think blind authority to the President regardless of the moral issues is how we should all behave, but Wilson saw how the Bush administration had lied about the Niger uranium and felt compelled to speak out about it. He had I would say a moral obligation to speak out. He should have spoken out a lot sooner, actually.

Nwokie, you and DD still haven't explained why if it was so obvious that Plame wasn't undercover (hence no violation of the law) that the FBI didn't simply look up the law and close the investigation 10 minutes after the CIA requested it? This is all before Fitzgerald came on board. Clearly the CIA thought a crime had been committed, and they have plenty of lawyers over there. FBI must have thought a violation of the law was at least possible to have taken the investigation so seriously.

Andrew

Didnt say she approved him, she recommended him, which is still a violation of federal Civil Service Nepotoism rules.

The cia was trying to distract evryone from the screwups they had done.

Well, it will be interesting to see what Plame says when she testifies this week in front of Congress. Because it's still not clear who suggested Wilson for the trip. This was written two years ago but it explores the question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918. html

Wilson maintains that his wife was asked that day by one of her bosses to write a memo about his credentials for the mission--after they had selected him. That memo apparently was included in a cable to officials in Africa seeking concurrence with the choice of Wilson, the Senate report said.

We can see how Plame's memo could clearly be seen as a "suggestion" that he be sent to Niger. What no one is asking (you certainly don't seem to care) is why she wrote the memo in the first place. Was she told to write it by superiors? If so, how could that be construed as "she suggested him for the trip?"

As for why the FBI invested so much in investigating what is so clearly not a crime to you ("she wasn't undercover"), that apparently didn't occur to all the other Republicans in charge who would have wanted to avoid such an investigation if possible. Sorry, your explanation simply doesn't make sense.

Andrew

Doesnt matter, even if a superior asked her to write it, she should have declined because it was a violation of federal nepotism laws.

And if she was as claimed an undercover agent, she should have done nothing that would have tied her to the cia, like a memo sent to other agencies.

She never claimed to be an "undercover agent" - "agents" are not CIA employees, they are non-CIA people paid for information. A typical CIA agent would be someone who works at a foreign government or company, etc., paid for information. The correct term is "officer" not "agent."

Plame was working as NOC (Non-Official Cover) meaning she worked at a (fake) company and not as a diplomat. If she were arrested, the CIA would have denied she was an employee. Can you see how protecting a NOC's identity might be kind of important? What about the other "employees" at the fake company Plame worked at? Blowing Plame's cover blew their cover, too, as well as the status of any agent Plame or her colleges were working with. You can bet that foreign governments combed their files for any records of contacts with Brewster & Jennings the day after Plame's cover was blown. Wonder what happened to those people who were in contact with them? What about the other fake companies the CIA was running?

How does Plame's writing a memo requested by a superior violate nepotism laws? Please explain, Mr. Lawyer, because I think it's bullshit.

Andrew

If she was a NOC, why wasw she reporting everyday to work at CIA Hq at Langly?

She might have used to be a NOC, but at the time, she was just another CIA employee, and thats all that was told to the newsperson, that she was a CIA employee , that recommended her husband for the trip.

Look, I don't know if you know how these things work. Just because (if you say so) she reported to the Agency headquarters in 2003 that she wouldn't still be part of the Brewster & Jennings front? That she wouldn't still be sent overseas as part of the operation? She had a public identity as an employee of Brewster & Jennings. What about the other CIA officers who might have still been working that operation? They were instantly compromised when Plame's name was revealed.

You can't just thoughtlessly reveal a CIA employee's identity like that, without knowing the ramifications, unless the CIA has cleared it. CIA does have public employees who can tell their friends and family where they work and what they do. All "covert" means is that she wasn't one of these public employees.

Plame's name was obviously revealed by Libby as part of a retribution to get back at Wilson.

Andrew

As I see it, and I may be wrong, the base accusation ( not the legal one - the REAL one ) is;

The Bush administration leaked Valerie Plame's name as political retrobution for her husband's dissent.

If that happened, for that reason, is there anyone who feels that it's ok to do that?

Nwokie? Just read that statement. Are you ok with the Bush administration doing that? I'm not proving they did. But IF they did - would that bother you? Or do you just feel it was justified, if they did?