No More Pardons?

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"President Bush on Monday commuted the sentences of two former Border Patrol agents imprisoned for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler, but he was preparing to leave office without granting clemency to any better-known figures or government officials who could face liability over administration policies. (...)

A senior White House official said that the commutations announced on Monday would be Mr. Bush's last acts of clemency before he leaves office.

There had been speculation that Mr. Bush might act in a number of high-profile cases, including those of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and the financier Michael R. Milken, both of whom were convicted on felony charges.

Mr. Bush was also said to have been considering pre-emptive action that could have shielded Alberto R. Gonzales, the former attorney general, and other government officials or intelligence officers who could face legal liability over their roles in interrogations, surveillance or other Bush administration policies.

Hundreds of other defendants convicted of garden-variety crimes have petitioned for leniency, seeking to shorten prison sentences their advocates see as excessive. But in the end, Mr. Bush used his clemency power to aid only Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean. He leaves office having granted 200 pardons and commutations, the fewest of any two-term president in modern times.

"I was shocked when I heard this was the only one," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former Justice Department pardon lawyer who represents about 20 imprisoned clients who were seeking clemency. "There are a lot of disappointed lawyers in this town today.""

I'll bet.

Atrios thinks that if Bush does not pardon any members of his administration, it's because "Pardoning the people below him would remove any 5th amendment reasons to not testify, and Bush has never shown much sign of giving a sh*t about other people." (Not Atrios' asterisk.) Myself, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that pardoning anyone in his administration would involve explicitly recognizing that they might require pardons. Bush is not big on admitting that sort of thing.

Whatever the reason, though, I'm glad. 

Comments

[hilzoy]

Oh. My. God.

Not posting on this one until I get actual confirmation, but also because I do not want to run even the teensiest risk of getting the Bush administration to rethink pardons.

[now_what]

Many of the people that were listed speculatively as being possible recipients of pardons did not commit their crimes under his administration (Milken, Pollard, etc.) so neither your explanation nor half of Atrios' explanation would make sense in those cases.

I'm too much of a cynic to believe this is one of those rare cases where we should give Bush any credit, though.

[Mike Schilling]

neither your explanation nor half of Atrios' explanation would make sense in those cases.

Though the other half of Atrios's explanation fits well with Bush's record on death penalty cases.

[Jay C.]

Whether we credit soon-to-be-Ex-President Bush or not, there will probably be a lot of disappointed bettors out there: odds on exactly who would get a Dubya get-out-of-court-free card have been an online staple for months!

[publius]

it's ridiculous he pardoned those guys. after hearing about them for the millionth time, i read up on them a while back.

they basically shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back. That's bad, but they also went around and gathered up their bullet shells and then lied about the whole thing. so it's a mix of murder, destruction of evidence, and fraud.

these are the great martyrs for the anti-immigration movement

[Gary Farber]

"Whether we credit soon-to-be-Ex-President Bush or not, there will probably be a lot of disappointed bettors out there: odds on exactly who would get a Dubya get-out-of-court-free card have been an online staple for months!"

I'm petty enough to remember all the absolute declarations from various folks that Bush was going to invade, or at least bomb, Iran.

"they basically shot a fleeing unarmed man in the back."

Buttocks.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Actually, I think the decision not to pardon was one more wedge driven in by the Great Uniter, and one last f*k you to the Democratic Party. Had Bush issued crony pardons, 99% of McCain voters would have excused it, most Democrats would have resented it, and we would all have gotten on with our lives. As it is, the ball is in Obama's court, and whether to prosecute will be a huge, divisive issue for some indefinite period, and get even worse if and when prosecutions begin. Obama now gets to choose between infuriating his base and alienating half the voters.

Thanks, George, your gift for bringing people together just keeps on giving.

But you know what? I'm glad anyway. I can't bring myself to care that it will skeeve off most GOPers. I want trials -- and now we have a shot at it.

[Mike Schilling]

it's ridiculous he pardoned those guys

Bush didn't pardon Compean and Ramos; he commuted their sentences, so they'll serve two years in solitary confinement (for their own protection, but still solitary) instead of ten. They're still felons.

so it's a mix of murder, destruction of evidence, and fraud.

Assault.

I don't have a reasonable argument for the proper sentence, but since "ten years" came from a mandatory minimum for any crime involving the use of a firearm, I don't particularly respect it.

[Jesurgislac]

*lifts a coffee-mug full of hope*

[Hartmut]

I wonder whether there were behind-the-scenes talks between the old and the incoming administration on the topic.
The absence of pardons is of course an obstacle for sending them to the Hague.
Had I been forced to take a bet on pardons, I'd have expected several of them indeed. Not an orgy but a handful for key figures.
But there are still some hours to go...

[Henry]

I don't understand Atrios' comment, "Pardoning the people below him would remove any 5th amendment reasons to not testify, and Bush has never shown much sign of giving a sh*t about other people." If Bush removed the 5th Amendment grounds for not testifying, then Bush's subordinates would have to reveal more of his crimes. Therefore, not pardoning them protects Bush.

[Nell]

Hartmut: The absence of pardons is of course an obstacle for sending them to the Hague.

Fine with me. What would do more to restore the rule of law: (a) the United States prosecuting its own officials for torture, demonstrating a commitment to its own and international law, or (b) dragging through years of waiting for one of the offenders to set foot outside the U.S., diplomatic standoffs about extradition, and a chorus of right-wing-nationalist screeching about sovereignty?

Prosecution should be undertaken here. Failure to do so within a few years will make the Hague a live possibility again.

[Model 62]

There weren't any pardons because there won't be any prosecutions/inquiries.

[MikeF]

There weren't any pardons because there won't be any prosecutions/inquiries.

Exactly. I expect the Bush administration has gotten explicit-but-classified confirmation of this.

[Harold Ingram]

Obama has already said very clearly that he was moving forward, not backwards. To me the past, is the past. No more anti bush activity. Hope so anyway

[Nombrilisme Vide]

@Harold:

Um. To me rule of law, is rule of law. This isn't about anti-Bush related program activities, it's about even-handedly enforcing the law as written. If people broke the law, violated treaties, and treated the Constitution as nothing more than a scrap of paper... they should be punished, both to discourage further malfeasance on their part and to remind their would-be successors about the distinction between rule of law and rule of man. If we have laws and don't enforce them if e.g., doing so might not give us a warm fuzzy feeling of forward-looking faux-togetherness... we actually don't have laws any more. We have suggestions. Speaking for myself, I find laws and vapors-inducing incivility to be rather more useful than "suggestions" and high-Broderian civility.

So, thanks but no thanks. I'm going to sit here and hope that your hopes are utterly and resoundingly dashed. As well they should be.

[Eric Martin]

Whether we credit soon-to-be-Ex-President Bush or not, there will probably be a lot of disappointed bettors out there...

Myself being one of them (not betting actual money, but predicting pardons).

I'm petty enough to remember all the absolute declarations from various folks that Bush was going to invade, or at least bomb, Iran.

Well, at least I got that one right. Early and often.

[Gary Farber]

I have to say that I'm also bemused by the sudden rash of liberal/left people complaining that Bush didn't pardon members of the administration. I'm hardly a Bush supporter, but if that's a valid complaint, and it also would have been a horrible sign of his evil if he had issued pardons (which I'm inclined to go with), well, I guess Bush would have to reprogram the Kobayashi Maru to get out of that one.

[Henry]

Even though Bush didn't pardon himself or his subordinate criminals, we still need a constitutional amendment prohibiting the President from pardoning himself or others in his administration for crimes committed in their official capacities. That's not what the pardon power should be for.

[mikefromtexas]

My amendment would contain clauses preventing the pres form pardoning himself and/or his staff and prohibiting any pardon for anyone who has NOT been convicted of the crime the pardon is meant to relieve.

[Hartmut]

Nell, the Hague has one advantage over the US. In cases of conviction those put into jail could not be pardoned by the next Republican president (as I would predict with great conficdence to happen). Since I oppose capital punishment, a Hague trial would spare the need to go against that without seeming to be favoritism. If US laws were applied by the letter, several members of the Bush administration (and several former administrations both Republican and Democratic) would have to be put to death.
---
Some on the right are very unhappy that Bush did not pardon Scooter and call it "a cloud over his head" for not doing the 'right' thing.
---
Either Bush doesn't care or it's just another case of dare.