Praise is due former President George W. Bush for commuting the prison sentences of the two former U.S. Border Patrol agents who had shot a Mexican drug smuggler in 2005. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean (in photo) should not have tried to cover up their actions, but many Americans have defended the agents for having just done their jobs in the shooting.
Meanwhile, Bush also deserves credit for resisting the temptation to pre-emptively pardon former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or any other members of his administration relating to torture or other anti-terrorism measures. Nor did he pardon convicted Republican felons such as Ted Stevens or Randy “Duke” Cunningham. In the end, Bush granted 189 pardons and 11 commutations, fewer than half those of Presidents Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
38 Comments
Proves that President Bush is more thoughtful and deliberate in his ability to make intelligent, thoughtful decisions that the howling left decries.
Outstanding. Wish he would have done it sooner. I heard he had a bug up his but about the amnesty camp or something and that is why he waited.
Damn glad he let them out though.
There’s also a strong probability Shrub didn’t know how to spell “pardon.”
Let the war crimes trials begin . . .
Monkeyhawk
Posted January 23, 2009 at 7:38 am | Permalink
There’s also a strong probability Shrub didn’t know how to spell “pardon.”
Surely you jest. Pres. Bush knows full well his power as pardonationer.
sry bout the all bolding. Lazy HTML’er
Bet libby was none too happy, having been the fall guy and receiving a mere commutation. Maybe he’ll write a tell all, and cement the bush legacy.
I think Bush did the right thing regarding the two border agents. Bush did commut their sentences – it was not a full pardon. People forget these two were found guilty by a jury, so there are factors that the general public does not know about this case.
As for Bush not pardoning anyone for their part in torturing and their anti-terrorism tactics. How could Bush pardon anyone if he still maintains the Bush Administration did not condone torture?
I still believe George W. Bush was not the main driving force in his two terms. The main character was Dick Cheney. In my opinion, GWB was only the dummy in Cheney’s ventriloguist act.
When Bush talked, I was always reminded of a college frat boy that never grew up. He is a good enough guy, but he never seemed to have grown into manhood.
In case you haven’t noticed, the real action is with the confirmation hearings of Eric Holder and Dennis Blair. Several Republicans are playing defense, seemingly looking for a commitment that crimes aren’t crimes and torture isn’t torture, at least when some of their own are involved. Holder has parroted the right-wing line that we should not be “criminalizing policy,” something anyone can agree with, but if he’s in touch with reality, he knows that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Blair, unfortunately, seems all too willing to play ball.
I will say this: those who insist on “revenge”–in those terms–are playing right in the hands of pseudo-journalists like Wolf Blitzer who portray enforcing our international treaty obligations as some type of political payback of the “left.”
The Justice Department should be free to pursue the truth where it goes, and make the appropriate referrals when necessary. Prosecutorial discretion not to act may apply in some instances, but it notably does not apply when it comes to obeying the Geneva Conventions.
And every presumption of innocence, rule of evidence, and rule of due process must be scrupulously obeyed. In short, our own alleged war criminals must be treated with the highest standards of justice they so casually, brutally, and pointlessly denied to others.
The wild card, for me, is the unseen influence of Cass Sunstein, who made some very scary, irrational statements about administrative perogative to intrepret law during the campaign. However, so far Obama appears, thankfully, to be respecting the law and the Constitution in a swift and forceful manner, and I give him serious kudos for that.
I don’t think it shows anything about being thoughtful or deliberater or even being able to spell pardon. I think it shows that he will let his friends swing in the wind. In other words I think it shows that Bush was not the friend that a lot of the neocons thought he was.
Bush left his followers hanging, and the repubs are trying to play defense with the Holder nomination. Bet they’re cursing bush for not pardoning.
two former U.S. Border Patrol agents
This only makes sense as the new democrat monopoly federal government is about to make all the illegal criminals legal citizens.
Amnesty is a foregone conclusion with the libs.
Plus the song, Tear down the walls, will become the new mantra.
Well, AW, our former governor had to deal with the issue personally. I bet you haven’t.
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Comics/Rand?issue=2008-12-18
I don’t believe any of the Bush pardons were related, involved, or did personal favors for Mrs. Bush or the president did they?
How can they top these personal pardons?
Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.
Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction. First Lady Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency.
Linda Sue Evans and Susan Rosenberg were pardoned. Weather Underground members.
Marc Rich, a fugitive who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Rich owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts of tax fraud. Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton’s senate campaign. Emails uncovered during the course of the investigation revealed that her final donation was provided a year before Scooter Libby requested that she approach Clinton for a pardon.
Susan McDougal, who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton’s role.
Melvin J. Reynolds, a Democratic Congressman from Illinois, who was convicted of bank fraud, 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography had his sentence commuted.
Roger Clinton, the president’s half-brother, on drug charges. Roger Clinton would be charged with drunk driving and disorderly conduct in an unrelated incident within a year of the pardon.
shall we talk about unethical conduct in these proven cases?
A man of integrity to the end. Integrity. A somewhat difficult concept for our liberal friends to understand, if this thread is any indication.
Monk,
“There’s also a strong probability Shrub didn’t know how to spell “pardon.””
All he’d have to do is ask Laura- she’s had to use the word countless times regarding his gaffes.
The day after he was out of office, Dick Cheney indicated how disappointed he was that Libby was not pardoned. One of the few times there was an acknowledged difference of opinion between the Bush/Cheney.
“Stephen F. Hayes writes in the Weekly Standard that former vice president Dick Cheney is not happy with his former boss. ‘Cheney told the Weekly Standard that his former chief of staff, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, whom he described as a ‘victim of a serious miscarriage of justice,’ deserved a presidential pardon.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2009/01/22/BL2009012201824_5.html
it’s always about Clinton for you Republicans isn’t it?
boo
Bush did address the subject of pardons for his administration. He has stated that what they did was lawful and need no pardoning. He stood by that statement and where he was correct remains to be seen.
Bravo Brian, for saying what I couldn’t articulate.
Dennis
Plus the fact is pardon cost you – they are lasting dents on your reputation – no upside – and Bush really doesn’t give a crap about anyone else…
Plus the fact is pardon cost you – they are lasting dents on your reputation – no upside – and Bush really doesn’t give a crap about anyone else…
No upside? Well, except for staying out of prison.
But there’s no precedent, or at least no good precedent. Ford pardoned Nixon. George HW Bush pardoned numerous Iran-Contra figures. Obama may be forced to pardon the Bush crew, rather than pursue the course of action that is legally inevitable, given their open, unrepentant, public defiance of US and international law (or basic standards of human decency and integrity, for that matter).
I hope not, but I well understand the political difficulty in pursuing it.
I think wd hit the nail on the head. For Bush to pardon those who did torture, for example, he would have to acknowledge that there was a reason to issue the pardons.
I don’t want to see attempts at mass revenge. However, I WOULD like to see Fitzgerald given a new assignment after he finishes off Blogo.
“Plus the fact is pardon cost you – they are lasting dents on your reputation – no upside -…”
Hogwash. Except for political junkies like us, no one cares or remembers. Clinton didn’t pay for the Mark Rich deal. Not really.
See you at the Anchor!!
Ben,
I think it is mandatory for anyone who takes on the “Bush assignment” that they be known as politically independent–or principled Republicans.
(Those of us with long memories recall that Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, Elliot Richardson, William Ruckelhaus, Lawrence Walsh, and William Weld were all Republicans).
Ya know, now that I think of it, Haldeman, Erlichman, Colson etc. all went to jail.
No, Barack, I don’t want to see the Executive Branch “lawyering up” either. Let the little fish go, with a warning.
But keep the big fish, and the principles in mind. Please.
P.S. Who was President then (he wasn’t a Democrat)?
I keep seeing the topic of what was wrong as being a matter of political revenge or partisan payback.
As if the question of what is lawful or right and wrong is about solely the matter of politics.
Either what the Bush administration do or do not do is simple a difference in policy opinion.
It is solely a question of violation of law and violation of public trust.
The party affiliation of the President does not matter as to whether they have committed a criminal act.
Was Bill Clinton guilty of lying to a grand jury because he is Democratic? Is robbing a bank legal or illegal based on the voter’s registration card in the pocket? The violation of the law is in question is true, they first went to they own AG and insiders to get they actions justified. That’s like asking Pretty boy Floyd if machine gun Kelly should be punished for robbing a bank? If the answer is a forgone conclusion than it is a pointless question. First there needs to be a wise and studied nonbiased decision if in fact the law allowed for a such actions? Then that decision should be applied to the review of the actions of the Bush Administration. If there needs to be a actual declared war by Congress in order for the President to have the far reaching powers that were claimed. Or simply a cliquish claim of a war is enough( war on drugs, war of poverty and the like)?
Any gray area/idealogical disagreement type investigations, or God-forbid prosecutions, would tear this country apart.
Yes, I really thinks so.
And there is no stronger basis than that, that I have seen.
Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.
Agreed. But the political branches launch those type of investigations. The legal branches have to stick with statutory law, and support any allegations on the basis of such.
Is there something wrong with that?
Aargh. Wrong paste.
Umm… So once it gets to the “legal branches” no influence from politics?
Maybe it is supposed to work that way, but you know and I know it ain’t always that way, and it wouldn’t be in this case.
Best just to avoid it completely.
Maybe it is supposed to work that way, but you know and I know it ain’t always that way, and it wouldn’t be in this case.
I see. An interesting argument.
Should Patrick Fitgerald have been able to prosecute Rod Blagojevich, since he wasn’t a Democrat? Or is it okay now, since his boss is a Democrat? Should he have been able to prosecute Libby, since he’s only a Independent?
Okay, I’ll bite.
The thing you’re failing to grasp is that, if we can actually ignore grave violations of the law for political reasons, why is it less possible to insist on a fair,impartial application of the law? For political–or other–reasons?
You’re pretending it’s never happened in a such a context, which, sorry, is bullschet. I listed numerous principled Republicans who took on Republicans. The Democrat-controlled House of Illinois voted 114-1 to impeach a twice-elected Democratic governor. The Republican-controlled Alaska legislature thumped Sarah Palin by a similar margin.
Impartial justice is exactly the point, all the more so in contrast from the past occupant of the White House, who defended serious abuses of the concept.
The thing you’re failing to grasp is that, if we can actually ignore grave violations of the law for political reasons, why is it less possible to insist on a fair,impartial application of the law? For political–or other–reasons?
—————
I didn’t say that; didn’t even imply it. If there were “grave violations of the law” it would be a different matter completely. There is no evidence of such. Are you advocating a witch hunt? Sound like it.
There is no evidence of such. Are you advocating a witch hunt? Sound like it.
Uh huh. Who are we supposed to believe, you, or our lying eyes?
Got it.
Rage sir, you leave me know choice but to go nuclear and quote Reagan.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”- Ronald Reagan
Sigh… know = no