PARDONS
ARE A PRESIDENTIAL TRADITION
BY
JULIANNE MALVEAUX
|
If I, like former President William
Jefferson Clinton, had the right to pardon whomever I wanted, I’d
have pardoned the 45,000 non-violent drug offenders who are
incarcerated because of mandatory drug laws. Then, I might have
pardoned some of our nation’s political prisoners, including Native
American Leonard Peltier, who has spent nearly twenty years in a
Federal prison. Peltier says he was framed for killing 2 FBI agents.
Had I Clinton’s powers, I might have commuted the sentences of some
of those on death row, especially some of those who had inadequate
legal representation when they fought the charges against them.
Clinton had his own fish to fry, though. He issued nearly 200 pardons in the last weeks of his Presidency, several dozen before Christmas, and the remainder in his last hours in power. His detractors have groused that he pardoned scalawags like financier Marc rich, a man who fled the United States rather than to face justice here. They are annoyed that he pardoned Whitewater principals, and showed mercy to his former Cabinet members, including Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. As with every move Bill Clinton has made, these pardons are attracting a scrutiny unknown by prior administrations. I don’t recall the same heated condemnations of President Bush’s pardons of Irancontra figures, for example. Fortunately, Clinton lacks the Nixonian hubris to say ‘they won’t have me to kick around anymore”. But grousers need to get over Bill Clinton and his pardons. Even President George W. Bush has said that he won’t be making waves over Clinton pardons, mainly because he does not want to encourage challenges to his own right to pardon. I’ve got Clinton’s back on his pardons, however questionable they may be, but I am disappointed that he missed an opportunity to make a set of key points about the uneven application of justice by failing to pardon hundreds or thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. Similarly, I wish Mr. Clinton had considered making a statement about the uneven application of justice, especially as it applies to African Americans and “three strike” laws. The mixed nature of the Clinton pardons reflects the mixed nature of the Clinton presidency, his combined motives for action. On one hand, he has attempted to serve and make a difference. On the other hand, he has been mired in the venality of electoral politics and its trappings. Had he never promised to put people first, Clinton might be forgiven for behaving like an ordinary politician. Because he has both declared and emphasized his extraordinary nature, Mr. Clinton has been never been able to meet our expectations of his success. On one hand, Bill Clinton is capable of the meaningful and sweeping gesture, as in the pardon of Kemba Smith, the African American women who traded her schoolgirl garb at Virginia’s Hampton Institute for prison wear six years ago. Smith’s case had attracted the attention of several civil rights organizations, and African American women’s groups had rallied to her defense. Pardoning Smith made a powerful statement about mandatory sentencing and drug laws, but the statement would have been more powerful had Clinton emulated former President Jimmy Carter, who granted absolution to thousands of Vietnam-era draft evaders. His pardon of Peter MacDonald, a former President of the Navajo nation, also showed sensitivity to a person of color whose conviction was likely biased by our injustice system. At the same time, too many pardons appear to have been purchased, and too many have seemed so illogical or whimsical that they have fostered speculation about their rationale. The Clinton administration is not the first time we’ve been confronted with the concept of justice for sale. But the end of his administration may well be the first time there has been so much blathering reduction of a Presidency. It is as if his detracts will so acutely miss him that they feel obliged to natter on about his action, even as he is closing the door on his 8 years of work. The Clinton presidency has, perhaps, shaped the “pundocricy” in a way that no other presidency has, emphasizing the revolving door between the White House and the policy arena, as well as the ability of some to trade their inside status (thing Dick Morris and George Stephanopolis) for fat tell-all paychecks. Yes, these folks have parting shots at President Clinton, parting shots and also furtive “I miss you” glances. In six months, we’ll have to figure out whether the pundits will be as big a part of national affairs as they have been in the past. Meanwhile, I say we ought to stop grousing about the Clinton pardons. He used an absolute privilege both for good and to his own advantage. He followed the footsteps and emulated the actions of Presidents before him. Pardon me, but the Clinton pardons are a non-issue. Commentary |