Bush takes some time out of the remaining two months he has left in office to pardon 14 individuals, whose crimes vary, and commute the sentences of two others. This may seem like a lot of pardons all at once, but he has been remarkably stingy and has only given out 171 pardons and 8 commutes including these, which, believe it or not, is less than half of the number given out by both Clinton and Reagon, both of whom were two-term presidents!
Whether or not Bush will be able to handle the sudden influx of people asking for pardons is another question, but more importantly, whether or not he will pardon those involved with the violent interrogations of individuals thought to have been involved with the 9/11 attack.
The debate lies in this,should the fact they were just trying to protect their county or were just following orders keep them from being charged for war crimes or other criminal charges?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
i honestly dont know why any president would make so many pardons. im not really educated in that aspect, my only guess is that the president looks at some cases that get recomended to him and he uses his personal judgement to decide if the prisoner is innocent or guilty. t also doesnt suprise me that a republican from texas (death penalty capital) gave thess pardons than president clinton.
I think that the interrogators should be pardoned. These people were only doing what they thought was best.
Our country does have a history of pardoning individuals who were parts of treason or crimes. For example, Andrew Johnson pardoned southerners in the Confederate States after they committed treason. And President Ford pardoned Nixon. I think that September 11th was an extremely difficult and chaotic time for everyone. People made decisions based on fear and a sense of dutifulness. These people are not a threat to society.
I agree somewhat with Emily. Although it is a reasonable argument that some interrogators went overboard with their interrogating, I think that it depends if they were given orders or did it on their own judgement. They should be innocent if the interrogators were given orders to do "something" to a possible criminal because an order in any branch of the military must be obeyed. I think if an interrogator takes it upon himself torchure a suspect unjustifiably without an order than they should be guilty.
Actually, he is going to pardon 15 individuals.
You know.....the turkey...It's going to be Thanksgiving soon...Hahahahaha. That was a bad joke. Sorry. 0_o
Anyways, I guess it's time for some serious analysis. A while ago, there was a lot of controversy about the possible pardon of Scooter Libby for his involvements in "Plamegate." It turns out that President Bush opted to commute his prison term. Personally, I found the act of commutation as a better choice than a pardon. For example, while looking at the list, I was surprised at some people he pardoned. I don't know the actual circumstances of these crimes, but I doubt that people that were found guilty of things like bank embezzlement and cocaine charges should not be pardoned. Assuming that I have a good knowledge of the crimes that were committed, I still wouldn't give out pardons for people that were found guilty of these types of crimes. Just my 2¢.
This may sound mean, but I think the pardoning of criminals should be up to the courts, not the President. It may be a check on the Judical Branch, but how do we know the president is all that well informed of the cases? I don't think the death penalty is agreat thing either, but it seems to me that giving one person the power to pardon that many people regardless of what they've done is overdoing it a little. Maybe the courts should be allowed to overturn the pardon as a check on this power.
Some of these crimes are rediculous "_Robert Earl Mohon Jr. of Grant, Ala., who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana." Now I don't know how much stuff this guy already had on his record, but I know quite a few people who have done more than conspire about such things... it seems so frivolous, but maybe that's cause were from CA...
"_Ronald Alan Mohrhoff of Los Angeles, who was convicted for unlawful use of a telephone in a narcotics felony." What exactley was he doing with the telephone?
I definetly thing Oliver has a point, there are many things Bush is pretty uninformed about that ARE very pertinent parts of his job, I doubt he knows much more about these cases, it does seem like maybe the power of the president to pardon people is a little out of place. Governors also have this power yes? how does that work? over what do they have jurisdiction, if the president can pardon anyone? SO governors can pardon those obviously from their own states... ?
In response to Oliver: the White House Counsel's office as well as the Justice Department and senior White House staffers are all involved with the pardon process (there is a great West Wing episode detailing this), so theses are not decisions made lightly.
I do hope the Bush will pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two Border Control agents jailed for over ten years over the shooting of a Mexican drug smuggler. If ever there were a case of people being punished for doing their job, this is it.
Well, i believe that Bush is trying to improve his image by looking "compassionate." I am not sure of my position of the interrogators, for what i have read, i know that the CIA especially has committed many abuses in the Middle East, starting with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Post a Comment