Obama’s assurances notwithstanding
[5:56 pm EST update: On a special Sunday edition on of FNC's Special Report, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post echoed Gamecock's call for preemptive pardons for those CIA agents and others involved in the waterboarding and the decision to waterboard KSM and two other al Qaida leaders that led to information that saved thousands of American lives. Krauthammer went further and endorsed the awarding of medals to the agents and others involved. He suggested that Obama is "too smart" to follow the lead of John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, but still said he hopes Bush will issue the preemptive pardons...and medals! Bravo Charles!]
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
I have generally opposed blanket, preemptive pardons as Presidents leave office, as too violative of the rule of law. But Eric Holder’s (pictured) recent confirmation testimony gives me pause.
President-Elect Barack Obama recently reinforced my general opposition when he lauded the great and courageous work of intelligence personnel that should not have to “spend all their time looking over their shoulders,” when asked about the possible future prosecutions of those involved in “waterboarding” three high level captured al Qaida terrorists.
Vice-President Cheney said last week that he didn’t deem preemptive pardons necessary since all actions were legal.
But Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, the Cabinet position that will make decisions about illegality and prosecutions after the new president’s Day One, make it necessary in my mind that President Bush consider pardons, before his last Day 1461, for those that have been looking over their shoulders thanks to Obama and the Democrats’ rhetoric for the last four years:
Holder avoided directly addressing the possibility that Bush-era officials could face criminal prosecutions for their involvement in wiretapping and interrogation policies. But he quickly followed up by telling lawmakers that, when he called for a “reckoning” last year, he was referring not to indictments but to gathering information. Holder also cited the words of Obama, who has decried calls “to criminalize policy differences where they might exist.”
On counterterrorism policies, he said he would “follow the evidence, the facts, the law.”
Earlier in his testimony, Eric Holder unequivocally declared that he deemed waterboarding to be illegal torture.
Until now, I have kept my powder dry on Holder since there are consequences to elections; he may be the best we can get; he did say in 2002 that captured terrorists were illegal enemy combatants not entitled to POW status under Geneva; and since I considered Holder a minor fly on the wall with respect to the Hillary-driven FALN terrorist and Bill-driven Marc Rich pardons.
Given other testimony of Holder, but more so the loaded questions of Democrats and especially the intentions of John Conyers, one could also make a case that the Democrats’ politicization of national security and government policy in general (see US Attorney firings, etc), one could also justify sweeping preemptive pardons. But I think such pardons would usher in a lawlessness never before seen in America with preemptive pardons becoming as quadrennially traditional as “So help me God” at the end of the Oath.
Al Gore already did enough damage to the fabric of American exceptional-ism and uniqueness when he was the first to withdraw a Presidential election concession. Another such line we must not cross just now, and hopefully not ever.
My powder is still dry on seeking to deny Holder the AG job, but is no longer dry on deeming preemptive pardons acceptable on the narrow issue of those involved in waterboarding.
I just wish Obama would make it clear that he will not go down the road Holder suggests so that CIA heroes can rest their necks, now strained looking over their shoulders.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts
January 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It is rather sad that we having to consider pardoning those who have played a roll in defending our country.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Let Democrats try and prosecute Bush officials – that right there would be the key to a Republican comback.
If they even take one step towards prosecution, the GOP needs to run an ad blitz about how the DNC cares more about protecting terrorists from being roughed up a little bit than protecting American lives. We call on Obama to issue the pardons – not Bush. If he refuses, we tag him with being complacent in the prosecution of the men most responsible for keeping us safe.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
No Pardons from Bush – the ball should be in the Democrats court on this. They want to prosecute, it will be the biggest political disaster for the DNC since the 1994 election. If Obama wants to pardon them, he can do that.
January 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Prosecution of anyone costs lots of money, which if you haven’t noticed, the US is now out of! Look at what happened to Scooter Libby and others who were put through the wringer. The financial cost to the individual is crushing – - having to fight against the bottomless pocket of the federal government (using our money). As a monetary mercy to anyone in serious danger, Bush should hand out pardons as a preemptive strike against financial waste (I actually think of it as terrorism of an individual). It is irresponsible to use this as a political issue.
Let’s not waste time and non-existent money on the past. Obama will make plenty of mistakes, useful to Republicans, just like Clinton did in his first two years. The threat of HillaryCare gave the GOP under Gingrich’s leadership a takeover in the House. Now Obama is going to push universal federal healthcare. It’s like “deja voux all over again.” Get ready.
PS: If anyone should be pardoned it is Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The general public is in favor of this and cannot see why it hasn’t been done!
January 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“PS: If anyone should be pardoned it is Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The general public is in favor of this and cannot see why it hasn’t been done!” I cannot disagree with that. Are you listening Mr. Bush?
January 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This could be the GOP’s best shot to move back towards a total majority that we get for a LONG time. Yes, the HillaryCare mess gave us the House – but it didn’t help us two years later when it came time to win back the White House.
I’m sorry, but from a political perspective, its hard to see how the GOP loses under an attempted prosecution. On the other hand, the DNC would almost certainly make headlines accusing Bush of continuing his culture of torture if he pardoned those involved…
The money would be a lot, but nothing in comparison to all the other spending that Democrats will push if the GOP remains weak.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Um if it was all legal why the need for “pre-emptive pardons”??
Sounds like you are not too sure it was all legal.
Silly post anyway as Obama has made it clear that he won’t be prosecuting anyone.
ps your bit about Gore withdrawing his concession is up there with the most cringeworthy things you have said. Please tell me you do realise that “concessions” have no legal effect? Newsflash – you either win or you lose. If Franken had conceded he still would have won the election – just looked silly. I’ve never agreed with you but I didn’t actually think you were stupid.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Um if it was all legal why the need for “pre-emptive pardons”??”
Because “torture” is not clearly defined, and is open to multiple definitions. If the libs think that waterboarding is torture, they could try an prosecute. Do I believe its torture? No – though I would still support it if it was, but Pelosi does, Holder does, and the majority of liberals do.
“Silly post anyway as Obama has made it clear that he won’t be prosecuting anyone.”
He wouldn’t even if he wanted to – the President can’t prosecute – but Congress can try to.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Matthew K has a point about making headlines. Republicans need to either take back a few important media outlets(FOXNews is not enough) or learn how to get their messages out better and faster on the Internet. Obama plans to use his “electronic rolladex” to alert his supporters when an issue comes up that needs a “push” in his favor.
And, remember Rham Emmanuel’s statement about never letting a good crisis go to waste. He understands Gramsci’s use of either a created crisis or a serendipitous one to get a populace to do what they don’t want to do. Logic and facts have no effect. We have the “Mother of all Crises” upon us, the liberals control the general media and a large portion of the populace neither read or reason well. Bad combination!
January 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
If Bush issues a preemptive pardon, Republicans will be handing the Democrats a huge present. Of course we don’t agree with prosecution, but we can’t start using the McCain campaign as our model and not using the issues that Democrats give us to our advantage.
GOP Christmas will come early if the Democrats attempt to prosecute members of the DOJ.
January 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
[...] of the Justice Department. This development, combined with the testimony of Eric Holder, has led to calls for President Bush to use his authority to issue preemptive pardons to prevent attempted [...]
January 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
This article becomes even more relevant after Speaker Pelosi’s comments on FNS with Chris Wallace today stating that Dems might not be able to “not prosecute” Bush administration officials for “criminal offenses” they committed. Sounds to me that if Mr. Holder thinks that waterboarding is torture (I personally don’t have a problem “torturing” any individual if it will save American lives, but anyways) then it sounds as though Speaker Pelosi would feel compelled to prosecute anyone who committed a crime according to the AG.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
…and we should let them. We should cooperate – GOPers shouldn’t attend hearings, we should vote against authorizing funds, we should call on Obama to pardon them, we should raise holy hell over it, we should hold up the DNC agenda, but we should let them try to do it. Nothing will be better for the party.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
^^^should – shouldn’t
January 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Matthew, you make good points. It would be a political disaster. But I am more interested in protecting actual agents from prosecution and the expense of lawyers and possible jail.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Gamecock,
Good post. I spent the last month reading up on folks that Obama will be pressured to pardoned and had hoped to do something on it, but it became so overly complicated I pretty much gave it up for now.
January 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Mike, I can appreciate you concerns, but this may be our best shot to make big gains. At this point, the faster Obama can be damaged, the fewer problems he is going to create.
January 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
How can something be torture when there is no pain and only last 30 seconds? I say double Gitmo, and double water boarding if it saves lives.
January 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Breaking News from AK. . .Confirmed: Sen. Lisa Murkowski asks President Bush to pardon Sen. Ted Stevens.
http://www.adn.com/email/breaking/story/659236.html
January 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
MatthewK – at some point you will realize that sometimes one needs to support what is right regardless of the political implications. Everything is not about our team winning. There are certain things that transcend politics and the people’s livelihoods and reputations, along with my tax money are some of those things.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I understand that, but how much more tax money is going to be spent if the Democrats remain in power for the next eight years?
If this was something minor, something that would give us a temporary boost in the polls, and something that I actually believed people would end up in jail over, I would say yes, grant the pardons…but we are looking at something that could completely SINK the Democratic party for a long time, and which I don’t believe we would ever actually see people locked up…
If you want to be about country over party, thats fine, but then you have to explain how you believe having the Democrats in power for the next eight years in both the executive, legislative, and potentially judicial branches would do LESS damage than allowing them to pursue this.
January 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You know, if Bush pardons these guys, its like the Rev. Wright thing all over again – the biggest political opportunity given to us during the entire season, and we pass it up.
Politics is a dirty business, unfortunately, but I’m not sure I like the idea of the Republican party standing in the way of the Democrat’s committing political suicide.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Is the President able to pardon someone before they have ever been charged or convicted?
January 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
yes. He can pardon for any crimes potentially committed – see. Ford and Nixon.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:34 am
“Breaking News from AK. . .Confirmed: Sen. Lisa Murkowski asks President Bush to pardon Sen. Ted Stevens.”
If Bush pardons Stevens, it’ll cement Americans’ view of Republicans as not serious about corruption. Stevens is guilty, he needs to take responsibility.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
[...] of the Justice Department. This development, combined with the testimony of Eric Holder, has led to calls for President Bush to use his authority to issue preemptive pardons to prevent attempted [...]
January 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
[...] of the Justice Department. This development, combined with the testimony of Eric Holder, has led to calls for President Bush to use his authority to issue preemptive pardons to prevent attempted [...]