Presidential pardons are something few of us ever think about except as a source of anger or irritation.
Conservative American's have never been able to get over the fact that President Clinton had sex with someone other than his wife and he lied about it. (It is somehow different when conservative religious leaders and politicians do the same thing since no one brings them up.) They tried (and failed) to impeach him for it and have never been able to get over it and move on. Conservatives are also unhappy that Clinton pardoned some Democratic crook, Marc Rich, on his last day.
Similarly, the first President bush pardoned the Iran-Contra crooks on his last day.
I just dont get it. No criminals should be pardoned for their party affiliation. We should all be angry when someone is forgiven for a crime just because they had rich and powerful friends.
President Bush has only pardoned 3 people in his 7 years in office. That is the fewest pardons of any president in a century. He clearly wants to send the message that he is tough on crime, Tejas-style, or at least just too busy to care. Don't over-think it. Innocent or guilty, if you are in prison, fuck you. Bush expects you to stay there no matter what the circumstances.
That is what makes this Libby thing so tough to swallow. Not only is Libby on Bush's staff but it is such a contrast with his normal actions, it says loud and clear that he is tough on crime - except when he and his friends are doing it. This is something all Americans should be upset with; paying the penalty for criminal actions should have nothing to do with political party.
What makes it even stranger is listening to Conservatives defend Bush's action. Educated, privileged and even lawyers, people who consistently espouse policies of being "tough on crime" now sound bizarre and foolish when they try to explain why Libby should be granted leniency when no one else should. Even more ironic is that Libby's "unfair" sentence came from a "tough on crime" judge Bush appointed himself. It would seem that being tough on crime is only desirable when it is someone else getting the sentence.
It is almost comical.
And it is sad. We have 2M citizens in prison today, most of whom also committed non-violent crimes like Libby. But the tragedy is how many innocent Americans are behind bars for crimes someone else committed. Estimates are 5-10% or over 100,000 innocent people are in prison today.
The poor and uneducated do not get "150 letters" from the rich and famous telling of their character. Regular Americans often fail to get a reasonable legal defense either. As a result, many of them go to prison and a few are even executed for crimes they did not commit. These are the people who should really receive Presidential attention and pardons.
Thankfully, there are Americans that worry about wrongful convictions and the principles of justice not just privilege. And thanks to DNA testing and efforts like The Innocence Project, some of those innocent prisoners are exonerated and get a second chance.
When I hear the stories of these guys who were in the slam for decades or on death row and are finally proven innocent and freed, I am always touched. Touched by the unfairness of it all. Touched by how thoughtful and forgiving they sound in interviews. They never spout off with bitterness and anger at the injustice of their situation. They usually just seem happy to be free, to be with their family again. Happy that the ordeal is finally over.
It makes me wonder if perhaps they learned something in prison. Perhaps their struggle with adversity developed some character or wisdom they did not have before. Which makes me think that it might be good for all of us if these rich and well connected crooks did spent more time in jail. A lot of time.
