From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:51:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.031524.18267@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In<TT.93Jan11220850@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:

>>>A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
>>>prosecution of an alledged crime.

>>That reasoning isn't necessarily valid, however.  What I don't like
>>is using pardon to prevent the facts from coming out.

>The facts are already basically out. Arms were sold to Iran to obtain the
>release of hostages. Profits from the sale of these arms went to the contras
>in Nicaragua. Fait accompli. The question is, is this really something that

Who was involved?  Who made the decisions?  These are questions we don't
know the answers to yet.

>should not have happened to the extent of running up $40 million is costs
>(so far) and prosecuting anyone you can? Remember the indictment that came

It's so funny watching conservatives complain that a prosecutor is
spending too much money.  You rarely see them worrying about the costs
of the drug war.  The Noriega prosecution.  The State Department
investigation of Bill Clinton's passport file.  Or the Iran-Contra
affair itself.  

>down right before the election? Got thrown out three weeks later, so
>Walsh tried again. Is this guy after facts or kills? So far he has come
>up empty. No, I don't care who knew (even Reagan could have know, for all
>I care) I do not think it was so bad as to go through six years of this
>silly circus.

Well, I think subversion of the constitution *is* bad enough to make it
worth it.  I think it's worth knowing, even after the fact, if the
President of the United States was involved in felonies.

>Also remember, that a trial is not a fact-finding function. The prosecutor
>is already supposed to HAVE the facts. If so, he can have them published
>and let the public decide for themselves. But I don't think that's what
>Walsh wants.

>>Or if you think he may be innocent but want to find out for sure,
>>whether any punishment follows or not.

>Again, that is not what criminal prosecution is for.

No, despite what Ed Meese thinks, you don't only prosecute guilty people.
Not that you prosecute innocent people.  But you prosecute people you
*believe* to be guilty, and then the jury decides.  Walsh (obviously, if
you listened to him speak) is sure that Weinberger/Bush/etc are guilty,
after having reviewed the available facts.  But that really doesn't
carry any weight.

>>That was behind my original idea of allowing pardon only after
>>conviction.  In view of the cost of a trial, and the fact that it may
>>in itself be a punishment of sorts, I'm no longer sure that would be a
>>good idea either.  Life seldom offers simple solutions, alas.

>In the minds of most people Nixon is guilty. Of what, they do not know, but
>they consider him guilty. All that could be shown (and that inconclusively,
>in my opinion) was obstruction of justice, but most people blame him as
>the ringleader of the break-in itself, which even his detractors who were
>close to the case do not believe.

Inconclusively?  Only if you think those tapes were faked.

>Yet, he was pardoned, without any prosecution. It is almost as if the
>pardon MADE him guilty. However, the press had already convicted him, so
>what difference did it make.

There is a good argument that accepting a pardon is an admission of
guilt -- because you can only be pardoned for a crime you've committed.

>I see the same thing happening here. I see both of these being blown
>WAY out of proportion. I consider the House banking scandal far worse, but
>since the executive branch cannot prosecute the Legislative in the same
>manner that the Legislative can prosecute the Executive...(shrug)

Of course, no laws were broken in the House "banking" scandal, no one
was injured (no checks bounced), and no subversion of the Constitution
happened.  But hey, it made better stories on Geraldo.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |