5 ms·

There have been a series of pardons that probably should never have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

There have been a series of pardons that probably should never have happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair The Iran Contra people probably helped initiate our present quagmire in the Middle East during Bush II's term: Elliott Abrams served as served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and then Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy during Bush II's term. John Marlan Poindexter got a job on Bush II's DARPA. Duane Clarridge got involved as Ben Carson's foreign policy advisor during his presidential run. So these people are still tied to the White House to this day.

matt4077 10y ago
IT's a tight rope to walk, but there's a system to the madness in regards to presidents: if you punish them to the degree that (parts of) the public demand, you'll almost certainly make it a losing proposition for any of them to ever resign. African countries have traditionally been very good at demonstrating this, unfortunately. Almost any leader of government south of the Sahel and north of South Africa from independence to about 10 years ago could have been thrown into a dark abyss without second thought and even Amnesty International would have just muttered a "Wait, they deserve a fair tr.. oh! never mind!". But because that actually was happened more often than not, each one of them clung to power for as long as possible – which in some cases was (and is!) surprisingly long: Mugabe is at it since 1987. In many cases, these dictators actually started out somewhat promising. Mugabe, for example, came to power against a backdrop or actual injustices, which he actually did something about (although what he did resulted in disaster). But spend enough years with absolute power, surrounded by yes-men, but constantly fearing the yes-I-have-knife-man and it starts to do strange things to your psyche. It's not the only mechanism – there are enough examples in other countries of politicians overstaying their welcome. And it doesn't quite apply as neatly to anyone but the very top. But it's part of it. Which is why it was so encouraging to see how the crisis in The Gambia was solved a month ago. You didn't even hear about it? Well, a decade earlier, you wouldn't have heard the end of the bloody war currently ravaging the west African country of... Part of the solution was guaranteed protection for the outgoing guy (+family and his mysteriously large wealth).
- AnAfrican 10y ago
  Agreed. They don't even trust someone from their regime not to fuck them up if they retire.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Great points. I think it was Mobutu who used to tell Western governments who threatened him: 'Apre moi, la deluge' (pardon my French). > IT's a tight rope to walk, but there's a system to the madness in regards to presidents: if you punish them to the degree that (parts of) the public demand, you'll almost certainly make it a losing proposition for any of them to ever resign. I'm not sure that applies in the U.S. 1) We're talking about prosecution under the law, not by popular demand, and 2) being in office doesn't protect them from (most) prosecution, and they can be impeached.
kobeya 10y ago
You can blame the press for the pardon of Nixon. President Ford said that he was going to let justice play out, except that his press briefings got swamped by questions about Nixon. He pardoned Nixon so that he could kill the topic and focus on his agenda.
Shivetya 10y ago
I will disagree with the idea of not pardoning Richard Nixon. Ford really had no choice. He got shoved into the VP spot because both parties liked him (92-3 confirmation, first time the 25th Amendment was used). Nixon was already shamed but it would have served the country no good to have it go further and be dragged out for years and become a distracting spectacle. Plus his reasoning was sound, a pardon is a presumption of guilt and acceptance of it. In a way President Obama gifted Chelsea Manning by only commuting her sentence. The use of pardons and commutations has all sorts of hidden meanings
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  Nixon was already shamed, but we needed the spectacle to have any hope of ending the corruption he was caught engaging. Instead, 1980 saw another round of Republicans somehow acquiring Carter's campaign preparation and an ex-Nixon appointee as the VP.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Nixon was already shamed Lots of criminals are shamed; that never relieves them from trial and punishment. > it would have served the country no good I disagree. It sets a precedent that the powerful are above punishment and reduces deterrence. Now Presidents know that they can do almost anything and not be tried for it.
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
See also[1]. >the Senate committee decided early on not to pursue the President, not only because he was too old and lacked the mental ability to fully understand what happened, and had too little time left in office, but because the Senators "honestly thought that the country didn't need another Watergate. They were urgently hoping to avoid a crisis. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_investigating_the_Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_inves...

matt4077 10y ago

IT's a tight rope to walk, but there's a system to the madness in regards to presidents: if you punish them to the degree that (parts of) the public demand, you'll almost certainly make it a losing proposition for any of them to ever resign. African countries have traditionally been very good at demonstrating this, unfortunately. Almost any leader of government south of the Sahel and north of South Africa from independence to about 10 years ago could have been thrown into a dark abyss without second thought and even Amnesty International would have just muttered a "Wait, they deserve a fair tr.. oh! never mind!". But because that actually was happened more often than not, each one of them clung to power for as long as possible – which in some cases was (and is!) surprisingly long: Mugabe is at it since 1987. In many cases, these dictators actually started out somewhat promising. Mugabe, for example, came to power against a backdrop or actual injustices, which he actually did something about (although what he did resulted in disaster). But spend enough years with absolute power, surrounded by yes-men, but constantly fearing the yes-I-have-knife-man and it starts to do strange things to your psyche. It's not the only mechanism – there are enough examples in other countries of politicians overstaying their welcome. And it doesn't quite apply as neatly to anyone but the very top. But it's part of it. Which is why it was so encouraging to see how the crisis in The Gambia was solved a month ago. You didn't even hear about it? Well, a decade earlier, you wouldn't have heard the end of the bloody war currently ravaging the west African country of... Part of the solution was guaranteed protection for the outgoing guy (+family and his mysteriously large wealth).

AnAfrican 10y ago
Agreed. They don't even trust someone from their regime not to fuck them up if they retire.
hackuser 10y ago
Great points. I think it was Mobutu who used to tell Western governments who threatened him: 'Apre moi, la deluge' (pardon my French). > IT's a tight rope to walk, but there's a system to the madness in regards to presidents: if you punish them to the degree that (parts of) the public demand, you'll almost certainly make it a losing proposition for any of them to ever resign. I'm not sure that applies in the U.S. 1) We're talking about prosecution under the law, not by popular demand, and 2) being in office doesn't protect them from (most) prosecution, and they can be impeached.

kobeya 10y ago

You can blame the press for the pardon of Nixon. President Ford said that he was going to let justice play out, except that his press briefings got swamped by questions about Nixon. He pardoned Nixon so that he could kill the topic and focus on his agenda.

Shivetya 10y ago

I will disagree with the idea of not pardoning Richard Nixon. Ford really had no choice. He got shoved into the VP spot because both parties liked him (92-3 confirmation, first time the 25th Amendment was used). Nixon was already shamed but it would have served the country no good to have it go further and be dragged out for years and become a distracting spectacle. Plus his reasoning was sound, a pardon is a presumption of guilt and acceptance of it. In a way President Obama gifted Chelsea Manning by only commuting her sentence. The use of pardons and commutations has all sorts of hidden meanings

boomboomsubban 10y ago
Nixon was already shamed, but we needed the spectacle to have any hope of ending the corruption he was caught engaging. Instead, 1980 saw another round of Republicans somehow acquiring Carter's campaign preparation and an ex-Nixon appointee as the VP.
hackuser 10y ago
> Nixon was already shamed Lots of criminals are shamed; that never relieves them from trial and punishment. > it would have served the country no good I disagree. It sets a precedent that the powerful are above punishment and reduces deterrence. Now Presidents know that they can do almost anything and not be tried for it.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

See also[1]. >the Senate committee decided early on not to pursue the President, not only because he was too old and lacked the mental ability to fully understand what happened, and had too little time left in office, but because the Senators "honestly thought that the country didn't need another Watergate. They were urgently hoping to avoid a crisis. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_investigating_the_Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_inves...