Accounting

Last updated on: December 30, 2006 at 8:17 pm by Fred Clark

36 Comments

Accounting 2006-12-30T20:17:28-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

So there we were, remembering Gerry Ford and thus, unavoidably, reconsidering his decision to grant Richard Nixon a "full, free and absolute pardon."

The thing about pardons which are "full, free and absolute" is that it becomes difficult, later, to determine exactly what such pardons were for. Nixon was pardoned for "Watergate" — referring not only to the infamous break-in at that hotel, but also to a whole host of high crimes and misdemeanors, abuses of power and a general, habitual contempt for the Constitution. Ford alluded to all of that when he took office and described that process as the reassertion of that Constitution and of the rule of law:

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. … Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule."

Ford viewed his pardoning of Nixon as a way of hastening the end of that "national nightmare." The sooner he and the rest of America could move beyond Richard Nixon, he believed, the better we would all be. Here's how he described that decision to National Public Radio:

"I finally decided that as a new president under very difficult circumstances, I had an obligation to spend all of my time — all — on the problems of 200 million Americans. And therefore, the only way to clear the deck, to get to the substantive problems that I faced, was to pardon Mr. Nixon and get his problems off my desk in the Oval Office. … It wasn't sentimental; it was purely practical. What I thought was in the best interests of all the people.

That's understandable. He wanted, and needed to get Nixon off his desk so he could get on with his (rather important) job. Nixon was the past and Ford felt he needed to concentrate on the present and the future.

The pardon let us think we were through with the past. The problem, as the book says, is the past wasn't through with us.

Nixon's full, free and absolute get-out-of-jail-free card taught others — including, apparently, Ford's own White House chief of staff — that laws could be violated with impunity, without any accounting or accountability. They took from this "purely practical" pardon the lesson that if you were high enough in the power structure, the rules no longer applied. If your sins were such that not only their commission, but their punishment might provoke a constitutional crisis, then you could rest assured that, if you ever got caught, others would intervene to "spare the country" (and therefore also spare you) the drawn-out nightmare of calling you to account for your crimes.

It would have been possible, as Matt Yglesias argues, to achieve Ford's practical goal without a "full, free and absolute" pardon by something like:

… the Truth and Reconciliation Commission model where ancien regime figures confess to their political crimes in exchange for amnesty. The general idea is that such an arrangement does more to promote actual resolution of the issues than would an adversarial trial process in which the accused have the incentive to destroy evidence, deny everything, and stymie investigations.

That's not at all what Ford did. … He took the bizarre step of granting Nixon "a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974." Nixon, in response, offered not a confession, but only an extraordinarily vague message of pseudo-contrition. …

Nixon, in short, confessed to nothing. And Ford … offered blanket amnesty for unspecified crimes.

What's more, by the time of the pardon it had become clear that "Watergate" as such … was really the least of our Nixon-related concerns. The Watergate incident happens to have been the caper that first led to fruitful investigations of the Nixon administration, but turned out to be merely a small piece of a very large puzzle of abuses of power. … Nor did Ford in his address to the nation acknowledge that he had just pardoned Nixon not only for "Watergate" but for the whole kit and kaboodle, a series of events whose very occurrences neither Ford nor Nixon even acknowledged.

So anyway there we are, thinking about all of this — about the competing needs of the past and the future, about the inescapable need for a full accounting of past crimes and the equally inescapable need to get past them — when along comes the second Big Story of this week: the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's death, as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said, "ends a dark chapter" in that nation's history.

The problem here is that Iraq has moved past that dark chapter without reading it in full. Iraq's young criminal justice system required that Saddam, having been convicted and sentenced to death, be executed speedily, according to a rather short and strict calendar. So even though Saddam remained accused of dozens of other crimes against humanity, he is no longer around to stand trial for those crimes.

American justice works differently. Here a suspect in multiple cases involving the possibility of capital punishment cannot be executed for one of his crimes until he has been tried for all of them. While it's true that this process might be exploited by a condemned serial killer seeking to prolong his life, it has the advantage of ensuring that every crime is given a full account.

Saddam has been served with the ultimate accountability for one particular crime, or set of crimes, for one massacre out of many, so it seems odd to worry that he has somehow escaped accountability for his many other crimes. (No matter how many times a man is sentenced to death, after all, you can only hang him the once.) But while Saddam has been fully held to account, the possibility of a full accounting of his other crimes may have died with him. And I worry that the lack of such a full account may be something that the people of Iraq may one day regret.

Saddam's case is, of course, rather exceptional, and the swift carrying out of his death sentence probably really had less to do with the particular processes of Iraq's new judicial system than with the more important consequence of the tyrant's death — the guarantee that he can never again return to power. So I appreciate, as a "purely practical" matter, their desire to quickly be done with Saddam and to be through with that dark chapter of the past. But, again, whether that past is through with them remains to be seen.

Nixon's absolute amnesty for unspecified crimes emboldened others who followed to repeat many of those same crimes. Here's hoping that the execution of Saddam Hussein — which leaves many of his other, grievous crimes unspecified and unaccounted for — does not similarly embolden his successors.

(Please note that the above, rather airily abstract discussion of crime, punishment and accountability in no way suggests that all crimes or all criminals are equivalent, still less that Nixon and Saddam were. Yet despite that, and despite this parenthetical bit of troll prophylactic, I expect that some of our occasional stupid and/or confused visitors will try to twist such a suggestion from the above. I blame the schools.)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 29, 2006

Someone, Something

Next Post

December 31, 2006 A surge of "more"

Recent Comments

36 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What happened to Lot’s wife when she looked back at Sodom?

Select your answer to see how you score.

She went blind She was swallowed by the earth She was struck by lightning She turned into a pillar of salt