To: Sully- who wrote (60655 ) 7/3/2007 5:42:25 PM From: Sully- Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947 Clemency for Terrorists Best of the Web Today BY JAMES TARANTO Tuesday, July 3, 2007 3:23 p.m. EDT When terrorists got clemency, Nancy Pelosi didn't object. In August 1999 President Clinton granted executive clemency to 16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terror group behind some 130 bombings, including one that killed four people at New York's Fraunces Tavern in 1975. Even the ultraliberal New York Times looked askance: <<< To be sure, an American President has an absolute power to pardon. But that does not relieve him of the obligation to defend any and every decision to intervene in the criminal justice system. Indeed, this President's rare use of the pardoning power makes it all the more important for him to reveal his reasoning. Of more than 3,000 applications for clemency filed since 1993, he has granted only 3. The suspicion is rampant that his motivation was a political effort to please the Puerto Rican community that is crucial to Mrs. Clinton's hopes in the coming Senate race from New York. >>> The House voted 311-41 for a nonbinding resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not have granted clemency to terrorists." All 41 of those voting "no" were Democrats, as were 71 of the 72 members who voted "present" (the other was a self-styled socialist who abjured formal membership in the party). Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House, did not vote. But the Congressional Record reveals that was only because she showed up late; <<< Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted "no." >>> Pelosi was unwilling to criticize a president of her own party when he turned loose terrorists convicted of such crimes as seditious conspiracy, possession of unregistered firearms and interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. Keep that in mind as you read her statement yesterday: <<< The President's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people. The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak [sic] case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable. >>> For our part, we're just happy that a good and patriotic man won't have to go to prison as a sacrifice to the Angry Left. Plame kerfuffle personage Matt Cooper makes a good point: <<< Why not just pardon the guy? Why leave him with the stigmata of a convicted felon and a $250,000 fine to add to his legal bills--even if they are taken care of by the generosity of so many of his friends. (By the way, can the Scooter defense fund now release the names of donors?) If Bush had the courage of his convictions, he would have been like Jack Nicholson in a A Few Good Men and admitted that he thought [Plame's blowhard husband, Joe] Wilson was a jerk and that he believed what happened afterwards was right. Instead, Bush vowed to take action against the leakers. >>> By the way, what about the real "leaker" of Plame's "identity," Richard Armitage? Is he ever going to face "justice"?opinionjournal.com usdoj.gov query.nytimes.com clerk.house.gov frwebgate.access.gpo.gov