Pardon me, Mr Obama!

Why shouldn't the President shorten the sentence of Chelsea Manning?

Michael Cook | Jan 18 2017 | comment

A Presidential commutation for Bradley/Chelsea Manning has created a storm of controversy. He/she was a US Army intelligence analyst who passed thousands of documents about the Iraq War to Wikileaks.

From a political point of view, it’s a complicated case. Manning pleaded guilty and accepted full responsibility for his/her actions. The documents endangered American lives – so he/she is a traitor. But they also revealed abuses of prisoners, showed a helicopter gunship killing innocent civilians in Bagdad and gave information on Guantanamo detainees – so he/she is a whistleblower.

In prison Manning tried to transition to a woman. Only after years of legal battles and two suicide attempts did authorities permit it. So commuting the sentence is smart transgender politics. But his/her 35-year sentence was far more severe than other whistleblowers received – so there is a case for mercy.

The shortened sentence sends two messages to the public. It trivialises the oath of secrecy and the importance of protecting national security. And it is a big fillip for the cause of transgenderism. Instead of languishing in prison as a traitor, Chelsea/Bradley will become a transgender celebrity.

But nearly all presidential pardons have been controversial and they always will be. The lucky recipients of a pardon are, by definition, criminals. Releasing them from jail always risks trivialising the offense.

George Washington pardoned participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, an insurrection which threatened the very existence of the new Union. James Madison pardoned a general who surrendered Fort Detroit to the enemy during the War of 1812, leaving himself open to accusations of being soft on cowards. Andrew Johnson pardoned three men who had conspired to assassinate President Lincoln – which seems insanely merciful.

Grover Cleveland, a president who never married, pardoned two prominent Mormons who had been convicted of marrying a total of six wives. Polygamy was even more controversial than transgenderism is today (and still is). William Howard Taft pardoned a corrupt banker, Charles W. Morse, on the grounds of ill-health – which was later found to be feigned.

Richard Nixon pardoned the notorious gangster Jimmy Hoffa and William Calley, who had been convicted of murdering 22 unarmed Vietnamese civilians in cold blood. And then Gerald Ford pardoned President Nixon – which was probably the most controversial pardon of all.

And Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, who had been jailed for possession of cocaine – sending a terrific message about the war on drugs.

So, while it’s tempting to wag the finger at President Obama for being soft on espionage and military discipline and coddling transgenders, it’s all part of American politics. The only Presidents who took a hard line on crime and pardoned no one were William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, both of whom died soon after their inauguration. Under the Constitution, the President almost has to pardon someone. And that someone will always be controversial.

If Obama still has time, here’s a suggestion. John Walker Lindh was captured in November 2001 in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban and sentenced to 20 years without parole. He was more an idiot than a criminal. Why doesn't Obama pardon him?

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet

A Presidential commutation for Bradley/Chelsea Manning has created a storm of controversy. From a political point of view, it’s a complicated case. Manning pleaded guilty and accepted full responsibility for his/her actions. The documents endangered American lives – so he/she is a traitor. But they also revealed abuses of prisoners, showed a helicopter gunship killing innocent civilians in Bagdad and gave information on Guantanamo detainees – so he/she is a whistleblower.

In prison Manning tried to transition to a woman. Only after years of legal battles and two suicide attempts did authorities permit it. So pardoning him/her is smart transgender politics. But his/her 35-year sentence was far more severe than other whistleblowers received – so there is a case for mercy.

The shortened sentence sends two clear messages to the public. It trivialises the oath of secrecy and the importance of protecting national security. And it is a big fillip for the cause of transgenderism. Instead of languishing in prison as a traitor, Chelsea/Bradley will become a transgender celebrity.

But nearly all presidential pardons and commutations have been controversial and they always will be. The lucky recipients are, by definition, criminals. Releasing them from jail always risks trivialising the offence.

And Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, who had been jailed for possession of cocaine – sending a terrific message about the war on drugs.