Holder's critics are using Bill Clinton's much-criticized pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich in his last days as President to be Exhibit A in their case against Holder. (See the major story on Holder and the Rich pardon, Pardon Is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee by Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston New York Times 12/02/08). That pardon was widely criticized, including a memorable condemnation for former President Jimmy Carter.
But it wasn't Cheney-style corruption, either. Joe Conason hasn't forgotten what he wrote about nearly eight years ago now in Pardon for peace? Salon 02/13/01. During the last months of the his administration, Clinton was pressing hard for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. And Israel specifically asked Clinton for the Marc Rich pardon - a fact that Carter noted in his own criticism, saying (as Conason does) that he didn't think that was a valid grounds on which to issue that pardon to Rich. But that context is important, and it's virtually never discussed in connection with Rich's pardon. Conason wrote in 2001:
Helping Rich became a priority for Israeli officials -- particularly those in the hierarchy of the Labor Party -- because of his services to the Jewish state. Not only did the Swiss-based businessman give enormous amounts of money to charities and institutions there, but he has also used his connections in other nations to perform services for the Israeli government. According to press reports, he has assisted in the rescue of Jewish families from hostile countries, and he's believed to have gathered information for Israeli intelligence agencies as well.Bill Clinton did not issue a pardon for Jonathan Pollard.
If Clinton was influenced by Israeli pleas on behalf of the undeserving Rich, that wouldn't excuse his decision, which has been justly criticized as improper in both substance and appearance. Nor is Clinton exempt from criticism because his predecessor awarded pardons that were even worse. But a pardon given for reasons of state, in pursuit of peace, ought to be regarded as wholly different from a pardon awarded for political and charitable contributions.
Evidence that has emerged so far strongly suggests that the context of the peace negotiations was important and perhaps even decisive. It was no secret that Clinton, as he faced the final months of his presidency, seemed consumed with reviving and even completing the Oslo peace process before he left office. To his critics, this was proof of an unseemly obsession with his own legacy, while his supporters saw it as a noble attempt to salvage a once-promising initiative. Whatever his motivations, there is little doubt that the impasse between Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was Clinton's most urgent priority.
At a time when Clinton was urging Barak to make critical concessions to the Palestinians, the then-prime minister and various important figures in Israel were asking him for two heavy favors: a pardon for Jonathan Pollard, convicted of espionage against the United States for Israel; and a pardon for Rich, their generous benefactor and intelligence asset.
The situation Clinton faced was ably summarized by an unlikely ally on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday. Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, an ardent Republican and frequently a harsh critic of the Clinton administration, explained the situation in detail to host Tim Russert as follows: "When the prime minister of Israel, one of our closest allies, communicates with the president of the United States about a pardon, I would say to you that the president has a pretty good idea of how important the case is.The prime minister of Israel [Labor leader Ehud Barak] became deeply involved in this case, and he recommended a pardon." [my emphasis]
Conason returns to the theme in The Holder Nomination: Rich Story, Poor Coverage New York Observer 12/03/08:
The Rich pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because he had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many countries where he did business – notably including Iran. ...Tags: eric holder
The final round of peace talks began in Taba, Egypt on January 21, 2001, the day after Clinton signed the Rich pardon. Those negotiations came closer to achieving a durable settlement than any before or since.
As I’ve written before, Clinton’s decision remains vulnerable to harsh criticism in both substance and appearance. But the pardon power exists precisely because presidents must be free to make such choices for reasons of state. As a lame duck, Clinton had very few means to induce his Israeli partner to take any risk for peace, especially at that political juncture. All of this was ignored or discounted, quite wrongly, in the aftermath of the Clinton presidency. The sudden revival of the Rich pardon furor has seen no improvement in the coverage so far. [my emphasis]
No comments:
Post a Comment