by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 17, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

igning on the dotted line and promising to renounce violence, 11 Puerto Rican members of FALN — a Puerto Rican liberation group responsible for more than 100 terrorist bombings and at least 7 deaths from 1974 to 1983 — walked into the sunshine out of Federal prison. Granting FALN members clemency, president Clinton pulled the teeth out of his terrorism policy by commuting their sentences. With the World Trade Center bombings still on New Yorkers’ minds and with the terrorism threat still looming large, turning loose convicted terrorists had even Mrs. Clinton scratching her head. Making her run for retiring New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan seat’s even more uphill, the appearance of pandering to New York’s 1.3 million Puerto Rican voters hasn’t gone unnoticed.

       "Both she [Mrs. Clinton] and the president showed remarkably poor judgment on the Puerto Rican issue," said Clinton supporter and former New York City mayor Edward I. Koch. "I wonder if president Clinton and Mrs. Clinton even thought about the political repercussions this [clemency] could cause in that [Puerto Rican] community," questioned veteran New York political consultant Joseph Mercurio, who’s worked with candidates from both parties. Surely the White House communication’s office tried to assess the fallout before this bombshell went off. Knowing the seismographic sensitivity to the terrorism and ethnic issue should have alerted the White House that this presidential directive would create political shrapnel for Mrs. Clinton. Making matters worse, Mrs. Clinton played fast and loose by 'criticizing' her husband’s decision, once the clemency order was signed. As Mrs. Clinton is finding out, you can’t be on every side of every issue.

       When the Clinton administration ordered the bombing of suspected terrorist targets in Khartoum, Sudan and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist training camp outside Kabul, Afghanistan in1998, he had finally redeemed president Reagan’s vow of 'swift and effective retribution.' Sifting through the bodies and rubble of the Oklahoma City bombing reminded all Americans that there can be no compromise when it comes to terrorism. Joining former president Jimmy Carter and New York Archbishop Cardinal John O’Connor, president Clinton reserves his sympathy — and power of executive clemency — for the wrong group. "It’s a tragic day that these terrorists may soon be walking America’s streets," lamented Rep. Cito Fossella (R-N.Y.), underscoring the public’s sentiments that terrorists aren’t the most politically correct group for whom to reserve presidential pardons.

       After the tsunami of controversy, both houses of Congress denounced president Clinton’s executive clemency order as making "deplorable" concessions to terrorists. "The president has a moral obligation to the American people to explain why he let terrorists out of prison," said Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House committee that subpoenaed White House records on the matter. To Democrats it’s a matter of constitutional law — to Republicans it’s more ammunition. Despite Congressman Burton’s appeal, the divisions are falling — for the most part — along party lines. With the election season in full swing, political mistakes are pounced on by the opposition. Without wading through the rivalry and partisanship, the issues are lost in the fog.

       In a strange deja vu, the White House is claiming 'executive privilege,' preventing the Republican Congress and American public from learning the chain of discussions leading to the clemency order. Unlike the Lewinsky affair, this time around the White House is on solid ground to deny access to these documents. "His claim is bulletproof because the Constitution entrusts the clemency power to him [the president] and it can be exercised for any reason or no reason at all . . .," said Georgetown law professor Paul Rothstein. Echoing this view, "This is really what the executive privilege is all about. The Supreme Court has held that it’s important that the president be able to receive candid advice from his advisors that is protected," remarked said USC constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. In other words, the president is protected from revealing politically incompetent and embarrassing mistakes.

       Meanwhile, spinmeisters at 1600 Pennsilvania Avenue argue that it’s not because the White House has anything to hide, it’s simply about asserting a basic constitutional right. When there’s nothing to hide, there’s less need to seek refuge in constitutional arguments. Despite congressman Burton’s best intentions, he won’t be peering into the Clinton war room. Without executive privilege, just imagine releasing the following transcript with the president’s spin doctor:

P: "Boy, this lame duck syndrome is really the pits. Where can I get my hands on some Prozac?"

SD: "Yeah, I know what you mean. We’re both headed out of the limelight. It’s hard to imagine that Hillary’s going to get all the attention."

P: "Now I’m really getting depressed. Depriving me of Monica was bad enough — now they’re going to take away the cameras and microphones . . . Oh Jesus!"

SD: "Listen Bill, your only chance is getting Hillary elected to Pat’s seat. Hey, I’ve got an idea. How about giving clemency to Puerto Rican terrorists? Just think about those 1.3 million votes. Rudy won’t even know what hit 'em."

P: "That’s brilliant! Call the legal department. Tell 'em to assert executive privilege. Call the communication’s office. Tell 'em it’s a right wing conspiracy. Call Hillary. Tell her to denounce our decision. We’ll take all the heat. Call Joe. Tell 'em to play up the sour grapes angle. . . ."

       As professor Chemerinsky said, the president is entitled to confidential advice and to buffalo Congress and the American people. Full disclosure has its price. If there’s really nothing to hide, why all the machinations about executive privilege? Protecting the presidential powers? Really. Have we learned anything from the Lewinsky scandal? No matter what the season, the spin trudges on. Depressing at it seems, the public’s taken down the garden path — here we go again!

About the Author

John M. Curtis is director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.