Full Version: Was Ford Correct To Pardon Nixon?
This would seem to be an appropriate time to ask this question.
Link
To be debated:
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
In retrospect (and I am old enough to remember the Watergate scandal vividly), it seems to me that being more-or-less forced to resign the Presidency was enough "punishment."
Link
QUOTE
He [Gerald Ford] took office minutes after Nixon flew off into exile and declared “our long national nightmare is over.” But he revived the debate a month later by granting Nixon a pardon for all crimes he committed as president. That single act, it was widely believed, cost Ford election to a term of his own in 1976, but it won praise in later years as a courageous act that allowed the nation to move on.
To be debated:
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
In retrospect (and I am old enough to remember the Watergate scandal vividly), it seems to me that being more-or-less forced to resign the Presidency was enough "punishment."
I am certainly old enough to remember Nixon and the scandal. My eldest son was born in 1974, the year Nixon resigned.
I thought Nixon should have been put on trial for what he had done, and I was disappointed when Ford pardoned him. I suppose that in the grand scheme of things what Ford did was right and ultimately better for the country, but sometimes I wonder whether this current President would have thought twice about walking over our Constitution had Nixon been tried and punished via the legal system.
I thought Nixon should have been put on trial for what he had done, and I was disappointed when Ford pardoned him. I suppose that in the grand scheme of things what Ford did was right and ultimately better for the country, but sometimes I wonder whether this current President would have thought twice about walking over our Constitution had Nixon been tried and punished via the legal system.
To be debated:
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
When Agnew resigned, Ford had been identified by a columnist known as, "The Washington Muckraker," as "The Most Honest Man in Washington D.C." He had a staff looking for dirt on every politician in the U.S. and Jerry Ford's file was completely empty. They had never received so much as an unsubstantiated tip. He had never even accepted a political contribution. Any that were directed to him were endorsed over to the Republican Party.
I remember that when Nixon resigned, I was on strike, and writing letters to my children at summer camp outlining the events that they were missing. Before the strike was over, Ford had pardoned Nixon and all of my fellow picketers were arguing with me that it was obvious that another crooked politician had struck a deal. I could in all honesty say that on more than one occasion, I had heard Gerald Ford say, "When I've been working late at night in Congress, and I'm on my way home, I pass 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Every time I do, I say to myself, If I was President, I'd be home now." He would always go on to say that he didn't think that would ever happen, but he didn't want to finish his career as Minority Leader of The House.
Ford had a job to do as President, and that was to lead the country. Nixon's resignation did not stop the investigation into Watergate, nor into what was on the White House tapes. I believed at the time, and I believe now that the decision to Pardon Nixon was a pragmatic one. I used to ask myself what I would do in his position.
As an afterthought, a few hours later, it occurred to me that 3 decades have elapsed, both Ford and Nixon have now passed away, and this question is still being asked... Had Ford not been willing to Pardon Nixon, he likely would have faced the issue in the next election anyway.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
When Agnew resigned, Ford had been identified by a columnist known as, "The Washington Muckraker," as "The Most Honest Man in Washington D.C." He had a staff looking for dirt on every politician in the U.S. and Jerry Ford's file was completely empty. They had never received so much as an unsubstantiated tip. He had never even accepted a political contribution. Any that were directed to him were endorsed over to the Republican Party.
I remember that when Nixon resigned, I was on strike, and writing letters to my children at summer camp outlining the events that they were missing. Before the strike was over, Ford had pardoned Nixon and all of my fellow picketers were arguing with me that it was obvious that another crooked politician had struck a deal. I could in all honesty say that on more than one occasion, I had heard Gerald Ford say, "When I've been working late at night in Congress, and I'm on my way home, I pass 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Every time I do, I say to myself, If I was President, I'd be home now." He would always go on to say that he didn't think that would ever happen, but he didn't want to finish his career as Minority Leader of The House.
Ford had a job to do as President, and that was to lead the country. Nixon's resignation did not stop the investigation into Watergate, nor into what was on the White House tapes. I believed at the time, and I believe now that the decision to Pardon Nixon was a pragmatic one. I used to ask myself what I would do in his position.
As an afterthought, a few hours later, it occurred to me that 3 decades have elapsed, both Ford and Nixon have now passed away, and this question is still being asked... Had Ford not been willing to Pardon Nixon, he likely would have faced the issue in the next election anyway.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
It was wrong for Nixon and justice and right for the country.
I still think that Ford faced either a deal to carry out this pardon or immense party pressure to perform this act.
This pardon I think helps give life to the myth that the President is above the law an many ways. (Skirted toward best by Ollie North as a witness during Iran-Contra)
I think, too, that the pardon was much needed at the time and did nothing to benefit Ford or his party. It did allow the country to start moving beyond Watergate and our nation would have suffered with a president facing the criminal system as a citizen. Imaging the OJ trials but add hype.
It was wrong for Nixon and justice and right for the country.
I still think that Ford faced either a deal to carry out this pardon or immense party pressure to perform this act.
This pardon I think helps give life to the myth that the President is above the law an many ways. (Skirted toward best by Ollie North as a witness during Iran-Contra)
I think, too, that the pardon was much needed at the time and did nothing to benefit Ford or his party. It did allow the country to start moving beyond Watergate and our nation would have suffered with a president facing the criminal system as a citizen. Imaging the OJ trials but add hype.
Prior to Reagan, I had thought it would have been a good idea- but, the pardon basically allowed the Reagan's and North's to get away with thier impeachable offenses- it opened the pandora's box of the corruption we have today in GW, and basically only left the sleaziest and worst poeple left in the republican party in charge- the atwaters, the north's, the reagans, and eventually- the worst of all, the GWs and his cronies.
I think it was good for the nation at that time, and no way Gerald Ford could have seen Cheney becoming the scumbag he would become, and how horribly corrupt and evil the republican party would become because of Nixon, and his pardon, like dominoes, just insured that the worst would rise to the top.
Horrible legacy for what seems to be a pretty decent guy to leave behind.
I think it was good for the nation at that time, and no way Gerald Ford could have seen Cheney becoming the scumbag he would become, and how horribly corrupt and evil the republican party would become because of Nixon, and his pardon, like dominoes, just insured that the worst would rise to the top.
Horrible legacy for what seems to be a pretty decent guy to leave behind.
Some time ago I heard an NPR report that listed the crimes that Nixon might have committed, and they were all put into the context of a question: What US President did this stuff?
Turned out that the dastardly deeds had been done by Presidents other than Nixon.
So, was Nixon all that bad? He certainly got the press and his secret tapes got released, and gosh darnit, he was bad! But not all that bad, apparently.
I don't think it would have made squat difference had Nixon been tried and given slammer time. Nixon resigned, Ford took over, and I bet Ford still would have lost to Carter. People wanted a genuine honest person and a born-again, as that was all the rage back then. Ford was aleady tainted, and even though the pardon might have swung a few voters, it was Carter's religion that got him in. I remember a common argument that was used to justify Nixon: The only difference was that Nixon got caught.
And decades later, NPR made the same argument. However, in the 1976 election season, the argument didn't work, even if true.
Then came Reagan and inflation was controlled. People believed in the GOP, and that's what brought us GWB, not that Nixon sort of got away with it.
Turned out that the dastardly deeds had been done by Presidents other than Nixon.
So, was Nixon all that bad? He certainly got the press and his secret tapes got released, and gosh darnit, he was bad! But not all that bad, apparently.
I don't think it would have made squat difference had Nixon been tried and given slammer time. Nixon resigned, Ford took over, and I bet Ford still would have lost to Carter. People wanted a genuine honest person and a born-again, as that was all the rage back then. Ford was aleady tainted, and even though the pardon might have swung a few voters, it was Carter's religion that got him in. I remember a common argument that was used to justify Nixon: The only difference was that Nixon got caught.
And decades later, NPR made the same argument. However, in the 1976 election season, the argument didn't work, even if true.
Then came Reagan and inflation was controlled. People believed in the GOP, and that's what brought us GWB, not that Nixon sort of got away with it.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
No. He was not correct to pardon Richard Nixon. The tapes reveal that Nixon attempted to block the investigation into the Watergate break-in. We know he did not want all the facts disclosed to the public about this event. What we don't know is whether or not the plan was formulated with his knowledge and approval and at the very least, tacit approval. The details of the Watergate break-in expose the extent to which our government will go to control the thoughts and actions of its citizens. The nonsense we are taught in school about democracy and freedom are never taught with the reality of politics and media in our country. Debates between Presidents gives the public the illusion that they are choosing between two candidates. It's the same illusion that has us believing that if we work hard enough we too can become rich and successful. All lies. Nixon tried to cover up leaks from his office. Which means he was doing something he did not want the public to know. His hope was to do one thing and tell us another. Similar to what goes on in today's administration. Corruption at the highest level is commonplace, sure, but when you are caught, just like the common criminal, you should be punished by the law. What the Watergate scandal shows us, in retrospect, is that Republicans reactively police their own and proactively investigate Democrats. Republican apologists will trumpet the sympathetic phrase, "He has suffered enough." The real suffering is done by the American people. If just one corrupt President would spend time in jail it would send a message that would resonate in the Halls of Congress and throughout the Governor's Mansions across this nation. Until that happens, we plod forward in the daily morass of lies and smoke that has us believing that we are a great nation, when in reality, we are a tragic nation.
No. He was not correct to pardon Richard Nixon. The tapes reveal that Nixon attempted to block the investigation into the Watergate break-in. We know he did not want all the facts disclosed to the public about this event. What we don't know is whether or not the plan was formulated with his knowledge and approval and at the very least, tacit approval. The details of the Watergate break-in expose the extent to which our government will go to control the thoughts and actions of its citizens. The nonsense we are taught in school about democracy and freedom are never taught with the reality of politics and media in our country. Debates between Presidents gives the public the illusion that they are choosing between two candidates. It's the same illusion that has us believing that if we work hard enough we too can become rich and successful. All lies. Nixon tried to cover up leaks from his office. Which means he was doing something he did not want the public to know. His hope was to do one thing and tell us another. Similar to what goes on in today's administration. Corruption at the highest level is commonplace, sure, but when you are caught, just like the common criminal, you should be punished by the law. What the Watergate scandal shows us, in retrospect, is that Republicans reactively police their own and proactively investigate Democrats. Republican apologists will trumpet the sympathetic phrase, "He has suffered enough." The real suffering is done by the American people. If just one corrupt President would spend time in jail it would send a message that would resonate in the Halls of Congress and throughout the Governor's Mansions across this nation. Until that happens, we plod forward in the daily morass of lies and smoke that has us believing that we are a great nation, when in reality, we are a tragic nation.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
Absolutely not. AuthorMusician has argued that "it would have made squat difference had Nixon been tried and given slammer time". And I suppose that is true - unless, of course, one as so much as an atom of respect for the Rule of Law, which used to be one of our founding principles.
The House Judiciary Committe approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon at the time, including nine charges of Obstruction of Justice (several counts each), five egregious charges of Abuse of Power in violation of and disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens, and the charge of Contempt of Congress. Every charge was a flagrant violation of Nixon's sworn duty to faithfully execute the office of the Presidency, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States - and those charges didn't even include his war crimes in Cambodia.
Twenty-five officials from his administration, including four Cabinet secretaries, were convicted and served time for the various crimes they committed on Nixon's behalf - yet he got off scott free and lived to have his reputation somewhat rehabilitated by men every bit as evil as he was. Richard Nixon should have been in prison for the rest of his despicable life, yet the American people against whom he committed his crimes were denied justice. Prior to President Ford, the United States was indeed "a nation of laws, not men". In pardoning the incontrovertable crimes Richard Nixon, Ford set a lethal precedent - a precedent which has no doubt enabled and encouraged the multitude of crimes committed by several administrations since - especially those of our current Executive.
Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon was the beginning of the end of the American Republic. George W Bush is driving the last few nails into its coffin, but without the crimes of Nixon and the knowledge secured by Ford that imperial US Presidents are de facto above the law, there might have been some hope. Ford's decision instituted a pattern of unaccountability and lawlessness that has so permeated our society that today we actually have American citizens who cheerlead for the crimes of the Bush administration and egg the White House on to ever greater crimes (and ever greater trashing of our Constitution), rather than patriotically demanding their impeachment, trial, and punishment. Traitors all. And the mutton-headed Gerald Ford paved their way.
Pardoning Richard Nixon was an act of utter and tragic folly. Contrary to Ford's famous sentiment, it was with his administration that our long national nightmare began. And I fear it is a nightmare from which we will never awake.
Absolutely not. AuthorMusician has argued that "it would have made squat difference had Nixon been tried and given slammer time". And I suppose that is true - unless, of course, one as so much as an atom of respect for the Rule of Law, which used to be one of our founding principles.
The House Judiciary Committe approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon at the time, including nine charges of Obstruction of Justice (several counts each), five egregious charges of Abuse of Power in violation of and disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens, and the charge of Contempt of Congress. Every charge was a flagrant violation of Nixon's sworn duty to faithfully execute the office of the Presidency, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States - and those charges didn't even include his war crimes in Cambodia.
Twenty-five officials from his administration, including four Cabinet secretaries, were convicted and served time for the various crimes they committed on Nixon's behalf - yet he got off scott free and lived to have his reputation somewhat rehabilitated by men every bit as evil as he was. Richard Nixon should have been in prison for the rest of his despicable life, yet the American people against whom he committed his crimes were denied justice. Prior to President Ford, the United States was indeed "a nation of laws, not men". In pardoning the incontrovertable crimes Richard Nixon, Ford set a lethal precedent - a precedent which has no doubt enabled and encouraged the multitude of crimes committed by several administrations since - especially those of our current Executive.
Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon was the beginning of the end of the American Republic. George W Bush is driving the last few nails into its coffin, but without the crimes of Nixon and the knowledge secured by Ford that imperial US Presidents are de facto above the law, there might have been some hope. Ford's decision instituted a pattern of unaccountability and lawlessness that has so permeated our society that today we actually have American citizens who cheerlead for the crimes of the Bush administration and egg the White House on to ever greater crimes (and ever greater trashing of our Constitution), rather than patriotically demanding their impeachment, trial, and punishment. Traitors all. And the mutton-headed Gerald Ford paved their way.
Pardoning Richard Nixon was an act of utter and tragic folly. Contrary to Ford's famous sentiment, it was with his administration that our long national nightmare began. And I fear it is a nightmare from which we will never awake.
I think before we get too excited over the constitutional encroachments of the Bush administration we must remember this. The 1st GW : the national bank. Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln: Suspending habeus corpus. FDR: The New Deal, attempt to pack the USSC. LBJ: The Great Society. All considered unconstitutional by many at the time of there inception and many still consider all these acts unconstitutional. Flaunting the constitution is what Presidents do. Nixon did not start it.
QUOTE(deng @ Dec 28 2006, 10:07 PM) 
I think before we get too excited over the constitutional encroachments of the Bush administration we must remember this. The 1st GW : the national bank. Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln: Suspending habeus corpus. FDR: The New Deal, attempt to pack the USSC. LBJ: The Great Society. All considered unconstitutional by many at the time of there inception and many still consider all these acts unconstitutional. Flaunting the constitution is what Presidents do. Nixon did not start it.
The "Everybody's doin' it, doin' it! Pickin' their nose and chewin' it, chewin' it!" defense, eh?
The difference, of course, being that what is in the past we can do nothing about. Nixon's offenses were in the present for several of us, and we had the expectation that the guy wouldn't get away with it but was subject to the same laws the rest of America was supposed to be obeying.
The fact that someone else did it before did not make Nixon's actions excusable or lawful.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 27 2006, 01:57 AM)
This would seem to be an appropriate time to ask this question.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
Was it right for the allied soldier to drag the German population out to the concentration camps to see the horrors, was it right to force them to dig out the bodies and work the cleanup crews......you tell me.
Part of any civilized society is a just legal system, part of justice in any legal system is punishment, Nixon likely commited crimes (I say likely only in deference to there not having ever been a criminal trial) and escaped punishment for them, we therefore as a society took a step backwards as a civilization. As a representative republic, we too must share the cost of our actions, or poor judgement. As a society we escaped that portion of national embarassment that would have come with a trial.
It's that "easy way out" that we were provided that allows us to make poor judgements in the future (Reagan, Bush) without fear of retribution. We as a society can go on making bad calls (Bush, the Iraq invasion, Iran-Contra) knowing that we will never have our feet held to the fire the way the people of 1945 Germany were, or even the way present day Iraqis are.
As the "FREE-EST" nation on the earth we as a people bear more responsibility for the actions of our leaders than any other society of today, and with that freedom comes the resonsibility of punishing those who have committed crimes under the cover of that freedom. If the punishment for commiting a crime against a law enforcement officer is greater, then the punishment for a law enforcement officer commiting a crime under the cover of the additional freedom (not to mention the public trust) that office is given should likewise be greater. The people we elect have a wider range of freedom of action and influence than we as rank and file citizens have, not to mention they have a staff of advisors to see to it that they stay within the boundaries of the law, therefore they should be held to the strictest standards of crime and punishment. To not do so is for us a society to take a step backwards, a step in the direction of the corruption of society as a whole.
Republicans didn't spare the nation the embarrasment of the impeachment of Clinton (for what was clearly not a crime) I want to see them cry about not making the people of this nation endure "a long national nightmare" when the impeachment of Bush happens, and even more so when the criminal trials of him and his administration begin afterwards. We as a people NEED the pain of this sort of national nightmare so that we don't stroll blindly and indifferently down the same paths of destruction and deception again. Just like you need to slap your kid's hand for touching something they shouldn't have, just as the people of Germany needed to see the concentration camps - WE NEED THE PUNISHMENT OF A NATIONAL NIGHTMARE - FOR OUR OWN SAKES.
We needed it then, we need it now - beacuse what happened then lead us to where we are now.
QUOTE(deng @ Dec 28 2006, 10:07 PM)
I think before we get too excited over the constitutional encroachments of the Bush administration we must remember this. The 1st GW : the national bank. Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln: Suspending habeus corpus. FDR: The New Deal, attempt to pack the USSC. LBJ: The Great Society. All considered unconstitutional by many at the time of there inception and many still consider all these acts unconstitutional. Flaunting the constitution is what Presidents do. Nixon did not start it.
The difference between the crimes of Nixon (and Bush 43) and those you mention is that most of them - even the imperial Adams and despotic Lincoln - is that they were acting in what they thought was the best interest of the country or its citizenry. Nixon was a petty crook committing criminal acts for personal and political gain - and to save his tail. Bush 43, on the other hand, is a crony capitalist war profiteer - with counsellors that want to turn the presidency into a dictatorship (again, for personal gain).
Nixon was not just treading on the Constitution in terms of violating his oath of office, he was breaking the law under the civil code: withholding evidence, suborning perjury, bribing witnesses, aiding and abetting other criminals, willfully disobeying subpoenas. Executive privilege be damned: these are crimes that no one should be able to get away with. His grander crimes - like misusing the FBI and CIA to conduct illegal investigations of citizens and subjecting citizens to illegal surveillance - are more in the Adams and Lincoln league and he should have been even more severely punished for those crimes (just as Adams and Lincoln should have been severely punished for their crimes). And, again, this doesn't even address the fact that Nixon was drenched in the blood of his war crimes.
But, as should be obvious, even if Nixon's predecessors had committed crimes for nothing more than personal gain, that would still not have mitigated the crimes of Richard Nixon. Any president - and this includes Adams and Lincoln - that behaves like a despot and flouts the Constitution to illegally expand the powers of the Executive should, in my humble opinion, be punished as severely as lawfully possible.
Flouting the Constitution is NOT "what presidents do". It is what a handful of them have done. And every last one of them should have suffered for it.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 27 2006, 12:57 AM)
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
From my understanding, it was a no-win situation. Ford did what he could to push the country forward after the debacle to the best of his abilities. It may not have been pleasing to the entire nation, but people would have been displeased if Nixon was not pardoned. But since we are talking what we personally believe to be right or wrong, I have to support Ford's decision on sheer grounds that his presidency would not have been able to move past it if he had not pardoned the former president.
QUOTE(deng @ Dec 28 2006, 07:07 PM)
I think before we get too excited over the constitutional encroachments of the Bush administration we must remember this. The 1st GW : the national bank. Adams: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln: Suspending habeus corpus. FDR: The New Deal, attempt to pack the USSC. LBJ: The Great Society. All considered unconstitutional by many at the time of there inception and many still consider all these acts unconstitutional. Flaunting the constitution is what Presidents do. Nixon did not start it.
However- Nixon was the first to REALLY go for a coup attempt- GW was succesful years later- but Nixon was trying an outright coup attempt- that truly DOES shake the foundations of our institutions- the peaceful transfer of power based on some checks and balances known as the electoral college- but what Nixon tried to do is no less than steel that away.
That makes the situation unique in US history until GW.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Dec 28 2006, 08:17 PM)
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
Absolutely not. AuthorMusician has argued that "it would have made squat difference had Nixon been tried and given slammer time". And I suppose that is true - unless, of course, one as so much as an atom of respect for the Rule of Law, which used to be one of our founding principles.
The House Judiciary Committe approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon at the time, including nine charges of Obstruction of Justice (several counts each), five egregious charges of Abuse of Power in violation of and disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens, and the charge of Contempt of Congress. Every charge was a flagrant violation of Nixon's sworn duty to faithfully execute the office of the Presidency, and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States - and those charges didn't even include his war crimes in Cambodia.
Twenty-five officials from his administration, including four Cabinet secretaries, were convicted and served time for the various crimes they committed on Nixon's behalf - yet he got off scott free and lived to have his reputation somewhat rehabilitated by men every bit as evil as he was. Richard Nixon should have been in prison for the rest of his despicable life, yet the American people against whom he committed his crimes were denied justice. Prior to President Ford, the United States was indeed "a nation of laws, not men". In pardoning the incontrovertable crimes Richard Nixon, Ford set a lethal precedent - a precedent which has no doubt enabled and encouraged the multitude of crimes committed by several administrations since - especially those of our current Executive.
Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon was the beginning of the end of the American Republic. George W Bush is driving the last few nails into its coffin, but without the crimes of Nixon and the knowledge secured by Ford that imperial US Presidents are de facto above the law, there might have been some hope. Ford's decision instituted a pattern of unaccountability and lawlessness that has so permeated our society that today we actually have American citizens who cheerlead for the crimes of the Bush administration and egg the White House on to ever greater crimes (and ever greater trashing of our Constitution), rather than patriotically demanding their impeachment, trial, and punishment. Traitors all. And the mutton-headed Gerald Ford paved their way.
Pardoning Richard Nixon was an act of utter and tragic folly. Contrary to Ford's famous sentiment, it was with his administration that our long national nightmare began. And I fear it is a nightmare from which we will never awake.
I probably should add to my argument here. In the strict legal sense, Ford used his office to pardon a criminal, and that in itself is within the rule of law. I didn't like it, nor did anyone I know like it other than those feeling really bad about voting the schmuk in. Others simply denied voting for him.
I'll concede that Nixon did bring the unaccountability problem into our current mix of minimum mind and maximum error. The GOP today is especially inept at governing, although we have to give Reagan a good amount of responsibility for this too. Nixon lowered the bar, but Reagan kicked it off the uprights.
GHWB took the hit for the bad economy, kind of a karma-like payback for Carter. Clinton/Gore tried to bring some responsibility back to government, but we all know what happened there. The administration suffered quite a (can't belive I'm doing this) blow.
So part of this mess is because Clinton screwed (yesh) up. Hopefully the Demo Congress will be very careful not to do a repeat performance (argh!). I'm giving up, my mind's in the gutter.
To be debated:
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
I didn't think that I would ever change my mind on this issue. However, I had found that I was in disagreement not only with PE, but with our friends. Worse, in listening to the news reports, I have only heard one person say it was the right thing to do. I was so shocked, that I looked for a link to be certain that I had heard it correctly: Cheney hails Nixon pardon at Ford's state funeral
Perhaps the argument should be made that this administration may be hoping for a pardon from future administrations based on "past practice."
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
I didn't think that I would ever change my mind on this issue. However, I had found that I was in disagreement not only with PE, but with our friends. Worse, in listening to the news reports, I have only heard one person say it was the right thing to do. I was so shocked, that I looked for a link to be certain that I had heard it correctly: Cheney hails Nixon pardon at Ford's state funeral
QUOTE
Vice President Dick Cheney hailed former U.S. President Gerald Ford at a state funeral on Saturday for pardoning Richard Nixon, his disgraced predecessor, and helping to heal the nation after the Watergate scandal.
Perhaps the argument should be made that this administration may be hoping for a pardon from future administrations based on "past practice."
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
Ford and all "office holders" who act, in office, in ways that are not explicitly granted in the Const., and/or who exempt themselves and or anyone else from the same "principles, laws, and common practices" that every other citizen "must live under and practice", are making our system "unequal before the law for all".
I know of nothing more damaging than doing so, and know of no "argument" that will make it anything other than wrong and most damaging to our "system". Anything that needs doing can and should be done within all the principles of our sytem.
Ford, in his pardonings did this. It was wrong, very damaging, and a terrible "possible presidential precedent". I see our governmental "rampant dishonesty and dishonor" being the direct cosequences of actions such as these of his. I did not and still do not like or approve of his pardoning actions and would not condone it for any president in the future.
Ford and all "office holders" who act, in office, in ways that are not explicitly granted in the Const., and/or who exempt themselves and or anyone else from the same "principles, laws, and common practices" that every other citizen "must live under and practice", are making our system "unequal before the law for all".
I know of nothing more damaging than doing so, and know of no "argument" that will make it anything other than wrong and most damaging to our "system". Anything that needs doing can and should be done within all the principles of our sytem.
Ford, in his pardonings did this. It was wrong, very damaging, and a terrible "possible presidential precedent". I see our governmental "rampant dishonesty and dishonor" being the direct cosequences of actions such as these of his. I did not and still do not like or approve of his pardoning actions and would not condone it for any president in the future.
QUOTE(ChargedDust @ Dec 29 2006, 11:49 AM)
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 27 2006, 01:57 AM)
This would seem to be an appropriate time to ask this question.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
Was it right for the allied soldier to drag the German population out to the concentration camps to see the horrors, was it right to force them to dig out the bodies and work the cleanup crews......you tell me.
Part of any civilized society is a just legal system, part of justice in any legal system is punishment, Nixon likely commited crimes (I say likely only in deference to there not having ever been a criminal trial) and escaped punishment for them, we therefore as a society took a step backwards as a civilization. As a representative republic, we too must share the cost of our actions, or poor judgement.
To be clear, what was at issue in Nixon's resignation was an alleged conspiracy to steal campaign strategies from the Democrat headquarters at the Watergate hotel. If Nixon had been tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit breaking and entering, he would have received a penalty of about six months probated sentence. It was even doubtful that a conviction should have triggered impeachment proceedings considering a break-in was certainly not what the Constitution had in mind for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Resigning the presidency forever disgraced was a far greater penalty than a six month probated sentence. So, yes, putting the incident behind us quickly was far better than continuing to let opportunistic politicos build a mountain out of that particular molehill.
These comparisons with Nazi Germany are blown so far out of proportion that one must wonder what they thought Nixon was guilty of. It was Kennedy who got us into Viet Nam, not Nixon.
QUOTE(Seamus @ Jan 2 2007, 08:05 PM)
Resigning the presidency forever disgraced was a far greater penalty than a six month probated sentence. So, yes, putting the incident behind us quickly was far better than continuing to let opportunistic politicos build a mountain out of that particular molehill.
These comparisons with Nazi Germany are blown so far out of proportion that one must wonder what they thought Nixon was guilty of. It was Kennedy who got us into Viet Nam, not Nixon.
I can understand most people not liking getting publically spanked, but we as a nation needed that very public spanking as a long lasting reminder that our own stupidity in who we elect for public office has severe consequences. You might not like my comparison of us to the germans circa 1934-1945, but I consider it valid, and the germans of today seem to have learned that lesson well. You also may have missed my point about punishment of public officials. If I punch Joe Average in the face on the street I get charged with assault, if I punch Officer Joe Average in the face I get charged with agravated assault, which has stiffer penalties, I'm of the belief that the people we charge with the puclic trust should be held to a higher scrutinty and be subject to stiffer penalties for crimes and violations of that trust. I've heard it often in many other discussions "if you've got nothing to hide then it doesn't matter to you", "if you're not a criminal then you don't have anything to worry about", and various other similar forms. So if you're officer Joe, or president Dick, then all you have to do is not break the law and you should have nothing to worry about.
I didn't even mention Vietnam.
I believe that ending "our long, national nightmare" was done to expedite accomplishing other things while Ford occupied the White House. But it was misnamed. It did not end the long national nightmare, it avoided dealing with it in a meaningful way so that the nightmare would not recur among Presidents who get "too big for their britches".
Why should we phrase it in an either/or manner, either President Nixon resigning from office -or- being prosecuted for breaking the law? I know of nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the holder of the nation's highest office should be treated with kid gloves by virtue of his position.
Whether or not it was convenient or expedient for the Ford administration to deal with a trial of the former President, it would have been right to allow due process to proceed, thereby demonstrating to our own people as well as the world that we want and try to hold our highest leaders to the same standard as ordinary citizens. Why would that have been such a bad message to send?
Why should we phrase it in an either/or manner, either President Nixon resigning from office -or- being prosecuted for breaking the law? I know of nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the holder of the nation's highest office should be treated with kid gloves by virtue of his position.
Whether or not it was convenient or expedient for the Ford administration to deal with a trial of the former President, it would have been right to allow due process to proceed, thereby demonstrating to our own people as well as the world that we want and try to hold our highest leaders to the same standard as ordinary citizens. Why would that have been such a bad message to send?
FYI toall: There is an article in this month's Smithonian magazine on this very topic. Regards---Lek
QUOTE
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
The rationale behind it was that it was time for America to heal and that we needed to move on from the Nixon years. I'm bothered that he wasn't even impeached. At a minimum, he should've been censored or removed from office with a delayed penalty. By giving him a pass, Ford showed that laws and rules are only for little people like us. Then again, there is some interesting evidence that the pardon was a negotiated thing between Ford and Nixon. I don't care much about "healing," to me, justice wasn't served. The system failed as a V.P. lackey swept it under the rug and didn't do the right thing.
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
"No" is what I thought at the time, and "no" is what I still think. We live in a republic, and we are governed by laws. The president is not a king, merely the highest civil servant. He is as subject to the law as the rest of us. If we are incapable of trying a former president, then where should the rule of law begin? And what are the courts for, if not to try those who transgress against the law?
It is not as if the production of steel would have slowed down, had Nixon been put on trial.
"No" is what I thought at the time, and "no" is what I still think. We live in a republic, and we are governed by laws. The president is not a king, merely the highest civil servant. He is as subject to the law as the rest of us. If we are incapable of trying a former president, then where should the rule of law begin? And what are the courts for, if not to try those who transgress against the law?
It is not as if the production of steel would have slowed down, had Nixon been put on trial.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 7 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE
Was Ford right to pardon Nixon?
The rationale behind it was that it was time for America to heal and that we needed to move on from the Nixon years. I'm bothered that he wasn't even impeached. At a minimum, he should've been censored or removed from office with a delayed penalty. By giving him a pass, Ford showed that laws and rules are only for little people like us. Then again, there is some interesting evidence that the pardon was a negotiated thing between Ford and Nixon. I don't care much about "healing," to me, justice wasn't served. The system failed as a V.P. lackey swept it under the rug and didn't do the right thing.
We as Americans needed to see Nixon go through the legal process. The lesson gleaned from Ford's pardon of Nixon was that if you're big and important enough and it's too much of a hassle to follow procedure, you'll get off relatively Scot-free. Little wonder that so many high-ranking politicians these days were quick to praise Ford for his pardon of Richard Nixon. "There but for the grace of God (or luck) go I..."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.