Sunday, August 27, 2017
Sunday Reflection: Righteous anger
So... President Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday. I have a piece about that in today's Waco paper. It begins like this:
When he defended statues of Confederate heroes, President Trump promoted symbols of racism as they existed more than 150 years ago, embedded in the institution of slavery. By pardoning former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, Trump defended racism as it exists today, embedded in the mechanism of criminal law.
One of my heroes and teachers, though, may have put the emotion of it better than anyone else. Nkechi Taifa wrote this on Friday night:
Trump Pardoned Arpaio – What we gonna do???
Excuse my language, but I am pissed. Not because Trump pardoned Arpaio — the Executive has an unfettered constitutional right to grant clemency to whoever s/he wishes. I am outraged because we as a progressive community are too often stymied by what the conservative and law enforcement communities think about our thoughts and actions and, as a result, are afraid to go bold. Trump went bold. He cut right through the red tape and pardoned his bigoted buddy.
The handwriting was on the wall toward the end of the Obama administration. The Executive was urged, time and again, to go bold. Instead, although well-meaning, the progressive administration adopted a process on top of an already flawed process. It followed the long-standing but problematic rule of law of deferring to the same agency that prosecuted and imprisoned those now appealing for release. It would likely be the last opportunity for at least four years for people like William Underwood, Michelle West, Leonard Peltier, Mutulu Shakur, Alice Johnson and John Knock to have any hope of release from lengthy incarceration. But the progressive administration was stymied by criteria, by prosecutorial veto, by blind adherence to process and procedure, by red tape, and by the time-honored rule of law.
And now, in one fell swoop and under cover of darkness with an impending hurricane, we witness the bold pardon of the scandalous former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Trump followed no process; indeed sentencing had not even occurred. The gall and audacity of the President. But clemency is his constitutional right, unfettered by process, procedure or public opinion.
When are we as a progressive community going to realize that it doesn’t matter whether we carefully follow the rules (as we did during the Obama-era clemency initiative); or thumb our nose at process (what we should have done) – we are going to be criticized, ostracized and condemned by our adversaries. It always is “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.” Thus we as a progressive community must at all times unabashedly and boldly step up to the plate for justice. In the words of the great anti-slavery orator Henry Highland Garnett, “Let Our Motto be Resistance, Resistance Resistance!”
There is, I think, such a thing as righteous anger. Nkechi expresses exactly that.
When he defended statues of Confederate heroes, President Trump promoted symbols of racism as they existed more than 150 years ago, embedded in the institution of slavery. By pardoning former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, Trump defended racism as it exists today, embedded in the mechanism of criminal law.
One of my heroes and teachers, though, may have put the emotion of it better than anyone else. Nkechi Taifa wrote this on Friday night:
Trump Pardoned Arpaio – What we gonna do???
Excuse my language, but I am pissed. Not because Trump pardoned Arpaio — the Executive has an unfettered constitutional right to grant clemency to whoever s/he wishes. I am outraged because we as a progressive community are too often stymied by what the conservative and law enforcement communities think about our thoughts and actions and, as a result, are afraid to go bold. Trump went bold. He cut right through the red tape and pardoned his bigoted buddy.
The handwriting was on the wall toward the end of the Obama administration. The Executive was urged, time and again, to go bold. Instead, although well-meaning, the progressive administration adopted a process on top of an already flawed process. It followed the long-standing but problematic rule of law of deferring to the same agency that prosecuted and imprisoned those now appealing for release. It would likely be the last opportunity for at least four years for people like William Underwood, Michelle West, Leonard Peltier, Mutulu Shakur, Alice Johnson and John Knock to have any hope of release from lengthy incarceration. But the progressive administration was stymied by criteria, by prosecutorial veto, by blind adherence to process and procedure, by red tape, and by the time-honored rule of law.
And now, in one fell swoop and under cover of darkness with an impending hurricane, we witness the bold pardon of the scandalous former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Trump followed no process; indeed sentencing had not even occurred. The gall and audacity of the President. But clemency is his constitutional right, unfettered by process, procedure or public opinion.
When are we as a progressive community going to realize that it doesn’t matter whether we carefully follow the rules (as we did during the Obama-era clemency initiative); or thumb our nose at process (what we should have done) – we are going to be criticized, ostracized and condemned by our adversaries. It always is “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.” Thus we as a progressive community must at all times unabashedly and boldly step up to the plate for justice. In the words of the great anti-slavery orator Henry Highland Garnett, “Let Our Motto be Resistance, Resistance Resistance!”
There is, I think, such a thing as righteous anger. Nkechi expresses exactly that.
Comments:
<< Home
Yes, righteous anger but in a country that has rule of law and a strong judiciary his actions showed a reckless disregard for what this nation is built on. I would have had less problem with the pardon had he waited until Arpaio was sentenced.
He probably would have received house arrest - as a racist, bigoted, former sheriff would not last 24 hours in jail with those he has helped put there. House Arrest would have been the justice system showing mercy.
He probably would have received house arrest - as a racist, bigoted, former sheriff would not last 24 hours in jail with those he has helped put there. House Arrest would have been the justice system showing mercy.
I appreciate Nkechi's reflections. She is very clear about why we want clemency to be unfettered and bold. If we use this opportunity to try to limit the scope of this unfettered presidential prerogative, we are in effect taking away a tool to bring mercy and compassion to thousands in the future.
Sometimes we carry the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to a disastrous conclusion. We must tolerate the polemics of opposites in order to defend a constitutional power. In this instance, we must preserve the separation of powers in order to preserve this shining instrument for freedom as a beacon of hope for mercy for the hopeless.
When Ford pardoned Nixon he was met with shouts of jail Ford and Congress attempted to limit this Presidential power. The media all weighed in against the president's decision. Putting the current pardon aside, mercy and compassion by committee and or bureaucratic consensus means the end of clemency as we know it. Do we know if the Nixon Pardon was softened by the amnesty that President Ford gave to 13,000 people who violated the selective service act? If it was, it made his legacy stronger. These acts of mercy by Ford were all done by passing the DOJ.
I realize that I hold too much hope for Presidential Clemency. I would like to see clemency used for broad categories of offenders who will die in federal prison. There are many, but my first choice is nonviolent marijuana offenders with life sentences or defacto life sentences. This sentence does not fit the crime in the current culture and it costs billions of dollars that could be used for useful government functions. That's just one category, but if we remove this Presidential power, it may take decades to find this mercy through a bureaucratic committee.
Post a Comment
Sometimes we carry the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to a disastrous conclusion. We must tolerate the polemics of opposites in order to defend a constitutional power. In this instance, we must preserve the separation of powers in order to preserve this shining instrument for freedom as a beacon of hope for mercy for the hopeless.
When Ford pardoned Nixon he was met with shouts of jail Ford and Congress attempted to limit this Presidential power. The media all weighed in against the president's decision. Putting the current pardon aside, mercy and compassion by committee and or bureaucratic consensus means the end of clemency as we know it. Do we know if the Nixon Pardon was softened by the amnesty that President Ford gave to 13,000 people who violated the selective service act? If it was, it made his legacy stronger. These acts of mercy by Ford were all done by passing the DOJ.
I realize that I hold too much hope for Presidential Clemency. I would like to see clemency used for broad categories of offenders who will die in federal prison. There are many, but my first choice is nonviolent marijuana offenders with life sentences or defacto life sentences. This sentence does not fit the crime in the current culture and it costs billions of dollars that could be used for useful government functions. That's just one category, but if we remove this Presidential power, it may take decades to find this mercy through a bureaucratic committee.
<< Home
