Dear Ms Ruth Marcus,
Re: Mark Felt’s Dilemma on Rights vs. Security
By Ruth Marcus
Saturday, December 20, 2008
I know that my response is late, yet I believe that you need to hear me. A response from you is not necessary, I believe that the questions explicit and implicit should be present in your consciousness.
The prosecutor, John Nields, was right; you were wrong:
> In the current unspooling, I unexpectedly find myself more in the camp of Reagan than Nields. I understand —
> I even share — Nields’s anger over the insult to the rule of law. Yet I’m coming to the conclusion that what’s
> most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important
> than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.
Do you understand that by pardoning them you ensure that it will happen again? Future officials will see this and interpret the facts as that they will not be prosecuted. They may be pardoned too. Did earlier pardons ensure those events would not happen again? Did the earlier pardons prevent these alleged criminal acts? What is taught is the idea that any government official can get away with trampling on the Constitution and the rule of law.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Latino/Hispanic, black, and, yes, poor white folk who are in jail for lesser crimes. They are not pardoned. They are not high and mighty government officials. But you and I know that this is a continuation of what happens during youth, the well off, mostly white folk, rarely minorities or poor whites, unless celebrities or offspring of celebrities (I call ’em honorary well off white folk)are given probation or rehab; whereas the poor whites and poor minorities are given jail and a record. That is simply translated to adults in this society. Why should I a poor man respect the rule of law in this society? It only exists to stomp on poor, unconnected folks.
You cite a higher calling and you spit on the rule of law by it! You say mistakes when what is involved are crimes. You are a wordsmith, do not deceive us with tortuous reasoning. The allegations are that they committed crimes not just mistakes. The way to ensure, or make the attempt, is to investigate, indict, try, maybe convict and imprison them.
I am for a constitutional amendment that will alter the pardoning power of the president. It is being misused. Forgers, pot smokers, heroin addicts, petty thieves who don’t use force, and other minor criminals are less a threat to the republic than some of the miscreants let go by a presidential pardon. Government officials who misuse the powers of their office are more of a threat to the republic than any petty thief or drug user. Yet you excuse them, accept a pardon for them as the lesser of the evils.
You are wrong. You condone the actions of folk in high position. You erode the faith that we must have in the government, especially the Justice Department, Executive, and the Courts. You increase the awareness in us that perhaps the rule of law does not apply to the high and mighty; you teach us that we are stupid to respect it and should find alternate ways to enforce fairness.
The rule of law must apply in all cases, without exception, or it is worthless as a dictum.