Jewish World Review Sept. 8, 1999 /27 Elul, 5759
Imagine the conversations now taking place in jails throughout the country. Inmates may think if they promise never again to murder, rape, rob, forge checks, burglarize, embezzle, perjure, drive while drunk, sell or do drugs, kidnap or commit other crimes, they, too, could win commutations.
Respect for the law has declined so rapidly under the Clinton administration that the jailed Puerto Ricans were allowed to conduct a conference telephone call to decide whether to accept the president's offer of clemency, which was originally designed to boost Mrs. Clinton's popularity with New York's Puerto Rican constituency, but has since backfired and come back to haunt both her undeclared candidacy and the president.
One must always understand the Clintons' actions in light of their past. We know that Mr. Clinton's sexuality was shaped in large part by two women who fought over him when he was a boy. In the '60s, Mr. Clinton was organizing anti-war protests on foreign soil and evading the draft by lying about his intentions to a military officer. Mrs. Clinton contributed to the process that led to Richard Nixon's resignation. She wanted to deny him the protection of law afforded every citizen. Stories of what happened at the Rose Law Firm, in which she and double felon Webster Hubbell were partners, are well known. The law was twisted and sometimes broken to serve their own political and personal ends.
Mr. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a federal judge, and that same judge found him in contempt of court. The judge fined him, but, as usual, someone else will pay. Under normal circumstances, Mr. Clinton would have faced disbarment. Instead, he and Hubbell were invited to address the American Bar Association.
The Clintons have paid no price for their disrespect for the law. They have borne no burden, except what may be scratching their consciences. In so many instances, they have blamed others or denied wrongdoing. They have rarely been held accountable for their actions. So why shouldn't a group of Puerto Rican terrorists think they can win an early release from their sentences?
The Clintons came of political age when the Weatherman were blowing up buildings to protest the Vietnam War; when protesters tried to shut down the Pentagon; when it was "fashionable'' among the tie-dyed set to "hate the military'' and call police officers "pigs.'' Illegal acts, even ones that caused harm to property and people, were to be tolerated because they were designed to rid us of a greater evil -- the war. These noble savages thought themselves worthy of the Nobel Peace prize.
Deborah Devaney, a former assistant U.S. attorney who was one of the federal prosecutors involved in prosecuting the FALN terrorists, opposes clemency for the convicted Puerto Ricans. In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Devaney said: "I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners -- the violence and the vehemence with which they conspired to wage war on all of us. I know, too, the commitment and sacrifice that it took the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to convict these terrorists in three separate prosecutions.''
Devaney's letter details what the convicted terrorists were doing and plotting when they were captured. They had weapons to commit armed robberies. Some were videotaped making bombs they planned to use at military installations. That those now incarcerated didn't actually kill anyone is not a reason to release them from prison (others among the FALN killed six and wounded dozens in a series of 139 bombings that ended in 1983). If they had not been caught, surely more would have been killed.
But what do the Clintons know about accountability? They've made a career out of avoiding
it. Maybe the president is trying to establish a precedent in case he is finally brought to justice
for his myriad misdeeds in hopes that a future Democrat president will pardon him (and