|
The Unholy Alliance Soils America Again
By Omer Bin Abdullah
23/02/2001
Bill Clinton, out of office for only a few days and making the best use of the resident political momentum, has given his explanation for granting pardon to two runaways from the law - Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who were indicted in 1983 on charges of racketeering and mail and wire fraud.
The explanation, as bizarre as the pardon itself, sought immunity for the "immunizer." Clinton says that he pardoned the pair because a host of Israeli and American Jewish leaders had spoken well of Rich, a person who gives freely to the Zionist state and even helps its spy agency, the Mossad.
One can only agree with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the prosecutor who brought the charges against billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, that former President Clinton's defense of his controversial pardon in the
New York Times ''raises more questions than it answers.''
One such question is, "How is it that calls from certain "leaders" (be they perceived or self-declared leaders) can make or unmake a criminal?" If indeed they can, then Mr. Clinton is guilty of discrimination as well.
He is still not too far removed from his anticipated retirement to forget the hundreds of appeals sent to him by American citizens asking him to undo the Secret Evidence law that has kept about two-dozen Muslims in jail without trial. Perhaps Mr. Clinton - who wears hearing aids - was prone only to hearing the appeals made by his favorite faith groups.
Another question raised by the Clinton explanation is, "How is it that Rich qualified for the presidential reprieve simply because he has made contributions and provided services to 'Israeli charitable causes'?"
Ironically, in his New York Times op-ed, Clinton quotes the American Constitution. He states, "Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant 'Reprieves and Pardons' for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted '[to] the [president]… and it is granted without limit (United States v. Klein).' Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that '[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . . (Biddle v. Perovich)."
It can only be left for Clinton to explain how public welfare was better served in America by Rich's contributions to "Israeli charitable causes." Or is the former president suggesting that any American citizen can decamp with a few billion dollars of American money, find a safe harbor, siphon away a few millions of it to charitable causes in an "approved of" country, and then earn a pardon?
Does the former president, a trained attorney, feel any responsibility toward the American citizens whose money the fugitive took off with, and whose welfare was adversely affected by such decampment?
This, according to Clinton, "most important" reason for the pardon raises serious questions about the ability of public servants to discern true American public interest.
Still another question raised by the Mossad "ingredient" of his explanation is, "How is it that helping the Mossad could earn Rich a reprieve?" Jonathan Pollard was also helping the Mossad. Why was he not judged by the same yardstick, especially when Holocaust marketing mogul Elie Weisel signed an appeal on his behalf?
Clinton may offer whatever denials he chooses to offer, but the pardon seems to be linked not only to more than $1.5 million in donations by Denise Rich, but also (and more importantly) to the reported political ambitions harbored by a certain junior senator from New York.
The explanation offered by Clinton in his op-ed has only served to further highlight the man's criminal nature - the very same nature that came into play during the Monica Lewinsky affair.
On the one hand, he can accept that U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, a Clinton appointee, did not agree with the pardon; yet, on the other, he offers the unbelievable excuse that Eric Holder of his Justice Department did not have enough time to study it. Why the rush?
Perhaps due to constant reminders from the powers that be in Tel Aviv and its American subsidiary.
The Rich and Green pardons clearly show the limits of American sovereignty in the face of pressures being exerted by the leadership of a certain country through its powerful lobbying force in our country.
|
