On December 1, outgoing US president Joe Biden issued a pardon for all federal crimes his son, Hunter, “has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”

Can he do that? Yes. Constitutionally, the president exercises “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Should he have done that? As I’ve noted before, in my opinion Biden should pardon EVERYONE convicted on unconstitutional gun and/or drugs charges, since the Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government to regulate guns and, under the Tenth Amendment, confers no authority on the federal government to regulate drugs. So those charges, at least, should never have been filed and should certainly be pardoned.

Why did he do that? While Biden the Elder correctly claims that the charges against his son were politically motivated “lawfare” aimed at using the son to damage and thwart the father, the real reason is that he IS a father.  Not many parents would, if they could prevent it, allow their children to go to prison, especially for non-violent offenses. Joe Biden just happened to have the power to prevent it. I can’t really blame him.

I’ve also argued that Biden should pardon his predecessor and successor, Donald Trump, for all the stuff he’s been accused, and even convicted, of. Since Trump is clearly going to get away with his crimes — many of them publicly confessed and even bragged about by Trump himself —  a pardon is just about the only way to officially and indelibly inscribe his guilt on the public record.

And hey, while he’s on this pardon subject, how about the rest of us?

Yes, all of us — or at least most of us.

Biden could save the taxpayers a lot of money by issuing a mass pardon for all non-violent federal crimes committed prior to the date of the pardon. Rape, murder, etc., no. Drug “crimes,” unconstitutional weapons charges, financial crimes, etc., yes.

The federal prison system would immediately be done with capacity problems, and could at least temporarily cut staff and various costs (food, medical care, etc.) in a big way.

The Department of Justice would instantly clear most of its existing case backlog, and get rid of a whole bunch of prospective future prosecutions. Some of its prosecutors could return to the private sector and those who remained could concentrate on the future and the most vile existing cases instead of chasing drug sales and small-beans embezzlement from past decades.

Have YOU committed a federal crime? Have I? Probably. There are so many laws on the books that it’s impossible to know, let alone obey, all of them.

Did you know, for example, that you can be imprisoned for up to five years and fined up to $10,000, (see 31 U.S.C. § 5111) for leaving the country with more than $5 worth of nickels?

Wouldn’t it be nice to sleep well in the knowledge that all your trivial past offenses have been erased?

Pardon us, Joe.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On November 21, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Hamas military chief  Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri (aka Mohammed Deif), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and  former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, all on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It’s unclear whether Deif remains alive.  Hamas’s official statement on the warrants was a call to “expand the scope of accountability to all criminal occupation leaders.”

The more interesting reaction comes from the Israeli regime, which has announced its “intention to appeal to the court along with a demand to delay implementation of the arrest warrants” … while simultaneously reiterating its pre-existing denial of the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israel, Israeli actions, or Israeli citizens.

Well, which is it going to be? Does the ICC have jurisdiction or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue the warrants, it doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of those warrants.

The Israeli jurisdiction claim is based on the fact that Israel is not a member state of the International Criminal Court.

But the state of Palestine IS a member state of the International Criminal Court, and the alleged actions for which the warrants were issued took place in Palestine, not Israel.

ICC jurisdiction comes in two flavors:

First, jurisdiction over citizens of member states who allegedly commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, no matter where those crimes are committed.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Mohammed Deif. His alleged crimes were committed in Israel, but since the state he resides in is under ICC jurisdiction, Deif is under ICC jurisdiction.

Second, jurisdiction over war crimes or crimes against humanity allegedly committed in ICC member states, regardless of who, from where, allegedly commits them.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Netanyahu and Gallant. The alleged crimes were committed in Palestine.  Netanyahu’s and Gallant’s Israeli citizenship doesn’t exempt them from ICC jurisdiction any more than me being from the United States would exempt me from prosecution in, or extradition to, Poland for a murder I stood accused of committing in Warsaw.

It’s that latter jurisdiction which Netanyahu and Gallant deny — but which they would necessarily have to recognize to enjoy standing to appeal the warrants.

Instead of making up their minds, they’re resorting to the usual Israeli regime policy of loudly demanding their own absolute exemption from, while crying everyone else’s absolute obligation to, “international law” and “rules-based order.”

Naturally, they’re backed up on that dodge by their friends in Washington, DC, who proclaim the same policy for both the US regime and its Middle East welfare client.

But those exceptionalist demands are clearly wearing out their welcome elsewhere. Netanyahu and Gallant probably shouldn’t plan near-future vacation trips to ICC member states.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Writing at the Washington Post,  Marc A. Thiessen argues in favor of a presidential pardon. Specifically, a pardon by outgoing president Joe Biden, of  incoming president Donald Trump.

I agree that Biden should pardon Trump, but I disagree with Thiessen as to why.

Thiessen’s case in brief:

Biden, in his inaugural address, pledged to end a national “uncivil war” by “bringing America together,” but  failed to deliver on his promise. C’mon, Joe! Unite all Americans in holiday joy at the splendid vision of a smirking crook skating into office unencumbered —  at least at the federal level —  by threat of prosecution!

Unlike Thiessen, I don’t expect a presidential pardon to produce anything like a uniformly positive reaction. Those among the public who pay attention to current affairs and history know Trump is a crook, if for no other reason than that he can’t resist bragging about his crimes to fill the time he doesn’t spend  whining about how unfairly he’s treated and how brutally he’s persecuted. Half of that public loves him for his crimes; the other half hates him for those crimes.

“From a legal standpoint,”  Thiessen writes, “Trump does not need a presidential pardon.” I don’t think he writes that with a straight face, though. His Post author photo features an “about to pitch you on a sketchy timeshare opportunity” grin, matching that quote perfectly.

Part of the real case for giving Trump a pardon is that he DOES need one … and that if he doesn’t get one from Biden, he’ll try to give one to himself before his second term expires, opening up yet another can of constitutional worms that nobody wants to eat.

If Biden pardons Trump, Trump’s unceasing whine — probably for a good six months —  that he didn’t need a pardon because he did nothing wrong will  embed his past crimes in the public consciousness more firmly and for longer.

Part two: A pardon for all his PAST crimes will  encourage him to get even more brazen about his FUTURE crimes. He’s going to commit those crimes anyway. Why not get louder and more boastful public confessions out of the deal?

Will Donald Trump ever face real justice? Probably not. If presidents were treated like the rest of us, Joe Biden would find himself sharing a Club Fed facility with Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton come January 21.

It is in a political, not legal, sense that Trump doesn’t need a pardon. All presidents skate for all their crimes, up to and including murder, but so far only Richard Nixon has skated with a pardon … and his crimes and that pardon are therefore pretty much all he’s remembered for. Trump deserves the same legacy.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY