Obama’s clemencies: Serious questions |

Obama’s clemencies: Serious questions

The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys is objecting to President Obama granting clemency to 91 convicted drug dealers and, in so doing, ignoring his own standards.

As the group documents, these were not all “non-violent, low-level offenders,” as detailed in “very specific criteria” for clemency, The Washington Times reports. Some were armed and “the vast majority” were involved in large distribution conspiracies, said Steven H. Cook, the association’s president.

When asked about the association’s position, the office of David Hickton, the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania, said he, instead, supports the Dec. 18 statement from Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates. She called the president’s decision “another sign of this administration’s strong commitment to ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system.”

Common sense in sentencing first-time, non-violent offenders is one thing. And, yes, we have the greatest respect for Mr. Hickton. But we have serious questions as to whether “fairness” involves opening the gates to hardened criminals and allowing them to pick up where they left off.

In the very least, the administration should comply with the request from the prosecutors to provide all information involved in the decisions to release the drug dealers. Anything less would be an affront to justice.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.