One of the powers retained by the President of the United States is the “presidential pardon.” You may also see news coverage of a president “commuting” the sentence of a given offender. Presidential pardons and commutations are an authority granted to the president by the Constitution, and it’s a power that presidents often exercise, especially at the ends of their terms. Read on to learn about presidential pardons and commutations and what exactly the two terms mean.

What are Presidential Pardons? What are Presidential Commutations?

Presidential pardons and commutations are both types of “executive clemency.”

A commutation is when the president cuts short the sentence of an individual who is currently incarcerated in some form. Essentially, a commutation says: “You’ve served enough time for the crime that you’ve committed, I’m going to take away the rest of your sentence.” This does not mean that the person whose sentence is commuted is innocent. The person’s conviction stays on their record, and they’re still subject to certain restrictions known as “civil disabilities”–for example, a felon whose sentence is commuted is still unable to vote in some places, own a gun, or sit on certain kinds of juries.

In contrast, a pardon is given after a person has already served their time, or passed away. According to the Department of Justice, it is given in “recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence.” A pardon does restore the civil disabilities that apply to convicted criminals. Like a commutation, a pardon doesn’t automatically take the person’s crime off their record. A released offender cannot apply for a pardon until at least five years have passed since their release. Pardons can also be granted somewhat preemptively, as President Gerald Ford did when he pardoned President Richard Nixon, which prevents charges from being filed or leads to the dismissal of charges already levied.

Pardons and commutations are by far the most well-known and frequently used forms of executive clemency. There are, however, other types that the president can exercise. One is called a “remission” and relieves the individual of the financial penalties associated with their conviction. Sometimes a remission is given as part of a commutation. Additionally, there’s a “respite,” which is sort of a pause in a sentence, usually given to inmates who are sick.

What Kinds of Crimes can the President Pardon or Commute?

The president can only grant executive clemency for federal crimes, or “offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.” The president has no ability to pardon or commute crimes that were prosecuted at the state level. The ability to pardon or commute state crimes varies from state to state. In many states, the authority to pardon or commute an offender lies completely with the top executive of the state, namely, that state’s governor. In 20 states, the governor gets to make the decision but each clemency needs the approval of an independent commission. Other states have different processes, including independent boards or commissions.

What Gives the President the Ability to Grant Executive Clemency?

The presidential power to pardon and commute sentences comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It has been referred to as the president’s only “absolute power.” The Supreme Court has been asked to review this power in the past, and determined on two separate occasions that it has no ability to limit the president’s power to pardon or commute sentences.

How Often do Presidents Pardon or Commute Sentences?

There are only two presidents in the history of the United States that never issued a pardon or commuted a sentence, likely as a result of the fact that they both died relatively quickly after assuming office. President William Henry Harrison died just 32 days into his term and President James Garfield was assassinated just 200 days into his term.

Here’s a breakdown of presidential pardons in the 20th and 21st centuries:

• William McKinley (1897-1901) granted 446 acts of executive clemency
• Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) granted 1099 acts of executive clemency
• William H. Taft (1909-1913 granted 831 acts of executive clemency
• Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) granted 2,827 acts of executive clemency
• Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) granted 773 acts of executive clemency
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) granted 1,691 acts of executive clemency
• Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) granted 1,198 acts of executive clemency
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) granted 3,796 acts of executive clemency
• Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) granted 2,044 acts of executive clemency
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) granted 1,157 acts of executive clemency
• John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) granted 575 acts of executive clemency
• Richard Nixon (1969-1974) granted 926 acts of executive clemency
• Gerald Ford (1974-1977) granted 409 acts of executive clemency
• Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) granted 566 acts of executive clemency
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) granted 406 acts of executive clemency
• George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) granted 77 acts of executive clemency
• Bill Clinton (1993-2001) granted 459 acts of executive clemency
• George W. Bush (2001-2009) granted 200 acts of executive clemency
• Barack Obama (2009-2017) granted 1,927 acts of executive clemency

It’s important to note that those numbers, when taken at face value, don’t tell you everything you need to know about acts of executive clemency granted by presidents over the last century. While Obama is widely viewed as having given the most acts of executive clemency since Truman, The Pew Research Center notes that he also received significantly more requests than his recent predecessors, and still only granted a small percentage of those requests. These numbers also don’t include mass acts of clemency–both Ford and Carter issued executive orders that forgave men who dodged the draft in the Vietnam War.

While presidents can pardon people or commute sentences at really any time, there’s a tradition of presidents issuing more controversial acts of executive clemency right at the end of their terms. Pardons and other acts of executive clemency tend to be somewhat politically controversial, but they cannot be undone by a president’s predecessor. Waiting until the end of a president’s term to issue pardons instead of, for example, issuing them during an election when the political blowback could affect their party’s nominee, makes logical sense.

Notable Cases of Executive Clemency 

Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon 

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of executive clemency occurred on September 8, 1974, when President Gerald Ford pardoned disgraced former President Richard Nixon. Nixon had resigned after the controversy surrounding the Watergate scandal, and Vice President Gerald Ford–who became VP after Nixon’s first Vice President resigned–succeeded him in August 1974.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon was somewhat unusual in that Nixon wasn’t at that point charged with or convicted of any crimes. While the House of Representatives had dropped its impeachment charges against him when he resigned, he could still be prosecuted in a criminal court for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. Ford’s pardon was for any crimes that Nixon had committed, and essentially ensured he could never be prosecuted.

Ford’s move to pardon Nixon was highly controversial. He was accused of having made some sort of deal with Nixon, and the pardon caused his poll numbers to quickly plummet. Ford’s choice to pardon Nixon is widely viewed as one of the major reasons why he lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.

Other Notable and Controversial Pardons

Another controversial pardon was when Bill Clinton pardoned his younger half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr. Roger Clinton was one of 140 people pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. He had served a year in prison in the 1980s after being convicted of possessing cocaine.

Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the Teamsters Union, was serving a 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud when his sentence was commuted by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Nixon’s pardon came with strings attached, however. Hoffa was not allowed to “engage in direct or indirect management of any labor organization” until 1980.

On December 24, 1992, roughly a month before he left office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other government officials involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

Right before the end of his presidency, in December 2016, President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Manning was serving a 35-year sentence after leaking a number of classified documents.

Conclusion

The ability to grant executive clemency is one of the most exceptional powers that the President of the United States holds. In some ways, it flies contrary to the important system of checks and balances that defines the three branches of our federal government. Because of this, and because of the way that some of our past presidents have elected to exercise it, it’s a controversial power. But as long as it consistently makes its way into the news at the end of presidential terms, it’s important to remember how it works.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Presidential Pardons: How Does Executive Clemency Work? appeared first on Law Street.

At the recent Zhuhai Air Show, China unveiled a new stealth fighter jet that one day has the potential to rival the United States’ own F-35. This came just days before President Obama was to travel to China to meet with its leaders as part of the larger APEC summit. While the significance of the timing of this display is debatable, it unquestionably shows China is determined to steadily improve and modernize its military arsenal. The question that remains is why? Is China’s path aimed at some future point at which it will surpass the United States as the world’s pre-eminent world power, both economically and militarily? If the answer to this question is yes–or even if it is no–does this then make China a military threat to the United States?

China and the U.S.: Positions in the Global Hierarchy

It’s the Economy

To begin to answer this question it is necessary to start by looking at these countries’ economies and in particular their economic growth. There are an infinite number of economic measures available to argue which economy in the world is the strongest; however, one of the most traditional and commonly accepted is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this regard, America has enjoyed dominance for decades going all the way back to the end of World War II. Today even in a supposedly more multipolar world, the GDP of the US economy, nearly $17 trillion in 2013, dwarfs that of any other nation and almost doubles the second place country, China.

Nonetheless, while the United States enjoys the largest GDP its rate of growth is much smaller than China’s. Since 1978, when it moved from a centrally planned to a market based economy, China’s yearly GDP growth has averaged nearly 10 percent. The United States during this time has experienced annual growth rates of 2 to 3 percent.

This figure excludes many factors, notably the fact that as a larger economy it is harder for the U.S. to grow at a rate equal to that of China. This issue has actually started to affect China as well as its recent growth has slipped to the 7 to 8 percent range as it seeks to curb several glaring social issues. Moreover, while China’s economy is growing faster and one day may pass the U.S. economy based strictly on total GDP, the average GDP per person is much lower in China than the United States. Regardless of the metrics though, why is economic might so important in determining whether China is a military threat to the United States?

China and U.S.: Military Spending

The United States Spends More (A Lot More)

A successful economy often goes hand in hand with a powerful military. Such is the case in the United States. As has been well documented, military spending by the United States far surpasses that of any other country. In fact, the edge in military spending by the United States far outstrips its edge economically by any measure. In 2013 for example, the United States spent an estimated $619 billion on military expenditures. This is more than three times what the second-place country spent in that same time period.

That second country on the list is–you guessed it–China again. In 2013 China spent $171.4 billion itself on military expenditures. While the United States again is overwhelmingly outspending China, it is critical to look at the growth rates, not just the overall total. As China’s economy continues to grow, so does its potential military capability.

China is Spending More Lately

In 2013, the U.S. actually saw a significant decline in military spending as a result of not only the ending of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also due to the sequester. In contrast, China actually increased its budget in the same year between 7.4 and 10.7 percent. In 2014, it is reported that China will increase its budget again by an additional 12.2 percent. While this still does not make China equal to the United States, it suggests a desire by China to project its power further beyond its borders. The video below provides a more in-depth explanation.

China and U.S.: Their Relationship

Long and Intricate 

While China’s military capability is increasing this does not automatically make it a threat to the United States, instead it is also important to consider the relationship between the two nations. Historically this could be characterized best as complicated. The video below highlights the complex connection.

The United States has long had a relationship with China, almost from its inception. China was an important market following the Revolutionary War when it was shut out of many other places due to animosity emanating from England. American missionaries also flocked to China and Chinese immigrants came in waves to the United States and were instrumental in constructing the railway network, among other things. Things started going downhill, however, near the end of the nineteenth century during the rise of Imperialism worldwide. In 1882 the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was aimed at curbing Chinese immigration.

Additionally, in 1899 the U.S. provided men and weapons to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in which Chinese citizens attempted to expel foreigners who they viewed as exploitative of their country. The United States did advocate the Open Door Policy, initiated in the late nineteenth century, that prevented the literal break-up of China; however, the motive for that can be seen as greed as much as humanitarianism in that the U.S. wanted to keep China as an open market to which it had access.

The relationship improved again during the lead up to and for the duration of World War II as the United States provided supplies and men to China in its fight against Imperial Japan. Later during the conflict China also served as a launching point for American attacks against Japan. The bond the countries had hammered out during the war seemed to be set in stone when the United States worked to get China to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Once again however, the relationship frayed with the communist takeover of China and with Chinese soldiers actually engaging U.S. troops during the Korean War. At one point the situation was so bad that nuclear war seemed to be a possibility. Relations stayed frozen until President Nixon famously opened up dialogue between the two countries in the 1970s.

Since Nixon’s thawing the two nations have maintained a strong economic relationship. In 2014, China was the United States’ second most valuable trading partner and the United States was China’s top partner. The two sides also recently agreed for the first time to a major environmental pact that is scheduled to cap China’s emissions in 2030 and cut US emissions by 25 percent by 2025. Still though while the U.S. and China are working in concert, many issues remain between the two nations that could potentially lead to conflict, namely human rights abuses and continued Chinese attempts to steal American technological secrets.

Other Considerations

The Price of Friendship

While the complicated relationship between China and the United States may not make China a military threat, the relationship China has with its neighbors in Asia certainly has that potential. Currently China is attempting to exert its newfound power throughout the region. This has led to two separate crises in two separate seas. The one problem in both cases, with Japan in the East China Sea and several Asian countries in the South China Sea, is over control of the seas. Specifically it is over who controls the resources under those seas, particularly the large amount of oil. The video below gives a glimpse of what exactly the issue is.

The reason why all this could lead to China becoming a military threat is because the United States has defensive military treaties with both Taiwan and Japan. Thus if these two nations or others that also have military commitments from the United States were to come into direct physical conflict with China, the United States would be required to come to their aid militarily. The United States could always refuse to honor these obligations, but then that would lead to a loss of credibility.

End of the Pax Americana 

Such a loss of credibility may actually already have occurred. Specifically by failing to honor the security commitment to Ukraine and the failure to punish Syria for crossing Obama’s Red line against the use of chemical weapons, hostile countries may now have their doubts concerning American power, or at the very least its commitment.

Not only has this seemingly emboldened countries like Russia, it may also lead other countries with differing political goals such as China to determine the time is ripe for them to assert their own power as well, without the former fear of American retaliation. This may also signal the end of an unofficial era, defined as the Pax Americana or American Peace. During this period dating from the end of World War II, the United States was able to assert its global ambitions due to its military strength.

To Russia With Love

Another potential challenge to the system, crafted by the United States, comes in the form of China’s growing economic relationship with Russia, which has been both a long term and recent nemesis of the United States. While the U.S. and its European allies sanction Russia for its involvement in the unrest in Ukraine, China was agreeing to a $400 billion energy deal that could undermine the sanctions already in place.

China’s Nuclear Card

Even if China were not emboldened by a perceived American decline, it still has the potential to be a threat to the United States or any other state on this planet because of its nuclear stockpile. While China has long maintained its policy of no First Use concerning nuclear weapons, recent improvements in its arsenal may signal its intent to shrink the nuclear capability gap between the United States and itself.

Conclusion

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice…

Aside from all the spending and rhetoric, good and bad, many still believe that China cannot be a threat to the United States militarily for one major reason: China and the U.S. are each other’s most important trading partners. But this argument has been made before. In one such case it was argued that Germany and France, which prior to WWI were economically independent, would not go to war. This was proven wrong of course and the two sides soon engaged in one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

Thus in time China could very possibly become a military threat to the United States with its quickly growing economy and military budget; however, the amount of dialogue and trade between the two countries could just as easily lead to a peaceful and prosperous relationship well into the future. For now only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Gross Domestic Product 2013

World Bank: China Overview

Census: Foreign Trade

Additional

Heritage Foundation: The Complicated History of US Relations with China

Trading Economics: Countries Spending the Most on the Military

CNN: Just How Good is China’s New Stealth Fighter

Council on Foreign Relations: Trends in US Military Spending

The New York Times: China Announces 12.2 % Increase in Military Budget

China Daily: Top 10 Trading Partners of the Chinese Mainland

Guardian: US and China Strike Deal on Carbon Cuts in Push For Global Climate Change Pact

World Affairs Journal: Conflicting Claims: China, Japan, Taiwan on Edge

Atlantic: The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable

National Interest: West Concerned about Russia and China Economic Ties

Diplomat: Could China’s Nuclear Strategy Evolve?

National Interest: Should America Fear China’s Nuclear Weapons

UCSD: Trading on Preconceptions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China as a Military Threat: What Does It Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, there has been a debate on how to best give the poorest Americans a chance at a prosperous life. Federal assistance programs have come and gone with plenty of critics, but what if the solution was as simple as giving every American a check? Read on to learn about the plan that’s uniting liberals and conservatives.

What is a basic income?

A basic income is just what it sounds like: the government gives every citizen enough money to survive. This check would replace food stamps, unemployment insurance, and most of our welfare system. Most American proposals for a basic income provide for $1,000 a month, or roughly how much someone earning the federal minimum wage, $7.25 per hour, makes.

Why replace our current welfare system? If it ain’t broke…

It’s broken, very broken. This is partly because the term “welfare system” does not refer to one system. It is multiple social programs managed by different government bureaucracies. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF), and Child Nutrition programs (CHIP) are all examples of social programs that are broadly referred to as welfare. According to the Cato Institute, there are 126 different federal assistance programs. Anyone trying to receive government assistance has to apply to all of these separate programs which carry their own paperwork and contradictory requirements.

There is also the problem known as the “poverty trap.” This is when those receiving assistance risk losing money by taking a higher paying job. It sounds contradictory, but this anecdote from Harvard Professor Jeff Liebman explains the problem.

The woman in his story, let us call her Mary, moves from a job that pays $25,000 to a job that pays $35,000. This is great for her, except for the fact that she relies on government benefits. With this new job, she earns enough so that she no longer qualifies for many of the social programs she depends on. She no longer can get free health insurance, she has lost title eight housing benefits, she lost her child care voucher, she lost her EITC benefits, and she is now paying payroll tax. Added all up, Mary is actually making less money with a higher paying job. When welfare recipients are discouraged from taking higher jobs, they are discouraged from improving their lives to the point where they will no longer need welfare.

A basic income would get rid of the poverty trap. Mary could quit her lower salary job and even take her time to find a job that is right for her without having to worry about losing her support system.

For being such a failure, the current welfare system is also really expensive. America spends approximately $1 trillion on the welfare system. That’s $14,848 per person. This graph from The Heritage Foundation gives an idea of how that is split up between programs.

Basic income would also be expensive, but it would provide recipients the freedom they need to find good work.

Wouldn’t everyone just stop working?

It’s possible. While proponents of a basic income argue that removing the poverty gap is a huge incentive to work, critics argue that an unconditional check in the mail will disincentivize work. Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs, describes the basic income as giving impoverished people “the real freedom to pursue the realization of one’s conception of the good life.” The good life in one person’s eyes could be having a lucrative job. In another’s eyes, it could be living off of the government dime and doing nothing. Proponents of the basic income, like US Basic Income Guarantee Network Board Member Alan Sheahen, believe that most people want to work:

This is a problem that nearly every welfare plan has to grapple with. Requiring work puts people in a poverty trap. Unconditional benefits allow them to coast without work.

Does any country do this?

There is no country that has replaced their welfare system with a guaranteed basic income. However, there are countries that give their citizens unconditional money and there are countries that have proposed this plan.

The best example would be in India, where a pilot program was implemented in 2011. This pilot program included an urban program, whose recipients were given 1000 rupees a month, a rural program, whose recipients were given 200 rupees a month, and a control group, whose participants received no basic income.

What happened next was amazing: Participants in the program spent more on healthy food than they did when they received subsidized food. These groups also spent more on medical services, and housing. The most impressive result was that these families spent significantly more on school supplies than the control group. As a result, school attendance in the participating villages increased to three times the level of the control villages.

Switzerland might become the first country to implement a basic income nationwide. They will soon vote on a referendum to their constitution guaranteeing the right of a basic income to all. However, it is unclear how a Swiss basic income would be implemented, if it were to even pass. There have been no studies in Switzerland, and only one advocacy group has been pushing the issue. Switzerland’s form of democracy requires only 100,000 signatures to get any issue on the ballot as a referendum, so the plan might not even have broad public support.

Has this ever been proposed in the United States?

The closest proposal to a guaranteed income in the United States was President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP). FAP was not a basic income for all, but it was similar. Any family with children where one of the parents worked or were registered with the United States Employment services was eligible for a minimum stipend. Once again, it was not a check in the mail for every American, but it was and still is the closest proposal to basic income this country has ever seen.

So, what happened? It passed the House of Representatives, but died in a Senate committee. Conservatives thought the idea of free money was too far to the left and Democrats thought the work requirement placed it too far to the right.

Here’s Nixon’s indictment of the welfare system and presentation of FAP, courtesy of the Richard Nixon Foundation:

In modern America, the closest example of a basic income is in Alaska, where the state unconditionally gives a portion of their oil revenues to their citizens. The payout varies depending on oil sales, so it is not a dependable source of income, but it is still significant.

Is this a liberal or conservative idea?

Actually, it is both. Liberals and conservatives have both embraced a guaranteed basic income.

Milton Friedman, one of the most influential conservative economists ever, proposed replacing the welfare system with a “negative income tax.” Every citizen would get a tax transfer, and would then be taxed on that transfer based on how much money they earned. Friedmann, like other prominent conservatives, supported the basic income because it took power away from the federal government and the many bureaucracies that managed the welfare state.

Liberals like the basic income because it works to reduce inequality. It also has the added benefit of giving workers the ability to demand better work conditions from employers without fearing a loss of financial security.

Since this is so bipartisan, is it going to happen?

Unlikely. Americans are not the biggest fans of redistribution, and a basic income is redistribution at its purest form. In a nation where 60 percent of the citizenry believe that the poor can become rich by trying harder, it is unlikely that a basic income will gain broad public support.

Watch this report from PBS to learn about the broad support basic income has amongst liberal and conservative thinkers, the movements in Europe to enact similar plans, and the opposition it faces at home.

Conclusion

While support for a basic income reaches across the aisle, it is too untested to be implemented in a country as large as the United States and it goes against the American ideal of earning every dollar made. Keep an eye on countries like Switzerland and India to see if this really is the solution to poverty that the world has been looking for.

Resources

Primary

Basic Income News: Indian: Basic Income Pilot Project Finds Results of India’s pilot program

Additional

PBS Newshour: Will a Guaranteed Income Ever Come to America?

City Journal: Why Not a Negative Income Tax?

Adam Smith Institute: The Ideal Welfare System is a Basic Income

Slate: EITC Isn’t the Alternative to a Minimum Wage, This is

Economist: The Cheque is in the Mail

Carnegie Mellon University: Truth in Giving: Experimental Evidence on the Welfare Effects of Informed Giving to the Poor

Harvard University: Fairness and Redistribution

Economist: Taxing Hard-Up Americans at 95 Percent

Cato Institute: The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty–and Fail

Washington Post: Thinking Utopian: How About a Universal Basic Income?

Bloomberg: The Swiss Join the Fight Against Inequality

Basic Income Earth Network: Quarterly Newsletter

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Strings Attached: Replacing Welfare With a Guaranteed Income appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.