New at Reason

April 2, 2007

Jonathan Rauch looks into the case of a man who actually deserves a presidential pardon.

Comments

|4.2.07 @ 9:04AM|#

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s529.htm

The investigation demonstrates that poaching can adversely affect the lives of hundreds of fishermen and have a profoundly detrimental impact on the environment. McNab evidenced no concern for the lobster resource or for fishermen. For example:

* The wealth from McNab's vast harvest was denied to the common citizens of Honduras. McNab paid the harvesters 10 cents per pound of lobster, which subsequently wholesaled in the United States for $10 to $18 per pound.
* McNab's workers harvested spiny lobster that were under the legal size limits set by Honduras and the United States. NOAA investigators and federal prosecutors, in cooperation with Honduran authorities, proved that Blandford, Schoenwetter, Huang, and their seafood corporations were conspiring to sell hundreds of thousands of pounds of undersized lobster tails.
* McNab's employees illegally harvested thousands of pounds of egg-bearing female lobsters, an activity they tried to conceal by clipping off parts of the animals' tails to which eggs were attached. Scientists who study spiny lobster populations have long recognized that the offspring of lobster populations off the Western Caribbean coast, including Honduras, are critical sources for replenishing the lobster stocks in the Southeastern United States.
* McNab's fishing practices did not adhere to Honduran lobster fishing laws. His fleet conducted fishing operations that removed virtually every lobster from the sea floor.

This guy can cry me a river, but fuck him.

|4.2.07 @ 9:44AM|#

It's hard to know what to believe in this case after reading Rauch and the noaa piece. Somebody's wrong, but I don't know who.

In any case, Bush is a man without a conscience (at least if the numbers in Rauch's article are correct).

|4.2.07 @ 10:47AM|#

jf

Your arguments are strangely parallel to those of the drug warriors:

"X did something I think is wrong. To hell with due process; throw him in jail."

|4.2.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Aresen,

Good point. He should get a new trial. Unfortunately that's not really relevant in this case. He did get his day in court, and go through the appeals process, so it's not like he was completely deprived of due process.

Passim|4.2.07 @ 11:14AM|#

jf,

For the sake of argument (and my laziness), I'm going to take everything you cited, and everything Rauch wrote as fact.

So, this guy is an enviro-bastard. (Mind you, the only damn I give about lobsters is that they're tasty.)

What concerns me is the use/misuse of foreign law to convict a man and send him to prison for 8 years. I am among the first to scream "kill the black-robed bastards!" whenever SCOTUS even references foreign law. And I am right.

We have no business enforcing Honduran law, just because we happen to think this guy's up to no good. Once this precedent is set, those weirdo jackasses who practice Falun Gon/Dafa/whatever on the streets of NYC--and they are truly obnoxious--can be prosecuted in the US, under Chinese law, and executed.

Personally, I might enjoy seeing them burn. But do you really want to go there? What shall we do with North Korean law? Or Saudi law?

But since you say "fuck him," then you should be happy: he's been fucked.

|4.2.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Passim,

He wasn't technically convicted of violating Honduran law, but his US violation was partly a result of him breaking Honduran law. Not the same as the examples you're giving (which I would agree completely with you if that were the case).

Passim|4.2.07 @ 11:34AM|#

jf,

Fair enough. This is not an ideal case for outrage. It's the proximity which disturbs me.

Also, the sentence seems a bit extreme.

As for the broader issue of pardons: cheers to Rauch for outlining the need for Pres pardon power, cheers and jeers for his statistics regarding recent pardons. (Maybe they have not been needed as much recently? Just a thought.) But in any event, thanks to Rauch's great outlining of the need, I have a new-found appreciation of the value of the "appeal to the Queen" which still exists in Britain and other constitutional monarchies.

|4.2.07 @ 12:45PM|#

I think the left is determined to send Bush to prison after he leaves office. He may have to hope that his successor will be more willing to use the pardon power.

|4.2.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Can a President pardon himself?

|4.2.07 @ 1:36PM|#

R C Dean,

I don't think so.

But, what the hell, man? You're the lawyer here. :)

Passim|4.2.07 @ 1:53PM|#

fewer comments on this issue than on something regarding some trashy series on HBO.

proves my theory that libertarians are just a bunch of shallow children who have acne

"Oh! I can't see decapitations of women with huge exposed boobs on TV! Freedom of speech! Freedom of speech!"

(PS: an innocent man has been fucked by the state, but that's OK because he killed lobsters and 15-y0 nerds need to see boobs!)

Pop a zit, children.

VM|4.2.07 @ 2:15PM|#

sorry you feel that way, Passim.

|4.2.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Passim, He might have been fucked, but he wasn't "innocent." Maybe that's why people aren't as concerned as you think they ought to be.

VM|4.2.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Les - but that's the rub!

Regardless of what "innocent" might be, going around and fucking people is a problem.

n consultation with the Honduran Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the federal agents determined that the shipment was in violation of Honduran (not American) law.

Presumably angling for a plea bargain, and wielding a U.S. statute that bars the importation of "any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation" of foreign law, the feds threw the book at McNab. They charged him with smuggling and money laundering, the latter because he had received payment for the shipment

It's illegal here because it's illegal there. That's a pretty weak case to say he's not "innocent".

Like the MD in Fla who's fucked for Rxing pain meds. Sure it's "illegal" because of the law on the books.

Why take that easy way out when you can discuss the appropriateness of such a law, the appropriateness of throwing the book, and even discuss how this might be some inroad for persecution... prosecution in the WoD...

The case stinks. Dunno who is innocent or guilty here, but it smacks of the strong arm tactics we've slowly gotten used to over the past 26 years...

|4.2.07 @ 3:00PM|#

The case stinks. Dunno who is innocent or guilty here, but it smacks of the strong arm tactics we've slowly gotten used to over the past 26 years...

Good point, VM. I guess my problem is I can't really be bothered to care, what with all the Richard Paeys, Cory Mayes, Gitmo residents, Waco victims, etc, to care about some slave-driving asshole who decided to empty out the ocean of lobster just to line his own pockets. I should be better than that, but I'm not.

|4.2.07 @ 3:44PM|#

The case stinks. Dunno who is innocent or guilty here, but it smacks of the strong arm tactics we've slowly gotten used to over the past 26 years...

I agree, wholeheartedly.

VM|4.2.07 @ 3:50PM|#

oh - so we were in agreement.

Mea Culpa - it's a Monday...

(blushes and ambles off)

|4.2.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Who gives a shit about crappy crawfish anyway. Real lobster only comes from Maine/Canadain Maritimes, that stuff isn't even the same species.

LarryA|4.2.07 @ 6:45PM|#

(Maybe they (presidential pardons) have not been needed as much recently? Just a thought.)

Have you been following the War on Drugs? I can think of several cases offhand.

Prosecution has become a game, with prosecutors concerned only with win/loss ratios. Shafting people who refuse plea bargains because they are innocent is inexcusible. The way asset forfeiture is currently conducted is unconstitutional. Stretching the law to prosecute the importation of catch after the law was rescended is obscene. Arresting foreign nationals for breaking U.S. laws they don't live under is ridiculous. And the list goes on.

jf|4.2.07 @ 7:08PM|#

LarryA,

I agree with you on all points, but... (there's always a but)

This guy, if the NOAA reports are accurate (and they were good enough to get a conviction), is the living example of exploiting the "tragedy of the commons". His practices are illegal according to dubious law, but what he is doing is affecting the long term stability of both Honduran and American lobster catching in the Caribbean area.

If there was an American oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico polluting, and the effect were felt by Great Britain due to the Gulf Stream, I'd feel that Britain would be justified in prosecuting the American oil company.

I guess in my old age I'm becoming a bit more sensitive to the downstream effects of exploitation of the environment.

The whole "Bush" thing regarding this, especially on blog posts I've seen elsewhere mentioning Rauch's story, is ludicrous. It was the Clinton administration that got the conviction, but Bush is the bad guy for not undoing it? I can think of at least a dozen things of the top of my head to show that Bush is a horrible, horrible president, but not pardoning this guy doesn't even come close to making that list.

|4.2.07 @ 9:08PM|#

""proves my theory that libertarians are just a bunch of shallow children who have acne""

I DO NOT HAVE ACNE!!!

UMMM.
peace out

LarryA|4.4.07 @ 12:12PM|#

If there was an American oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico polluting, and the effect were felt by Great Britain due to the Gulf Stream, I'd feel that Britain would be justified in prosecuting the American oil company.

The courts of Great Britain exist to prosecute cases arising under British law within British jurisdicton. They would have neither law nor jurisdiction in your example.

They would be justified in filing a lawsuit to recover damages.