Saturday, May 14, 2016
While we can award style points for the root buzzword "terror," the tense and lack of subsequent elaboration on the theme are less than impressive. The piece is NOT about drug dealers terrorizing communities. At best, it is about how the author thinks drug dealers may have terrorized communities, a good 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Implication of the present tense, however, is so much more shocking you know. Nor is the piece about "amnesty." It is about 58 recent commutations of sentence.
Paragraph after paragraph, Greenfield recites the criminal behavior and convictions of individuals and - without explicitly saying so - suggests, 1) all of their sentences were perfectly tailored to fit their crime(s) 2) none of them could have possibly rehabilitated, or payed their debt to society - because, you know ... because! 3) all of the key players in the criminal justice system - aka the ones who, in theory, know more about the cases than Greenfield ever will - agree that all of the sentences handed down were fair and just.
But don't misread, dear reader, Greenfield did do his homework. He sought the opinions of a police lieutenant and ..."local resident." His piece does not reference a single judge, prosecutor or juror. One suspects that is no accident. The fact that any of Obama's commutation recipients must comply with probation? Nuance schmuance!
If this is the kind of "backlash" the President can expect, in the future, when granting commutations of sentence, he should be confident indeed. See full piece here.