Posted on 08/11/2005 3:24:10 PM PDT by SmithL
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - As a Reagan White House lawyer, John Roberts urged the administration to dodge a proposal from the family of Raoul Wallenberg that sought to bring new pressure on the Soviets to disclose what became of the heroic Swedish diplomat.
In late 1983, the family's lawyer urged the Reagan administration to invoke a 19th century law that gave the president the power to "use such means ... necessary and proper" to seek the release of citizens seized by foreign governments. At the time some believed that Wallenberg, an honorary U.S. citizen, was languishing in a Soviet prison.
President Reagan had previously called on the Soviets to account for Wallenberg, who is credited with saving tens of thousands of Jews from Hitler's death camps. But Roberts, now a Supreme Court nominee, advised the White House to sidestep the proposal to use the old law for leverage with the Soviets.
The family's lawyer, Morris H. Wolff, called Roberts' conclusion "appalling."
"The Reagan administration had a unique opportunity to rescue Wallenberg at that very moment. I had credible evidence that Wallenberg was alive and well at that time," said Wolff, who once served in the Kennedy Justice Department.
Roberts "took not only an expedient response, but a cowardly response," Wolff said in a telephone interview.
But Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, said Roberts' memo was "responsible" given questions about applicability of the law to the Wallenberg case.
"Anything that's done for Wallenberg is all for the good," Stern said. But Roberts "was a lawyer for the president, he took a reasonable position and I can't fault him."
Documents housed at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library reveal the long-hidden role of Roberts in one of the most celebrated and mysterious chapters from the World War II era.
Wallenberg, who would be 93, is believed to have been taken into custody by the Soviet army after the liberation of Hungary. The Kremlin said Wallenberg died in 1947, but that has long been disputed.
The issue was particularly sensitive in the Reagan White House. Early in his presidency, Reagan signed a resolution awarding Wallenberg one of the nation's rarest honors, honorary citizenship, a distinction he shares with Winston Churchill.
At the time the president committed the nation to do "everything in our power" to determine Wallenberg's fate, citing "evidence" that he remained in a Soviet prison.
In a Nov. 7, 1983, letter, Wolff told Reagan that Wallenberg's status as an honorary citizen allowed the president to pursue "new action" with the Soviets. Under the 1868 law, the president was directed to seek the release of any citizen who "has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by ... any foreign government." The law dates to a time when several countries refused to recognize the citizenship of naturalized Americans traveling overseas, and repatriated them against their will.
"This law gives you the power to seek the release of Wallenberg," Wolff wrote to Reagan. "The law makes no distinction between honorary and other citizens."
But Roberts, in his Jan. 25, 1984, memo to White House counsel Fred Fielding, recommended "essentially dodging" the question of whether the century-old law could be put to use on behalf of the missing diplomat.
Among his concerns, Roberts feared the law would not stand up in court. At one point, however, he acknowledged it might apply to the Wallenberg case, deriding a State Department analysis that it did not.
The law "does, by its terms, impose a duty on the President," Roberts wrote. "The nature of the duty is admittedly very vague."
With questions about its applicability with Wallenberg, the White House should steer around the 1868 law in its response to the family, Roberts wrote. Instead, they should be reminded of "all that has been done by the president to promote the cause of Wallenberg."
"We can contend that we have already done what the statute envisions," Roberts argued. "The President has demanded an accounting from the Soviets, and has done so repeatedly."
A draft of the White House letter to Wolff, included in records at the Reagan library, never directly addressed his proposal to use the 19th century law.
Oh this isn't good.
What isn't good? Roberts seems to have argued that the U.S. has complied with the law, and also done all it could (repeatedly) to learn the fate of Mr. Wallenberg. What isn't good about that?
So what did Kennedy do on the case, at a time when RW was much more likely to still be alive?
I think it shows Clinton-think.
I am beginning to think I may have eaten a stinking crow, before it was done. The stench of Souter is in the air.
I think he was paid for legal advice, and delivered legal advice.
If we get to see attorney advice to the President, we can certainly see memos written by congressional staffers for their bosses. And memos written by executive branch bureaucrats for their bosses. Imagine getting to see the amoral strategizing of a Pelosi or Kennedy minion.
Unless this is a one-time thing, or something that only applies to Republicans.
A non-U.S. citizen of exceptional merit may be declared an Honorary Citizen of the United States by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress. As of August 6, 2002, six people have had this honor bestowed upon them:Given that the U.S. possessed no honorary citizens prior to 1963, it would seem odd to draw any conclusions about the constructionism of John Roberts from his cautious position on the Wallenberg case during the Reagan era. Especially when the charges made against him come from a mouthpiece of the Kennedy's.
Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister during World War II (awarded 1963)
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Mother Teresa), Albanian nun and human rights advocate (1996)
Posthumously Awarded:
William and Hannah Callowhill Penn, 18th century founders and rulers of Pennsylvania (1984)
Marquis de la Fayette, French supporter of the American Revolution (2002)
Raoul Wallenberg, Swedish diplomat and Holocaust hero (1981)
Honorary citizenship is not to be confused with permanent residency bestowed by a private bill. Private bills are, on rare occasions, used to provide relief to individuals, often in immigration cases, and are also passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.
####Nice precedent. I look forward to Senate staffers reviewing every memo and letter and email written by Democrats being considered for Judgeships and other positions requiring confirmation.####
Isn't it amazing how different things are for Democrat judicial nominees? The Republicans controlled the Senate when Clinton sent radical leftie Ruth Bader Ginzburg's nomination up. I don't recall Republicans visiting the White House beforehand with a list of names, warning Clinton that he'd better not nominate anyone on that list. Yet the Democrats did precisely that to President Bush even though they don't even control the Senate.
Then, when Clinton made his pick, even though she was a far out left-winger, I don't recall the Republicans making much of a deal out of it. They promptly agreed to hearings (if the 'Rats currently controlled the Senate does anyone think they'd be doing that?) and asked only a few general questions of her. And even those questions raised the ire of the Democrats, who acted indignant that she was being questioned at all. I don't recall the Republicans demanding a ton of documents. I don't recall Republicans prowling around in front of the TV cameras, snarling that a nominee who was "outside the mainstream" would be Borked. I don't recall any GOP Senators announcing that the nominee would have to agree to rule a certain way on a particular case or else they'd vote against her. I don't recall the AP or other media outlets prying into the nominee's background.
The double standard is so obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.