Just Say No

If President Reagan indeed is considering the notion of granting pardons to key figures under investigation for possible criminal behavior in the Iran-Contra affair, he would be well advised to drop this bad idea as quickly as possible. Clearly the President has had the possibility of pardons in mind, for it was proposed to him at least three months ago in a letter from William P. Clark, his former national security adviser.

And three months later, the President refused an opportunity to declare that nothing of the sort was being contemplated. “That’s a question no one can answer,” Reagan told correspondents on Monday. Actually, it is a question the President could and should answer without hesitation, by just saying no. Since he did not, the only conclusion can be that he does not want to preclude the possibility.

The idea of pardons centers on key subjects of the Iran-Contra investigation by independentcounsel Lawrence E. Walsh including Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and Rear Adm. John M. Poindexter. Walsh’s investigation still is under way and no indictments have been issued.

In his letter, Clark told the President that a pardon would not necessarily constitute a recognition that a crime had occurred, but would “simply be an expression of your conclusion that the story had been told” and that the country should not be subjected to an extended trial over the creation and implementation of American foreign policy.

But the full story has not been told. If there was criminal wrongdoing, the American people are entitled to know what it was and to see that such action did not go unpunished. A pardon-in-advance would only serve to create more lingering suspicion about the cloak-and-dagger doings in the White House and whether there were things the President did not want to emerge at a trial.