One of Bush's pardons upsets me quite a bit, and it has not been mentioned on DailyKos, as far as I can tell. I thought I would express my frustration in this forum rather than just stewing about it.
David Lane Woolsey and co-defendent Jimmy G. Barney dug in Native American ruins in Escalante, Utah. They were seen by hikers who photographed their vehicles and turned them in to authorities. The two got 100 hours of community service and 3 years probation -- no jail time, no fine (in spite of the $6,650 damage done to federal land). The law they were arrested for violating was passed in 1979, and they were arrested in 1991. He said he didn't know he was doing anything wrong.
At least Woolsey admits that now he does know it was wrong. But he was upset at the idea that he had a federal felony conviction on his record. It prevented him from voting (in Utah, I guess) and it also prevented him from owning a gun. He had a felony conviction on his record, too, which followed him around as he looked for jobs. But in looking through his case in the little bit that I am able to, it seems that he didn't really have much punishment for looting. It was the first case that was brought to trial in Utah in response to the 1979 federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act. No news article that I can find indicates why they were digging with a shovel and a hoe in an isolated site, but it would seem logical that they were looking for artefacts to sell rather than for their own use. And it was on federal land, hence a federal crime.
Woolsey said the pardon means he will have his civil liberties restored. He had to forfeit them when he pleaded guilty to the felony he thought was going to haunt him the rest of his life.
"Now I can vote again and hunt and when I apply for a job not be discriminated against," he said.
Woolsey has always liked to hunt, but the felony conviction restricted him from owning guns, Nadine Woolsey explained. "He couldn't hunt with our son growing up in a small town, so he's excited he can do that now," she said.
Poor guy. He is upset that he is facing consequences from his actions. Yes, he at least admits that he did do something wrong. And the fact that he actually does seem to have obeyed the law since his conviction (at least no one says he ignored it and went hunting even though he couldn't own a gun) is a somewhat redeeming thing. But ...
Artefact looting is theft, and wrong (and prevents our knowledge of the past through archaeology). Yes, it is also lucrative. An interesting juxtaposition of need for cash and looting is this article about the concurrence of methamphetamine and archaeological looting. It is easier to loot a site than loot a liquor store.
But these cases need to be prosecuted. The problem with looting is multipronged. Looting means that objects are taken from their context, and that means we don't know their history. As an archaeologist, I feel very strongly that almost the ONLY value these object have (and certainly their primary value) is in their ability to allow us to reconstruct past society and actions. Some may be aesthetically pleasing as well, but you can get the same aesthetic pleasure from a modern southwestern artist's painted pot. And if you buy from a modern artist, you are supporting modern people. If you like it to look old, it can be made to look old. There is no need to have an ancient artefact on your shelf. And many of the best-preserved artefacts often come from tombs, and looting of tombs is a problematic thing, at least in the United States, where Native American graves are protected by federal law and objects in public collections from identifiable tribal groups are to be returned to lineal descendants of those groups.
In addition to the legal issues, archaeological material taken out of its context means you cannot know about the objects' use and date. For example, an object in its context can tell you a lot and will make your little Roman head much more important if, for example, it comes from a pre-contact context, which this one might. Looting takes away that information, and it is almost never recoverable.
So Bush's pardon so a guy can go and hunt with his son sends a message I am very uncomfortable with. The initial sentence was incredibly light, and the guy learned his lesson. That is the way things are supposed to work, and I am okay with it, I guess, although I think a fine would have been appropriate as well. However, a pardon seems over the top to me. I wish he hadn't done it. But then, Bush has not valued the American West and the integrity of the land and its ancient and natural inhabitants in the way that I would think a president from the party of Teddy Roosevelt should. It is not the first (nor the last) time I have disagreed with George W. Bush.