> Are you perhaps referring to Bill Clinton, who pardoned Susan Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist that set off a bomb in US federal buildings and committed armed robberies?

Bill Clinton did not pardon her, he commuted her sentence to the 16+ years she had already served. Commutation and pardon are significantly different.

In practice how are they different? Would you find it appropriate to "commute" the sentence of any other terrorists?

> In practice how are they different?

Are you in a jurisdiction that disenfranchises felons? If you are pardoned, you can vote. If your sentencd was commuted, you can't.

Is there a job that bars felons (either in general, or who have committed the kind of offense you are convicted of)? If you are pardoned, you can be hired for it. If your sentencd was commuted, you cannot.

Is there a job that, while it doesn't strictly ban ex-offenders, requires a criminal background check. If you were pardoned, the conviction was wiped away. If your sentence was commuted, it is still there.

Etc. Pardon undoes the conviction. Commutation stops incarceration and leaves the conviction and all its ancillary effects in place.

> Would you find it appropriate to "commute" the sentence of any other terrorists?

If, as one hypothetical pattern, their sentence was unusually long form the crimes they were convicted of with no apparent explanation beyond the political circumstances at the time of conviction, if they'd served more time than the typical sentence for the offense, and their conduct in prison showed a high probability of successful reintegration into society, sure.

They are materially different. A pardon reflects forgiveness and seeks to redress civil disability typically as a result of a systemic injustice.

A commutation is a lessening of the penalty. It implies that the act was wrong and the sentence was deserved but perhaps it was heavy handed. There is no implication of innocence in a commutation.