President Clinton's controversial decision to grant clemency to 16 Puerto Rican prisoners this summer has left few people satisfied. Opponents of the offer have condemned it as a sign to the rest of the world that the United States is soft on terrorism, mocked it as a political ploy designed to win Puerto Rican votes in Hillary Rodham Clinton's upcoming Senate run in New York and labeled it an affront to the integrity of the American justice system. Meanwhile, many supporters of clemency were displeased with the conditions attached to it, which they considered excessive, and angered by Hillary Clinton's subsequent public statement that she believed the offer should be rescinded.

The issue might seem brand-new to most Americans, but the fight to free the prisoners has been going on for years. Among its supporters are 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners, former president Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Why would so many respected human rights activists speak out on behalf of a group of people convicted of terrorist acts?

The 16 prisoners were members of two radical Puerto Rican nationalist groups, the Armed Forces of National Liberation--known by the Spanish initials FALN--and the Popular Boricua Army, commonly known as the Macheteros. FALN was responsible for 130 bombings in New York and Chicago during the 1970s and early 1980s, which resulted in the deaths of six people and the wounding of others. The Macheteros are best known for the 1983 robbery of $7.1 million from an armored Wells Fargo truck in Hartford, Conn.

None of the prisoners offered clemency, however, had been convicted of any crimes that resulted in death or injury. Rather, they had been convicted for offenses such as weapons violations, bank robbery and transportation of stolen vehicles.

In spite of this, the 16 prisoners had received sentences that ranged from 35 to 90 years, a punishment believed to be disproportionate to the crimes by human rights groups and supporters, who note that drug dealers and even murderers often receive lighter sentences. Most of the prisoners have already served 19 years of their sentences.

The strongest argument for clemency--employed by President Clinton and other human rights activists--is that 19 years in prison is enough punishment for the crimes committed. Furthermore, the prisoners have been unjustly punished for their association with radical political groups.

The clemency offer did not come without strings attached. The prisoners had to renounce violence, refrain from associating with one another outside of prison and comply with traditional parole terms.

The fact that the prisoners did not respond immediately to the offer and that many supporters denounced the conditions, asking instead for unconditional clemency, was taken as a sign by opponents that the prisoners intended to return to violent political activities once released from prison. But their initial silence can be explained easily. The prisoners all wanted to arrive at a consensus but were jailed in various prisons across the country and found it difficult to do so. The conditional offer carried some restrictions on their freedom and needed to be considered carefully. To chalk up the delay in the decision to a reluctance to renounce violence is an over-simplification of the matter.