April 6, 2008
McCain Is Vocal on War, but Silent on Son’s Service
By JODI KANTOR
One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers — soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.
Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or a retinue. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan’s brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army first lieutenant killed by an ambush and roadside bomb.
No one mentioned the obvious: in just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. “I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ...” Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. “We lost a dear one,” she finished.
Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father’s New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.
In his 71 years, Mr. McCain has confronted war as a pilot, a prisoner and a United States senator, but never before as a father. His son’s departure for Iraq brought him the same worry that every military parent feels, friends say, while the young marine’s experiences there have given him a sustained grunt’s-eye view of the action and private confirmation for his argument that United States strategy in Iraq is working.
While Jimmy McCain’s service is a story all his own — he enlisted at age 17 — it illuminates the beliefs about duty, honor and sacrifice with which family friends say he was raised. Military ideals have defined Mr. McCain as a person and a politician, and he is placing them at the core of his presidential candidacy. Last week, he campaigned at his former stations of duty, explaining how the lessons he learned there would guide his decisions as commander in chief.
“If I had ignored some of the less important conventions of the Academy,” as a demerit-prone midshipman, Mr. McCain said Wednesday at the United States Naval Academy, “I was careful not to defame its more compelling traditions: the veneration of courage and resilience; the honor code that simply assumed your fidelity to its principles; the homage paid to Americans who had sacrificed greatly for our country; the expectation that you, too, would prove worthy of your country’s trust.”
With both potential Democratic nominees in favor of withdrawal from Iraq, debate about the war — whether it is winnable, what would happen if the United States withdrew, how much loss the country can endure — is likely to be a dominant issue in the general election. Mr. McCain’s potential opponents are already implying that he is too willing to risk American lives, too committed to stretching an already unpopular war far into the future.
Out of the Public Eye
Mr. McCain has largely maintained a code of silence about his son, now a lance corporal, making only fleeting references to him in public both to protect him from becoming a prize target and avoid exploiting his service for political gain, according to friends. At the few campaign events where Lance Corporal McCain appeared last year, he was not introduced.
The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published. “The McCain campaign objects strongly to this intrusion into the privacy of Senator McCain’s son,” Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “The children of presidential candidates in this election cycle should be afforded the same respect for their privacy that the children of President Bush and President and Senator Clinton have been afforded.” (To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service).
Born in 1988, the third of John and Cindy McCain’s children, Jimmy inherited his father’s features and slight build, outrageous humor and family tradition of military service that stretches back to the Revolutionary War. His grandfather and great-grandfather were the first parent and son to achieve four-star admiral status in Naval history.
Then there was his father’s ever-growing legend. A hell-raising Navy pilot, John McCain relied on a defiant streak to survive nearly six brutal years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. As Jimmy grew up, his father, first a congressman and then a senator, was always dashing off to speak at military events — a dedication here, a graduation there. Mr. McCain’s reputation was burnished with his memoir, “Faith of My Fathers,” and its adaptation into a television movie.
Two of Jimmy’s three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.
The McCain children were not force-fed tales of their father’s bravery, said Orson Swindle, who was imprisoned in Vietnam with Mr. McCain. But “if you’re a man in the public eye, it’s hard for them not to know about it,” Mr. Swindle said in an interview.
Early Ambition
By the time Jimmy was in high school, he was scouting war memorabilia on eBay and playing video games like “Battlefield 1942,” classmates said. He chose sports that simulated combat, like fencing and paintball, and his prized possession was a World War II Army hat.
At Culver Academy, a military-style boarding school in Indiana, he and his friend Nick Moore would fire up “Apocalypse Now” or “Platoon” on a laptop — critiques of war, but never mind — turn the sound down and talk about serving. “The testosterone was flying,” Mr. Moore said in an interview. “He’d say, ‘I’m just going to go in there guns blazing!’ ”
Jimmy wanted to attend the Naval Academy, he told Mr. Moore, and then learn to fly. But how he would get there was uncertain. In interviews, classmates and teachers described him as the kind of kid who contributed impressive thoughts to classroom discussions but did not always turn in assignments, who was always collecting demerits for minor offenses like smoking — descriptions that echo those of his father at the same age. He left Culver after his sophomore year, making it the second school he passed through in two years.
Sometime in the next year, Jimmy enlisted in the Marine Corps. He only called his parents to tell them afterward, according to Lance Cpl. Casey Gardiner, a friend from boot camp. Iraq was tilting toward civil war, with blasts of improvised explosive devices at their highest levels yet. Jimmy McCain was 17, so young that Cindy McCain had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty, according to Gunnery Sgt. Edward Carter, a recruiter in Phoenix who handed her the papers.
By enlisting in the Marines, Jimmy seemed to be giving up his birthright. The Navy is, by reputation, the most aristocratic of the armed forces, the McCains among its most storied families. Now he would hold the lowest rank in a branch known for its grittiness. “The first time I heard he was going to be in the company, I couldn’t believe it,” said First Lt. Sam Bowlby, one of Lance Corporal McCain’s officers in Iraq.
“He didn’t want to be in the shadow of his father,” Lance Corporal Gardiner said.
But the new marine was fulfilling his father’s legacy in at least one way. John McCain had become a hero not for the missions he had flown or the men he had led, but for the privileges he had refused and the hardships he had endured. The North Vietnamese wanted to free Mr. McCain ahead of other captives because he was the son of a Navy admiral and Pacific commander. Mr. McCain refused. Now his son was carving a humble new path that the father, academy-bound since birth, never had.
Jimmy began boot camp on Sept. 11, 2006. He took extra abuse for his last name, said Lance Cpl. Gregory Aalto, a member of his training platoon. Recruits are not even allowed their own eyeglasses, so Jimmy had to wear the standard-issue Marine ones, so unappealing they are known as “birth-control goggles.”
As he completed his training and prepared for deployment, other marines caught only occasional glimpses of his family’s celebrity and wealth, such as when he handed out extra tickets for a Floyd Mayweather Jr.-Oscar De La Hoya boxing match he was attending with his father in Las Vegas. If anyone asked about his family, he had a sarcastic joke at the ready. When a cluster of marines asked how they could help his father’s campaign, Lance Corporal McCain pretended to call him and then passed on a message: they could carry out the contracts the senator had taken out on his rivals’ lives.
“Jimmy was just completely joking,” said Lance Cpl. Johnathan Pebley. “You can kind of tell he doesn’t want to talk about it.”
In July, days from deployment, Lance Corporal McCain, newly engaged to be married, joined his father’s struggling campaign in New Hampshire. He visited the Flanagans and sat unrecognized at campaign events.
At the last stop, a veteran asked for a round of applause for the candidate’s brave Marine son. He did not seem to know that Jimmy McCain was sitting just a few seats away. Almost no one did.
As Father of a Marine
Mr. McCain did not speak publicly about whatever anxiety he may have felt about his son’s deployment, but Mr. Swindle described the experience as difficult. “Anybody who tells you it’s not tough is not being straightforward with you,” he said.
Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, whose son served two tours in Iraq, said he and Mr. McCain privately traded their concerns. “We talked about how it affects the young men over there,” Mr. Bond said. “He’s basically a father, very anxious about what his son’s going to be doing.”
Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, a former presidential contender whose son was serving in Afghanistan, said he and Mr. McCain would update each other at debates. “He knows what his father and grandfather went through as his sons went off to war,” Mr. Hunter said. “So he’s got a model to follow.”
Indeed, John McCain’s own parents were dressing for a dinner party in London when they learned he had been shot down. They went anyway, never telling other guests. Later, Admiral McCain ordered air strikes on Hanoi, where he knew his son was imprisoned.
Just before Jimmy’s departure, Mrs. McCain decided she had to see him one final time, according to Lieutenant Bowlby. With a few well-placed phone calls, she won permission to visit the Air Force base from which his unit would depart. When Lance Corporal McCain found out, he protested. No special favors, he said. Mrs. McCain stayed away.
“God forbid someone gave him something the rest of the marines weren’t entitled to,” Lieutenant Bowlby said.
Lance Corporal McCain and his fellow riflemen had trained for the worst in the spring of 2007, using paintball guns rigged as M-16s to apprehend costume-clad “insurgents” in fake Iraqi villages.
In the real Iraq, they saw little combat. “We were expecting to get shot at all the time,” said Lance Cpl. Justin Murdock, 20. “But 95 percent of the time, nothing was going on.”
The marines were stationed in Anbar Province, where some of the war’s bloodiest battles had been fought. But the fighting had moved on to other areas, and Lance Corporal McCain’s company mostly did security work, which meant keeping an unceasing eye on the locals, poor Sunnis who grew rice and other crops on small plots.
Lance Corporal McCain’s unit performed “soft knocks” — visits to Iraqi homes intended as reassurance as well as surveillance, said Lance Cpl. Jason Case. His platoon hunted for weapons caches and I.E.D.’s, but also distributed school supplies and candy. Relying on interpreters and the bits of Arabic they all seemed to pick up, the 19- and 20-year-old grunts taught Iraqi police officers how to hold and clean weapons, search vehicles and conduct patrols.
The hardest part, said several marines, was enduring tedium while remaining braced for mayhem. There were physical deprivations, too — searing heat, heavy gear, long hours and minimal sleep.
Fifteen marines with whom Lance Corporal McCain trained or served were interviewed for this article, and all praised his performance. He “was just always a hardworking kid,” Lieutenant Bowlby said. “He never bitched about anything,” he said, and always seemed to be laughing. “The humility of him, that’s what blew me away,” he continued.
For much of his tour, Jimmy McCain was cut off from political news. The rented Iraqi home where his platoon bunked did not have Internet service, and the 30-odd men shared one satellite phone with a shaky signal. Some news arrived via word-of-mouth, like the senator’s New Hampshire victory (Mr. McCain recounted the story at a recent Manhattan fund-raiser). Lance Corporal McCain did see his father once. On Thanksgiving, Mr. McCain visited Camp Habbaniya with Senate colleagues, and the two shared the holiday meal in the chow hall, according to several people present. Mr. McCain asked other marines if they saw security improving and seemed heartened when they told him they did.
Lance Corporal McCain and his unit returned home in February. For his father, who believed that United States strategy in Iraq was working, his son’s tour corresponded well. The company had not lost any men, though three from the battalion had died. It had arrived in a stable area and things had only improved from there. “In my seven months there, you would see drastic changes in Iraq,” Lance Cpl. Greg Jumes said.
Lieutenant Bowlby echoed his comments, as did every marine interviewed. “There were some hairy moments, but compared to the past couple of years, it’s 180 degrees,” he said, comparing his first tour in Iraq with his second.
Mixed Events
Two days after Lance Corporal McCain arrived back in the United States, his father shared his account of the war with Republican congressmen. In a private meeting on Capitol Hill, Mr. McCain mentioned the decline in I.E.D.’s that his son witnessed, the soccer balls he gave to Iraqi children. Mr. McCain’s audience responded with a standing ovation, according to a report published by CNN and confirmed by several aides who were present.
In recent weeks, the news from Iraq has been less encouraging. The cease-fire between the leading Shiite militia and American and Iraqi security forces, which overlapped with Lance Corporal McCain’s tour, has frayed. Bombings and sectarian killings have increased. Days after the fifth anniversary of the war’s start, the death toll of American troops crossed the 4,000 mark.
As Mr. McCain enters the general election, some say that his son’s service will underscore the sincerity of his stance on the war. “He has, to use a gambler’s term, skin in the game,” said Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator and longtime friend of Mr. McCain. “It’s among the most important things that people want to know about John McCain in trying to decide whether or not to trust him.”
Last month, Mrs. McCain made a similar argument at a campaign event in Houston. “I want him to represent my son at 3 o’clock in the morning,” she said of her husband, referring to an advertisement for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York that boasts of her national security credentials. She wore a blue-star pin, the mark of an American with a family member at war.
Her son is back at Camp Pendleton, where he is using the Jeep he just bought to ferry other marines to the beach. Lately he has been teased about a McCain presidency, according to Lance Cpl. Matt Drake, another company member. “Will we have to go patrolling with Secret Service?” they ask.
“Shut up,” Lance Corporal McCain tells them good-naturedly.
Kitty Bennett contributed research for this report.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Campus ‘activism’ redefined
Campus ‘activism’ redefined
By Michael Graham Thursday, April 3, 2008
http://www.bostonherald.com Op-Ed
Oh, to be a campus activist now that spring is here.
“Campus activist” is what the Boston Globe-Democrat calls the students pushing for coed dorm rooms at colleges across the country. Not just coed dorms, floors or even suites. One room, two beds, a boy and a girl.
As Dr. Frankenstein said just before he threw the switch, “What could possibly go wrong?”
More than 30 colleges and universities, including Dartmouth, Clark, Brown, and Brandeis have coed dorm room policies. This is part of the academic Left’s commitment to social justice, the battle against heteronormative bias, and a way for guys who look like Michael Moore to get a smokin’ hot roommate.
Not surprisingly, enlightened, socially progressive college males are giving this policy a resounding “Yeah, baby!”
This movement is led by the National Student Genderblind Campaign, which insists that colleges without gender-neutral housing are “heterosexist, oppressive, and anti-affirmative.”
“Heterosexist” means you think men and women are different. “Oppressive” means you won’t leave them alone in a dorm room long enough to prove you right.
“Anti-affirmative?” I think that means you’re not voting for Hillary. Or maybe Barack.
Note that all these schools already have coed dorms. They place very few restrictions on male and female mingling on campus.
But liberal academics aren’t content with coupling. They’re demanding cohabitation to make their point that acknowledging gender differences is, in and of itself, a form of oppression.
What oppression, you ask? Who’s being harmed by a same-sex roommate policy, you wonder? Isn’t this just asking for trouble?
You, sir, are clearly demonstrating misogynist, crypto-fascist tendencies.
Either that, or you have a daughter in college.
To every self-described progressive who blames conservative talk show hosts for making “liberal” a dirty word, I refer you to this story. Liberalism isn’t the victim of the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Its reputation has been ruined by its own loony adherents who promote ideas that fly in the face of common sense.
Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream “stupid” to every grownup who hears it? The campus advocates of this idiocy admit right up front that they believe there is no meaningful difference between the sexes.
“Among millennial students, whether it’s race, gender, or nationality, the borders are coming down,” James Baumann of the Association of College and University Housing Officers told the Globe. “The lines just aren’t there anymore.”
Get it? College kids don’t even notice each other’s sex anymore. That line has been erased, the gender-neutral utopia is here, hallelujah!
Why, if Angelina Jolie walked across the Brown campus naked today, the reaction would be “Who’s the lumpy guy with the big lips?”
Yeah, right.
The Knee Jerk Brigade of the Massachusetts Left want to turn issues like this into a debate over human sexuality. Sexual liberty is the only form of liberty still in vogue among campus liberals. The same people who would happily ban all gun ownership and impose speech codes will fight to the death defending your “right” to carnal knowledge.
But when liberals insist that college kids are going to have sex anyway - roommates or not - they are undermining their own “gender-neutral” nonsense.
Normal people understand that boys and girls are different, and that common sense dictates they be treated differently as a result.
And to quote that great French philosopher, Maurice Chevalier, “Vive le difference!”
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1084584
By Michael Graham Thursday, April 3, 2008
http://www.bostonherald.com Op-Ed
Oh, to be a campus activist now that spring is here.
“Campus activist” is what the Boston Globe-Democrat calls the students pushing for coed dorm rooms at colleges across the country. Not just coed dorms, floors or even suites. One room, two beds, a boy and a girl.
As Dr. Frankenstein said just before he threw the switch, “What could possibly go wrong?”
More than 30 colleges and universities, including Dartmouth, Clark, Brown, and Brandeis have coed dorm room policies. This is part of the academic Left’s commitment to social justice, the battle against heteronormative bias, and a way for guys who look like Michael Moore to get a smokin’ hot roommate.
Not surprisingly, enlightened, socially progressive college males are giving this policy a resounding “Yeah, baby!”
This movement is led by the National Student Genderblind Campaign, which insists that colleges without gender-neutral housing are “heterosexist, oppressive, and anti-affirmative.”
“Heterosexist” means you think men and women are different. “Oppressive” means you won’t leave them alone in a dorm room long enough to prove you right.
“Anti-affirmative?” I think that means you’re not voting for Hillary. Or maybe Barack.
Note that all these schools already have coed dorms. They place very few restrictions on male and female mingling on campus.
But liberal academics aren’t content with coupling. They’re demanding cohabitation to make their point that acknowledging gender differences is, in and of itself, a form of oppression.
What oppression, you ask? Who’s being harmed by a same-sex roommate policy, you wonder? Isn’t this just asking for trouble?
You, sir, are clearly demonstrating misogynist, crypto-fascist tendencies.
Either that, or you have a daughter in college.
To every self-described progressive who blames conservative talk show hosts for making “liberal” a dirty word, I refer you to this story. Liberalism isn’t the victim of the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Its reputation has been ruined by its own loony adherents who promote ideas that fly in the face of common sense.
Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream “stupid” to every grownup who hears it? The campus advocates of this idiocy admit right up front that they believe there is no meaningful difference between the sexes.
“Among millennial students, whether it’s race, gender, or nationality, the borders are coming down,” James Baumann of the Association of College and University Housing Officers told the Globe. “The lines just aren’t there anymore.”
Get it? College kids don’t even notice each other’s sex anymore. That line has been erased, the gender-neutral utopia is here, hallelujah!
Why, if Angelina Jolie walked across the Brown campus naked today, the reaction would be “Who’s the lumpy guy with the big lips?”
Yeah, right.
The Knee Jerk Brigade of the Massachusetts Left want to turn issues like this into a debate over human sexuality. Sexual liberty is the only form of liberty still in vogue among campus liberals. The same people who would happily ban all gun ownership and impose speech codes will fight to the death defending your “right” to carnal knowledge.
But when liberals insist that college kids are going to have sex anyway - roommates or not - they are undermining their own “gender-neutral” nonsense.
Normal people understand that boys and girls are different, and that common sense dictates they be treated differently as a result.
And to quote that great French philosopher, Maurice Chevalier, “Vive le difference!”
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1084584
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Private sexual conduct a crime?
March 13, 2008
The Other Prostitution Scandal
By Steve Chapman
Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.
I understand why Spitzer's alleged hiring of a call girl was stupid, selfish, reckless, immoral and a betrayal of his family. What I don't understand is why it was illegal.
It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.
It was Spitzer's effort to hide this pastime that attracted law enforcement attention. Prosecutors investigated him not because he had lipstick on his collar, but because he took steps to conceal his patronage of Emperor's Club VIP. By transferring cash to accounts controlled by fake companies, he roused suspicions of political corruption. By now, he probably wishes he had only taken a gratuity to grease a contract.
It's hard to feel excessive sympathy when a colossal hypocrite is exposed. Recently, Spitzer signed a measure increasing penalties for men caught paying for sex, who can now go to jail for as long as a year. But schadenfreude is a weak justification for laws that intrude into the bedroom.
As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."
Alternative newspapers, telephone directories and online sites are replete with ads for massage parlors, escort services and women "eager to meet you!" -- proof that when individuals yearn to find each other for mutually gratifying transactions, they are bound to find a way.
Even the prospect of arrest and public humiliation doesn't deter a lot of people on either side of the business. What should be obvious by now is that they are willing to spend far more effort achieving these encounters than the rest of us are to spend preventing them.
Outlawing this commerce serves mainly to make things worse, not better. It assures income to criminal organizations with long experience evading the law. It makes prostitutes vulnerable to abuse. It prevents measures to protect the health of providers and patrons.
It exempts an industry from the taxes and fees that legitimate businesses have to pay. It squanders police resources that could be used to fight real crime, while clogging jails and courts with offenders who will soon be back plying their trade.
Supporters of the status quo say the sex industry is filled with victims of human trafficking -- foreigners forced to work in servitude. Whether such modern-day slaves amount to more than a tiny fraction of hookers, however, has never been proved.
Similar claims have been made about migrant farm laborers and domestic workers -- which is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning. Someone whose very job is illegal, in fact, is an ideal candidate for such exploitation, since she is unlikely to go to the cops.
But all this is secondary to the priority of human freedom. We no longer believe the government has a right to prevent homosexuals or heterosexuals from engaging in sexual practices. In 2003, the Supreme Court had the wisdom to strike down a Texas sodomy prosecution against two homosexuals caught in the act.
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," asserted the court. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
Some brilliant lawyer ought to ask the courts why the state may ban one type of sex between consenting adults but not another. Maybe Eliot Spitzer would like to take it on.
schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_other_prostitution_scandal.html at March 13, 2008 - 04:37:50 PM CST
_uacct = "UA-31527-1";
urchinTracker();
The Other Prostitution Scandal
By Steve Chapman
Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.
I understand why Spitzer's alleged hiring of a call girl was stupid, selfish, reckless, immoral and a betrayal of his family. What I don't understand is why it was illegal.
It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.
It was Spitzer's effort to hide this pastime that attracted law enforcement attention. Prosecutors investigated him not because he had lipstick on his collar, but because he took steps to conceal his patronage of Emperor's Club VIP. By transferring cash to accounts controlled by fake companies, he roused suspicions of political corruption. By now, he probably wishes he had only taken a gratuity to grease a contract.
It's hard to feel excessive sympathy when a colossal hypocrite is exposed. Recently, Spitzer signed a measure increasing penalties for men caught paying for sex, who can now go to jail for as long as a year. But schadenfreude is a weak justification for laws that intrude into the bedroom.
As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."
Alternative newspapers, telephone directories and online sites are replete with ads for massage parlors, escort services and women "eager to meet you!" -- proof that when individuals yearn to find each other for mutually gratifying transactions, they are bound to find a way.
Even the prospect of arrest and public humiliation doesn't deter a lot of people on either side of the business. What should be obvious by now is that they are willing to spend far more effort achieving these encounters than the rest of us are to spend preventing them.
Outlawing this commerce serves mainly to make things worse, not better. It assures income to criminal organizations with long experience evading the law. It makes prostitutes vulnerable to abuse. It prevents measures to protect the health of providers and patrons.
It exempts an industry from the taxes and fees that legitimate businesses have to pay. It squanders police resources that could be used to fight real crime, while clogging jails and courts with offenders who will soon be back plying their trade.
Supporters of the status quo say the sex industry is filled with victims of human trafficking -- foreigners forced to work in servitude. Whether such modern-day slaves amount to more than a tiny fraction of hookers, however, has never been proved.
Similar claims have been made about migrant farm laborers and domestic workers -- which is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning. Someone whose very job is illegal, in fact, is an ideal candidate for such exploitation, since she is unlikely to go to the cops.
But all this is secondary to the priority of human freedom. We no longer believe the government has a right to prevent homosexuals or heterosexuals from engaging in sexual practices. In 2003, the Supreme Court had the wisdom to strike down a Texas sodomy prosecution against two homosexuals caught in the act.
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," asserted the court. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
Some brilliant lawyer ought to ask the courts why the state may ban one type of sex between consenting adults but not another. Maybe Eliot Spitzer would like to take it on.
schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_other_prostitution_scandal.html at March 13, 2008 - 04:37:50 PM CST
_uacct = "UA-31527-1";
urchinTracker();
Monday, March 10, 2008
The FARC's Guardian Angel
The FARC's Guardian Angel
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, March 10, 2008; A15
Latin American nations and the Bush administration spent the past week loudly arguing over what censure, if any, Colombia should face for a bombing raid that killed one of the top leaders of the FARC terrorist group at a jungle camp in Ecuador. More quietly, they are just beginning to consider a far more serious and potentially explosive question: What to do about the revelation that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez forged a strategic alliance with the FARC aimed at Colombia's democratic government.
First reports of the documents recovered from laptops at the FARC camp spoke of promises by Chávez to deliver up to $300 million to a group renowned for kidnapping, drug trafficking and massacres of civilians; they also showed that Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa was prepared to remove from his own army officers who objected to the FARC's Ecuadoran bases.
But in their totality, the hundreds of pages of documents so far made public by Colombia paint an even more chilling picture. The raid appears to have preempted a breathtakingly ambitious "strategic plan" agreed on by Chávez and the FARC with the initial goal of gaining international recognition for a movement designated a terrorist organization by both the United States and Europe. Chávez then intended to force Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to negotiate a political settlement with the FARC, and to promote a candidate allied with Chávez and the FARC to take power from Uribe.
All this is laid out in a series of three e-mails sent in February to the FARC's top leaders by Iván Márquez and Rodrigo Granda, envoys who held a series of secret meetings with Chávez. Judging from the memos, Chávez did most of the talking: He outlined a five-stage plan for undermining Uribe's government, beginning with the release of several of the scores of hostages the FARC is holding.
The first e-mail, dated Feb. 8, discusses the money: It says that Chávez, whom they call "angel," "has the first 50 [million] available and has a plan to get us the remaining 200 in the course of the year." Chávez proposed sending the first "packet" of money "through the black market in order to avoid problems." He said more could be arranged by giving the FARC a quota of petroleum to sell abroad or gasoline to retail in Colombia or Venezuela.
Chávez then got to the plans that most interested him. He wanted the FARC to propose collecting all of its hostages in the open, possibly in Venezuela, for a proposed exchange for 500 FARC prisoners in Colombian jails. Chávez said he would travel to the area for a meeting with the FARC's top leader, Manuel Marulanda, and said the presidents of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia would accompany him. Meanwhile, Chávez said he would set up a new diplomatic group, composed of those countries and the FARC, plus Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for the purpose of recognizing the FARC as a legitimate "belligerent" in Colombia and forcing Uribe into releasing its prisoners.
In "the early morning hours," the FARC envoys recounted in a Feb. 9 e-mail, Chávez reached the subject of whether the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who is the FARC's best-known hostage, would complicate his plan to back a pro-FARC alternative to Uribe. "He invites the FARC to participate in a few sessions of analysis he has laid out for following the Colombian political situation," the e-mail concluded.
Assuming these documents are authentic -- and it's hard to believe that the cerebral and calculating Uribe would knowingly hand over forgeries to the world media and the Organization of American States -- both the Bush administration and Latin American governments will have fateful decisions to make about Chávez. His reported actions are, first of all, a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in September 2001, which prohibits all states from providing financing or havens to terrorist organizations. More directly, the Colombian evidence would be more than enough to justify a State Department decision to cite Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. Once cited, Venezuela would be subject to a number of automatic sanctions, some of which could complicate its continuing export of oil to the United States. A cutoff would temporarily inconvenience Americans -- and cripple Venezuela, which could have trouble selling its heavy oil in other markets.
For now, the Bush administration appears anxious to avoid this kind of confrontation. U.S. intelligence agencies are analyzing the Colombian evidence; officials say they will share any conclusions with key Latin American governments. Yet those governments have mostly shrunk from confronting Chávez in the past, and some have quietly urged Bush to take him on. If the president decides to ignore clear evidence that Venezuela has funded and conspired with an officially designated terrorist organization, he will flout what has been his first principle since Sept. 11, 2001.
var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429_Comments.html" ;
var article_id = "AR2008030901429" ;
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, March 10, 2008; A15
Latin American nations and the Bush administration spent the past week loudly arguing over what censure, if any, Colombia should face for a bombing raid that killed one of the top leaders of the FARC terrorist group at a jungle camp in Ecuador. More quietly, they are just beginning to consider a far more serious and potentially explosive question: What to do about the revelation that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez forged a strategic alliance with the FARC aimed at Colombia's democratic government.
First reports of the documents recovered from laptops at the FARC camp spoke of promises by Chávez to deliver up to $300 million to a group renowned for kidnapping, drug trafficking and massacres of civilians; they also showed that Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa was prepared to remove from his own army officers who objected to the FARC's Ecuadoran bases.
But in their totality, the hundreds of pages of documents so far made public by Colombia paint an even more chilling picture. The raid appears to have preempted a breathtakingly ambitious "strategic plan" agreed on by Chávez and the FARC with the initial goal of gaining international recognition for a movement designated a terrorist organization by both the United States and Europe. Chávez then intended to force Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to negotiate a political settlement with the FARC, and to promote a candidate allied with Chávez and the FARC to take power from Uribe.
All this is laid out in a series of three e-mails sent in February to the FARC's top leaders by Iván Márquez and Rodrigo Granda, envoys who held a series of secret meetings with Chávez. Judging from the memos, Chávez did most of the talking: He outlined a five-stage plan for undermining Uribe's government, beginning with the release of several of the scores of hostages the FARC is holding.
The first e-mail, dated Feb. 8, discusses the money: It says that Chávez, whom they call "angel," "has the first 50 [million] available and has a plan to get us the remaining 200 in the course of the year." Chávez proposed sending the first "packet" of money "through the black market in order to avoid problems." He said more could be arranged by giving the FARC a quota of petroleum to sell abroad or gasoline to retail in Colombia or Venezuela.
Chávez then got to the plans that most interested him. He wanted the FARC to propose collecting all of its hostages in the open, possibly in Venezuela, for a proposed exchange for 500 FARC prisoners in Colombian jails. Chávez said he would travel to the area for a meeting with the FARC's top leader, Manuel Marulanda, and said the presidents of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia would accompany him. Meanwhile, Chávez said he would set up a new diplomatic group, composed of those countries and the FARC, plus Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for the purpose of recognizing the FARC as a legitimate "belligerent" in Colombia and forcing Uribe into releasing its prisoners.
In "the early morning hours," the FARC envoys recounted in a Feb. 9 e-mail, Chávez reached the subject of whether the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who is the FARC's best-known hostage, would complicate his plan to back a pro-FARC alternative to Uribe. "He invites the FARC to participate in a few sessions of analysis he has laid out for following the Colombian political situation," the e-mail concluded.
Assuming these documents are authentic -- and it's hard to believe that the cerebral and calculating Uribe would knowingly hand over forgeries to the world media and the Organization of American States -- both the Bush administration and Latin American governments will have fateful decisions to make about Chávez. His reported actions are, first of all, a violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in September 2001, which prohibits all states from providing financing or havens to terrorist organizations. More directly, the Colombian evidence would be more than enough to justify a State Department decision to cite Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism. Once cited, Venezuela would be subject to a number of automatic sanctions, some of which could complicate its continuing export of oil to the United States. A cutoff would temporarily inconvenience Americans -- and cripple Venezuela, which could have trouble selling its heavy oil in other markets.
For now, the Bush administration appears anxious to avoid this kind of confrontation. U.S. intelligence agencies are analyzing the Colombian evidence; officials say they will share any conclusions with key Latin American governments. Yet those governments have mostly shrunk from confronting Chávez in the past, and some have quietly urged Bush to take him on. If the president decides to ignore clear evidence that Venezuela has funded and conspired with an officially designated terrorist organization, he will flout what has been his first principle since Sept. 11, 2001.
var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429_Comments.html" ;
var article_id = "AR2008030901429" ;
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The "Don't Protect America" Democrats
The "Don't Protect America" Democrats
The House Democratic leadership should bring the FISA Amendments Act to the floor.
by Matthew Continetti
03/17/2008, Volume 013, Issue 26
It's been three weeks since Democrats in Congress allowed the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire. Three weeks in which House Democrats have allowed marginal special interest groups veto power over national security legislation. And no one in the House Democratic leadership seems particularly bothered by it.
Without a new law, intelligence professionals have to establish "probable cause" that the target of surveillance is a terrorist to the satisfaction of a judge on the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) before they can intercept the suspect's communications. This is an onerous and unprecedented burden on the intelligence community. FISA court orders were never meant to apply to foreign intelligence missions overseas. The last time U.S. spooks had to rely on FISA court approval to gather intelligence overseas--in the first half of 2007--the backlog of warrant applications quickly grew so thick that America's ability to hear what her enemies were saying was degraded by "70 percent," according to the director of national intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell. If FISA is not updated, it will be only a matter of time before we reach that point again. Something's gotta give, in other words. And soon.
The good news is that there is bicameral and bipartisan support for a new law, the FISA Amendments Act, which updates the U.S. intelligence community's electronic surveillance procedures and provides immunity to "electronic communication service providers" for cooperating with the government. The Democratic Senate already has passed the law by two to one. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has said he is open to a compromise along the lines of the Senate bill. It is widely expected that the House would pass such a compromise. And President Bush would happily sign it.
And yet: No sooner had the ink dried on Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane's March 4 Washington Post story--"Wiretap compromise in works"--than House Democrats began to walk away from said compromise. On March 5, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there might be a vote on the new law at the "beginning of next week." On March 6, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We are still working very hard," but House Democrats "are not going to abandon the Constitution." A vote may be put off until after next week's congressional spring break.
Why won't the House leadership bring the FISA Amendments Act to the floor? Democrats provide different reasons. The Capitol Hill publication CongressDaily quotes House Democratic aides who cite the "tight floor schedule" as the reason this necessary and important law has to wait. Yet the House found time for "HR 1143," which approves a lease agreement between the Interior Department and the Caneel Bay luxury beach resort in the U.S. Virgin Islands. (The service is supposed to be fantastic at Caneel Bay, incidentally.)
Other Democrats blame Bush. In a February 25 Post op-ed, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees accused the president of deploying "scare tactics and political games" because he is "desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures" and wants to "use this issue to scare the American people."
All of which is partisan silliness, of course. Truth be told, the Democrats are not scared of Bush anymore. But they are scared of the left, which is adamant that the "electronic communications service providers"--mainly giant telecoms--not be granted immunity from litigation for cooperating with the government on foreign surveillance of terrorists during the years when FISA did not have authority over the program. The left wants the roughly 40 pending lawsuits against the providers to proceed so that--to quote MSNBC "news" anchor Keith Olbermann--the "AT&Ts and the Verizons" will be held accountable "for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration" with Bush's "illegal and unjustified spying on Americans." Just imagine, Herr Olbermann continues, his bile rising: government . . . and business . . . working . . . together! "What else is this but fascism?"
We don't pretend to be shocked at such arguments from such a source. The imputation of bad faith to the Bush administration and those who agree with it is now so widespread in Washington that spittle-laced histrionics like Olbermann's are par for the course, sad to say. Dispassionate facts are in short supply. But here are a few: The left has been angry for years about Bush's secret program of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, when the president submitted such surveillance to the FISA court for approval. During this time, the government's foreign intelligence collection efforts were known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." It was not "illegal." Just because the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation say it was doesn't make it so. Federal case law has long upheld the president's authority to gather foreign intelligence without warrant. FISA does not trump that authority.
You do not have to take our word for it, either. It was a Democrat, Carter attorney general Griffin Bell, who pointed this out when FISA was created in 1978. It was another Democrat, Clinton's deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, later a vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, who made the same point when FISA was amended in 1994.
And there are plenty of Democrats who agree it is fair to grant immunity to the telecoms, too. In an interview last week with National Journal, Barack Obama adviser John Brennan, a former CIA operative, said he believes "strongly" that the telecoms "be granted immunity" and that the "Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately." And the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, in the bipartisan findings of its 2007 report on the FISA Amendments Act, that during the Terrorist Surveillance Program's lifespan, "electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President's program, and their assistance, was lawful." The Committee went on to write that "electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the Nation's telecommunications system." The "unique historical circumstances" in which the country found itself after sustaining a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent people gave the providers a "good faith basis" on which to cooperate with their government.
Furthermore, writes the Senate Intelligence Committee, "without retroactive immunity" the "private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation." Surveillance might be impeded, in other words. And it isn't too hard to figure out why: Saddled with lawsuits and burdensome discovery, the companies, in the event of a government request for further assistance, probably would start thinking, Fooled me once, shame on me . . . won't get burned again. . . . That, at least, is the "informed judgment of the committee," as its chairman, the liberal Democrat Jay Rockefeller, wrote in his additional comments.
Not quite "fascism," is it?
Indeed, the caricature of Bush as a lawless villain with a "my way or the highway" attitude is breathtakingly false; the administration has been almost entirely cooperative with Congress on FISA reform, and has already conceded plenty. "The ability of the full committee to perform" its "oversight responsibilities" has been "significantly augmented by improved access to information" provided by the administration, wrote the authors of the Senate report. Committee members "received the cooperation of many officials from the intelligence community and the Department of Justice." They "received many classified briefings, propounded and received answers to many written questions," and "conducted extensive interviews with several attorneys in the Executive branch who were involved in the review of the President's program."
Meanwhile, Bush has agreed, as part of the FISA Amendments Act, to require court approval of surveillance of Americans abroad--a requirement to which no previous U.S. president has ever acceded. He has accepted the new, burdensome reporting requirements contained in the legislation in order to assist in congressional oversight. He has, in fact, done pretty much everything he could do to get Congress to reform FISA and protect the communications providers from lawsuits, short of asking Congress "pretty please with a cherry on top."
But that doesn't seem to be enough. It never seems to be enough. Six of the eight Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee supported the FISA Amendments Act. Twenty of the 51 Democrats in the full Senate supported it. Recently 21 state attorneys general wrote a letter urging the Congress to pass the Senate bill. Seven of the signatories were Democrats. There are plenty of House Democrats who would sign a similar letter if given the chance. They agree that reforming FISA and granting the communications providers immunity is the right thing to do. They agree that this debate is about neither politics nor partisanship. Nor is it a debate over executive authority. It really is all about protecting Americans from attack. These Democrats are all members of their party in good standing. Isn't it time Speaker Pelosi listened to them?
--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
The House Democratic leadership should bring the FISA Amendments Act to the floor.
by Matthew Continetti
03/17/2008, Volume 013, Issue 26
It's been three weeks since Democrats in Congress allowed the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire. Three weeks in which House Democrats have allowed marginal special interest groups veto power over national security legislation. And no one in the House Democratic leadership seems particularly bothered by it.
Without a new law, intelligence professionals have to establish "probable cause" that the target of surveillance is a terrorist to the satisfaction of a judge on the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) before they can intercept the suspect's communications. This is an onerous and unprecedented burden on the intelligence community. FISA court orders were never meant to apply to foreign intelligence missions overseas. The last time U.S. spooks had to rely on FISA court approval to gather intelligence overseas--in the first half of 2007--the backlog of warrant applications quickly grew so thick that America's ability to hear what her enemies were saying was degraded by "70 percent," according to the director of national intelligence, Vice Admiral Mike McConnell. If FISA is not updated, it will be only a matter of time before we reach that point again. Something's gotta give, in other words. And soon.
The good news is that there is bicameral and bipartisan support for a new law, the FISA Amendments Act, which updates the U.S. intelligence community's electronic surveillance procedures and provides immunity to "electronic communication service providers" for cooperating with the government. The Democratic Senate already has passed the law by two to one. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has said he is open to a compromise along the lines of the Senate bill. It is widely expected that the House would pass such a compromise. And President Bush would happily sign it.
And yet: No sooner had the ink dried on Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane's March 4 Washington Post story--"Wiretap compromise in works"--than House Democrats began to walk away from said compromise. On March 5, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there might be a vote on the new law at the "beginning of next week." On March 6, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We are still working very hard," but House Democrats "are not going to abandon the Constitution." A vote may be put off until after next week's congressional spring break.
Why won't the House leadership bring the FISA Amendments Act to the floor? Democrats provide different reasons. The Capitol Hill publication CongressDaily quotes House Democratic aides who cite the "tight floor schedule" as the reason this necessary and important law has to wait. Yet the House found time for "HR 1143," which approves a lease agreement between the Interior Department and the Caneel Bay luxury beach resort in the U.S. Virgin Islands. (The service is supposed to be fantastic at Caneel Bay, incidentally.)
Other Democrats blame Bush. In a February 25 Post op-ed, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence and judiciary committees accused the president of deploying "scare tactics and political games" because he is "desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures" and wants to "use this issue to scare the American people."
All of which is partisan silliness, of course. Truth be told, the Democrats are not scared of Bush anymore. But they are scared of the left, which is adamant that the "electronic communications service providers"--mainly giant telecoms--not be granted immunity from litigation for cooperating with the government on foreign surveillance of terrorists during the years when FISA did not have authority over the program. The left wants the roughly 40 pending lawsuits against the providers to proceed so that--to quote MSNBC "news" anchor Keith Olbermann--the "AT&Ts and the Verizons" will be held accountable "for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration" with Bush's "illegal and unjustified spying on Americans." Just imagine, Herr Olbermann continues, his bile rising: government . . . and business . . . working . . . together! "What else is this but fascism?"
We don't pretend to be shocked at such arguments from such a source. The imputation of bad faith to the Bush administration and those who agree with it is now so widespread in Washington that spittle-laced histrionics like Olbermann's are par for the course, sad to say. Dispassionate facts are in short supply. But here are a few: The left has been angry for years about Bush's secret program of foreign intelligence surveillance conducted between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, when the president submitted such surveillance to the FISA court for approval. During this time, the government's foreign intelligence collection efforts were known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." It was not "illegal." Just because the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation say it was doesn't make it so. Federal case law has long upheld the president's authority to gather foreign intelligence without warrant. FISA does not trump that authority.
You do not have to take our word for it, either. It was a Democrat, Carter attorney general Griffin Bell, who pointed this out when FISA was created in 1978. It was another Democrat, Clinton's deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick, later a vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, who made the same point when FISA was amended in 1994.
And there are plenty of Democrats who agree it is fair to grant immunity to the telecoms, too. In an interview last week with National Journal, Barack Obama adviser John Brennan, a former CIA operative, said he believes "strongly" that the telecoms "be granted immunity" and that the "Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately." And the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, in the bipartisan findings of its 2007 report on the FISA Amendments Act, that during the Terrorist Surveillance Program's lifespan, "electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President's program, and their assistance, was lawful." The Committee went on to write that "electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the Nation's telecommunications system." The "unique historical circumstances" in which the country found itself after sustaining a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 innocent people gave the providers a "good faith basis" on which to cooperate with their government.
Furthermore, writes the Senate Intelligence Committee, "without retroactive immunity" the "private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation." Surveillance might be impeded, in other words. And it isn't too hard to figure out why: Saddled with lawsuits and burdensome discovery, the companies, in the event of a government request for further assistance, probably would start thinking, Fooled me once, shame on me . . . won't get burned again. . . . That, at least, is the "informed judgment of the committee," as its chairman, the liberal Democrat Jay Rockefeller, wrote in his additional comments.
Not quite "fascism," is it?
Indeed, the caricature of Bush as a lawless villain with a "my way or the highway" attitude is breathtakingly false; the administration has been almost entirely cooperative with Congress on FISA reform, and has already conceded plenty. "The ability of the full committee to perform" its "oversight responsibilities" has been "significantly augmented by improved access to information" provided by the administration, wrote the authors of the Senate report. Committee members "received the cooperation of many officials from the intelligence community and the Department of Justice." They "received many classified briefings, propounded and received answers to many written questions," and "conducted extensive interviews with several attorneys in the Executive branch who were involved in the review of the President's program."
Meanwhile, Bush has agreed, as part of the FISA Amendments Act, to require court approval of surveillance of Americans abroad--a requirement to which no previous U.S. president has ever acceded. He has accepted the new, burdensome reporting requirements contained in the legislation in order to assist in congressional oversight. He has, in fact, done pretty much everything he could do to get Congress to reform FISA and protect the communications providers from lawsuits, short of asking Congress "pretty please with a cherry on top."
But that doesn't seem to be enough. It never seems to be enough. Six of the eight Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee supported the FISA Amendments Act. Twenty of the 51 Democrats in the full Senate supported it. Recently 21 state attorneys general wrote a letter urging the Congress to pass the Senate bill. Seven of the signatories were Democrats. There are plenty of House Democrats who would sign a similar letter if given the chance. They agree that reforming FISA and granting the communications providers immunity is the right thing to do. They agree that this debate is about neither politics nor partisanship. Nor is it a debate over executive authority. It really is all about protecting Americans from attack. These Democrats are all members of their party in good standing. Isn't it time Speaker Pelosi listened to them?
--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Congress punishes us all
Congress Punishes American Oil
By Steve Forbes
In a relentless resolve to craft national energy policy, House Democrats last week passed an energy tax bill for the third time and the bill is headed to the Senate. With oil clearing the $100 benchmark and ongoing instability in key oil producing regions of the globe, politicians in Washington want credit for some form of energy legislation, even if it is wrong for the country.
What Congress has really concocted is a transfer of wealth scheme that raises taxes on oil companies to provide subsidies to "alternative energy." The bottom line on their latest energy fiasco is that it raises taxes on select oil companies, spares foreign oil companies the same tax increases and hands over subsidies to some of the largest companies in the country who will benefit from the "renewable" tax credits.
This $18 billion tax increase concocted by Congress includes a provision that takes away a manufacturing tax credit - which companies across the board can use - from only the five largest oil companies. As bad as it is to raises taxes for the energy industry during an economic slowdown, a tax increase that's only aimed at specific companies undermines energy security by putting a handful companies at the mercy of competitors across the globe.
Even more outrageous, foreign oil companies, including Citgo, owned by the government of Venezuela, will not lose the deduction. In other words, foreign oil companies with US production will actually pay a lower tax rate than American companies. How can members of Congress support legislation that will reward companies such as Citgo, while placing U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage? In their zeal to punish "big oil" members of Congress have made a mockery of our energy policy.
If congressional leaders succeed in this approach, it will set a terrible precedent for greedy politicians to start targeting specific companies as their source of revenue. Energy policy is not a game of diplomatic dodge ball - the federal government can not pick and choose winners and losers.
The intent of these tax hikes is to promote "alternative energy." What few in Congress have talked about is that millions in subsidies will go to large and successful companies. These companies have been at the forefront of the lobbying campaign for this legislation. So despite all the talk of promoting renewable and alternatives, it's nothing more than another congressional debacle to transfer wealth to favored interests.
Reading some of the provisions of the energy legislation will invoke flashbacks to the gas lines and energy shortages experienced in the 1970's. All of these energy policies -windfall profits taxes and industry regulations - have been tried and failed. They increased our reliance on foreign oil, created shortages and hurt consumers. Despite their best attempt to repackage provisions, the latest energy bill pedaled by Democrats in Congress will revisit the mistakes of the 1970's.
With $100+ oil and blatant threats by key energy producing nations - like Venezuela - Democrats in Congress have reasoned that increasing taxes on the oil industry will miraculously lessen the burden on consumers. While it may be trendy to pick on "big oil", the reality is that America as a whole benefits from our oil companies having the resources to invest in more production and in alternative forms of energy. Raising taxes on energy companies raises the cost of production, dampens investment, research and exploration, and ultimately leads to higher prices for consumers.
Though sound bytes from Capitol Hill continually profess support for "energy independence," the bill passed by the House last week does nothing to deliver additional energy for Americans. While we denounce our reliance on Hugo Chavez and Middle Eastern despots for our oil, how can we, in good conscience, refuse to tap the millions of barrels of oil right here in America?
Both houses of Congress want to show their constituents they are serious about energy. But at a time when our economy and our security are impacted by energy, sloppy energy policy designed to score political points in an election year will cause consumers demonstrable harm. Congress's latest energy bill will raise energy costs, make us more dependent on foreign oil and undermine our nation's energy security. Hugo Chavez is smiling.
Steve Forbes is editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/congress_punishes_american_oil.html at March 07, 2008 - 03:56:35 PM CST
_uacct = "UA-31527-1";
urchinTracker();
By Steve Forbes
In a relentless resolve to craft national energy policy, House Democrats last week passed an energy tax bill for the third time and the bill is headed to the Senate. With oil clearing the $100 benchmark and ongoing instability in key oil producing regions of the globe, politicians in Washington want credit for some form of energy legislation, even if it is wrong for the country.
What Congress has really concocted is a transfer of wealth scheme that raises taxes on oil companies to provide subsidies to "alternative energy." The bottom line on their latest energy fiasco is that it raises taxes on select oil companies, spares foreign oil companies the same tax increases and hands over subsidies to some of the largest companies in the country who will benefit from the "renewable" tax credits.
This $18 billion tax increase concocted by Congress includes a provision that takes away a manufacturing tax credit - which companies across the board can use - from only the five largest oil companies. As bad as it is to raises taxes for the energy industry during an economic slowdown, a tax increase that's only aimed at specific companies undermines energy security by putting a handful companies at the mercy of competitors across the globe.
Even more outrageous, foreign oil companies, including Citgo, owned by the government of Venezuela, will not lose the deduction. In other words, foreign oil companies with US production will actually pay a lower tax rate than American companies. How can members of Congress support legislation that will reward companies such as Citgo, while placing U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage? In their zeal to punish "big oil" members of Congress have made a mockery of our energy policy.
If congressional leaders succeed in this approach, it will set a terrible precedent for greedy politicians to start targeting specific companies as their source of revenue. Energy policy is not a game of diplomatic dodge ball - the federal government can not pick and choose winners and losers.
The intent of these tax hikes is to promote "alternative energy." What few in Congress have talked about is that millions in subsidies will go to large and successful companies. These companies have been at the forefront of the lobbying campaign for this legislation. So despite all the talk of promoting renewable and alternatives, it's nothing more than another congressional debacle to transfer wealth to favored interests.
Reading some of the provisions of the energy legislation will invoke flashbacks to the gas lines and energy shortages experienced in the 1970's. All of these energy policies -windfall profits taxes and industry regulations - have been tried and failed. They increased our reliance on foreign oil, created shortages and hurt consumers. Despite their best attempt to repackage provisions, the latest energy bill pedaled by Democrats in Congress will revisit the mistakes of the 1970's.
With $100+ oil and blatant threats by key energy producing nations - like Venezuela - Democrats in Congress have reasoned that increasing taxes on the oil industry will miraculously lessen the burden on consumers. While it may be trendy to pick on "big oil", the reality is that America as a whole benefits from our oil companies having the resources to invest in more production and in alternative forms of energy. Raising taxes on energy companies raises the cost of production, dampens investment, research and exploration, and ultimately leads to higher prices for consumers.
Though sound bytes from Capitol Hill continually profess support for "energy independence," the bill passed by the House last week does nothing to deliver additional energy for Americans. While we denounce our reliance on Hugo Chavez and Middle Eastern despots for our oil, how can we, in good conscience, refuse to tap the millions of barrels of oil right here in America?
Both houses of Congress want to show their constituents they are serious about energy. But at a time when our economy and our security are impacted by energy, sloppy energy policy designed to score political points in an election year will cause consumers demonstrable harm. Congress's latest energy bill will raise energy costs, make us more dependent on foreign oil and undermine our nation's energy security. Hugo Chavez is smiling.
Steve Forbes is editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/congress_punishes_american_oil.html at March 07, 2008 - 03:56:35 PM CST
_uacct = "UA-31527-1";
urchinTracker();
Anti-War Judge Rejects Foster Teen's Bid to Join Marines
This Judge is a discrace. As a family law attorney, this judge should be removed from the bench at the earliest opportunity or at the very least be reprimanded. Unfortunately, being in Los Angeles she will probably be promoted!
A California judge rejected a foster teen's request for early enlistment with the Marine Corps — and a $10,000 signing bonus — reportedly on the grounds that the judge didn't approve of the Iraq war.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel denied 17-year-old Shawn Sage's request to join the military last October, according to a report in the Los Angeles Daily News.
"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason we're over there," Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office told the paper.
"She just said all recruiters were the same — that they 'all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."
Sage, a Simi Valley, Calif., resident, begged the anti-war judge for permission to join, according to the Daily News.
"Foster children shouldn't be denied [an] ability to enlist in the service just because they're foster kids," Sage told the paper. "Foster kids shouldn't have to go to court to gain approval to serve one's country."
Sage plans to join the Marines when he turns 18 in June and his case has prompted a Republican lawmaker to introduce a bill that would allow foster teens to enlist in the military without the express permission of a judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)