Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the
press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T.
Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, September 20,
2006
1. The thug-of-the-day club - New York
Post Op-ed
The U.N. circus continued Wednesday in New York. Yesterday's featured clown
was Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez - who took to the floor of the General
Assembly to rip President Bush as "the devil." Predictably, the applause was
significant.
2. Warner
holds up chaplain freedom - Washington Times
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner is blocking a House
defense bill provision that would give military chaplains more freedom to
pray as they see fit, saying he wants to put the matter off until 2007, a
stance that angers House Republicans and conservative groups.
3. Torturing
the Law - RealClear Politics
That Sen. John McCain is willing to stake his presidential ambitions on the
battle to legislate the interrogation of terrorist prisoners is a testament
to his courage. And it should cost him the White House. McCain's personal
experience makes his posturing on the law of terrorist interrogation all the
more puzzling.
5. For Bush, cheaper gas is
premium - USA Today When it comes to President
Bush's approval rating - the number that measures his political health - one
factor seems more powerful than any Oval Office address or legislative
initiative. It's the price of a gallon of gas.
September 21, 2006 -- Will the U.N. circus never stop?
Yesterday's featured clown was Venezuelan strongman Hugo Cha vez - who took
to the floor of the General Assembly to rip President Bush as "the devil."
Predictably, the applause was significant.
This, just a day after that crackpot from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
fingered the United States for just about every problem under the sun.
Also to applause.
It makes you wonder: Given that America coughs up some $1.3 billion a year
to keep the U.N. & Co. afloat, how much would it have to pay to have the
organization shut down?
It would be well worth every penny.
Honestly, why should Americans pony up that kind of cash (Washington is
Turtle Bay's top sugar daddy) to fund a forum for anti-American leftist
kooks like Chavez or an unhinged, suspected terrorist from the '79 Iranian
hostage crisis like Ahmadinejad? (And why should New Yorkers pay to live
with endless traffic jams every fall?)
On Tuesday, the world body gave the Iranian president a prime-time televised
forum in which to . . . bash America.
And lie through his teeth.
Then, yesterday, Chavez performed Act II, insulting Bush and railing against
U.S. "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."
That wasn't all, of course.
He charged that "hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing
at risk the very existence of the human species." Whatever that might mean.
And he demanded that Bush be hauled before a court on charges of genocide.
Right.
U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, to his everlasting credit, refused even to
dignify Chavez's slurs - what he called "comic-strip" diplomacy - with a
response.
(Bolton did defend Chavez's right to state his views, though, whether at the
United Nations or in Central Park - adding that it's "too bad the people of
Venezuela don't have free speech." Will somebody remind us why the Senate is
giving Bolton such a tough time with confirmation?)
On his worst day, of course, Chavez is a cut above his buddy from Tehran -
whose tirade not only libeled America, but championed the elimination of
Israel while denying the Holocaust.
Same-old, same-old, you say?
True.
But Turtle Bay is supposed to be a serious place, where serious leaders meet
to resolve serious problems.
Like, say, Iran's nuclear threat.
Alas, the Security Council's Aug. 31 deadline for Tehran to stop enriching
uranium or face possible sanctions has come and gone - with Iran vowing to
keep the program going.
The council's response? French President Jacques Chirac actually backed off
sanctions Monday, arguing for yet more "dialogue."
On a more mundane (though no less critical) level, the world body can't find
the will to send in troops to protect the Sudan's war-torn Darfur region -
just as it failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide in the '90s.
(On the other hand, U.N. officials did manage to pull off the biggest
scandal in the history of the world - the $64 billion Oil-for-Food heist.)
But let's give Chavez credit for one good idea: He suggested the United
Nations be moved to Venezuela.
Hey, there you go!
We'll pay for the moving van.
And then Donald Trump can build condos with a great East River view.
2. Warner holds up chaplain freedom -
Washington Times
By Amy Fagan
Published September 20, 2006
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner is blocking a House
defense bill provision that would give military chaplains more freedom to
pray as they see fit, saying he wants to put the matter off until 2007, a
stance that angers House Republicans and conservative groups.
"It's so important. Should two or three members of Congress try to resolve
it when there's many people who want to be involved?" Mr. Warner, Virginia
Republican, said yesterday.
He said he hasn't taken a position on the language itself, but will
"strongly recommend" House and Senate hearings on the dispute early next
year.
The prayer provision is one of about three issues delaying a final agreement
on the defense bill, he said.
House Republicans and conservative grass-roots groups accuse Mr. Warner of
blocking their efforts to resolve a big problem. Many Republican lawmakers
have long complained that military chaplains feel restricted in how they can
pray publicly and have been encouraged by higher-ups in some instances not
to pray in Jesus' name.
A blogger on redstate.com yesterday afternoon posted a comment that read:
"What Does John Warner Have Against Jesus? Excuse Me, I Meant J***s."
Mr. Warner said that he is being "besieged" by bloggers and phone calls but
that he takes issue with anyone who questions his faith.
"I just will stand my ground against anyone who wishes to challenge my
religion," he said.
At the heart of the fight is language added to the House defense bill by
Republican Reps. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Todd Akin of Missouri
and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter of California.
The provision establishes that, in each branch of the military, chaplains
"shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the
chaplain's own conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity."
Whenever such military necessity is cited, the language said, it would be
"imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible."
The Senate didn't include such language in its version of defense bill.
Differences are being worked out in negotiations.
"Senator Warner maybe doesn't understand the depth of the issue," Mr. Jones
said yesterday, adding that military chaplains have told him repeatedly that
they were denied the right to publicly pray in Jesus' name.
"I don't know how anybody could be opposed to any chaplain -- be they
Jewish, Muslim, Christian -- being able to pray based on the tenets of their
faith," he said.
But Mr. Warner said that the Defense Department opposes the House language
and that senior chaplain officials have told him that they've been able to
do their jobs for years without Congress intervening. Mr. Warner said before
Congress forges ahead and writes such a law, "all views" should be
considered.
He said House Democrats have alternative language that would clarify that
chaplains should demonstrate "sensitivity, respect and tolerance for all
faiths present" when they pray publicly. Mr. Warner hasn't decided which
language he supports.
But Mr. Akin, in a blog yesterday afternoon, said such an approach "would
replace religious freedom with misguided attempts at religious tolerance and
prevent chaplains from praying as they feel they ought."
Mr. Jones said Mr. Warner should hear more stories like that of Capt.
Jonathan Stertzbach, a Christian Army chaplain serving in Iraq, who told The
Washington Times early this year that he and chaplains of other faiths were
being pressured to offer only nonsectarian prayers. He was silenced by his
supervisors soon after his public statements.
That Sen. John McCain is willing to stake his presidential ambitions on the
battle to legislate the interrogation of terrorist prisoners is a testament
to his courage. And it should cost him the White House. McCain's courage was
never an issue. Anyone who reads of his bravery under torture in the
infamous North Vietnamese "Hanoi Hilton" cannot doubt it. McCain's personal
experience makes his legislative posturing on the law of terrorist
interrogation all the more puzzling.
In 1996, two years after making Senate ratification of the UN Convention
Against Torture (UNCAT) conditional on implementing legislation, Congress
enacted Title 18 US Code Section 2340 which made torture committed outside
the US by a US soldier or civilian government employee, a federal felony.
The US statute defined torture in clear terms. It said that torture was,
"...an act committed by a person under color of law specifically intended to
inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than incident to
lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical
control." To avoid being struck down as unconstitutionally vague, the law
went on to define terms undefined in UNCAT including "severe mental pain or
suffering." US law defines it as, "...the prolonged mental harm caused by or
resulting from..." (1) intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or threatened
administration of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to
disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; (3) threat of imminent death;
or (4) a threat to do those things to a third person.
US courts, deciding a variety of cases, further defined what was torture and
what wasn't. Mostly, they decided claims based on whether the person
allegedly tortured suffered prolonged mental or psychological harm. (In one
case, people who were held at gunpoint overnight didn't suffer torture
because they lacked long-term harm. In another, people who had been forced
to play "Russian roulette" repeatedly had suffered long-term psychological
damage and were found to have been tortured.) As the courts ruled on more
and more cases, the law was further clarified. Enter John McCain with his
clarity-destroying legislation.
Last year, Sen. McCain and his acolyte Sen. Lindsay Graham, authored and
then grandstanded through an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill
that the media advertised as a new, bold step to outlaw torture. It wasn't
that, but it did two things. First, it limited of interrogation methods to
those authorized in the Army Field Manual on intelligence interrogation.
Second, it befogged the law on torture by adding that, "No individual in the
custody or under the physical control of the United States Government,
regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Instead of defining those
broad terms, the McCain Amendment punted. It said they should be defined in
accordance with the US Constitution, and the US reservations in ratifying
UNCAT. The Defense Department and the intelligence community opposed McCain
strenuously, arguing unsuccessfully for clarity in the law. The McCain
amendment was enacted and undid almost ten years of precedent under Section
2340.
The administration's actions to implement the June Supreme Court decision in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld only added to the problem McCain's amendment created. The
Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 held applicable to the military
commissions in Hamdan prohibits, among other things, "...outrages upon
personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Those
terms, like the language in McCain's amendment, are undefined. The president
has stated that Common Article 3 is being applied not only to the military
commissions, as Hamdan requires, but to every aspect of treatment of
terrorist detainees. I have asked, repeatedly, why the administration is
extending Hamdan beyond its terms, and the only answer I've gotten is that
it's too hard to parse it out. The president should get some more capable
lawyers. Nevertheless, at this point, no one in the intelligence and defense
communities knows what is or is not allowed in terrorist interrogation.
To correct this, the president's legislative proposal seeks to undo most of
the damage created by McCain and the Supreme Court. It would not make
torture lawful.
Instead, it clarifies the rules under which terrorist detainees can be
interrogated by providing a specific list of prohibited practices that would
be regarded as war crimes and states that by the previously-enacted Detainee
Treatment Act, America has performed its duty under Common Article 3. Now,
McCain's opposing bill - which thwarts the whole clarification movement and
insistently leaves the critical terms undefined - has passed the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday that the McCain bill will not pass
the Senate, and that he may lead a filibuster against it. Four liberal House
Republicans - Christopher Shays (Ct), Michael Castle (Del), Jim Leach (Iowa)
and James Walsh (NY) - have thrown their support behind the McCain bill and
announced opposition to the president's bill.
McCain's tenacious grip on vagueness is counter-intuitive. Given his
personal experience with torture, we should expect him to be insisting on
clarity. And given his - and Lindsay Graham's - military experience we
should expect them to be taking every step to protect the soldiers and
civilians who interrogate terrorists by providing them with clear rules of
conduct. They demand, instead, to leave our interrogators subject to
second-guessing by every ambitious prosecutor who may want to make a name
for himself in a flashy show trial about cruel and degrading treatment.
Whatever some jury may decide it is in the safety of a courtroom years after
the event.
The White House is now apparently bargaining away its position, and the
legislation may not pass any time soon. The longer Congress leaves the law
unclear the longer our people will be at risk in interrogating prisoners.
They, the interrogators, shouldn't have to risk their futures on a slap to
Khalid Sheik Muhammed's cheek. Our Constitution demands clarity in our
criminal laws. Regardless of what McCain, Graham and the rest say, we owe it
to our people, and we owe it to them now.
Sending these brave men and women into a holding cell to interrogate an al-Queda
tough without clear rules of law is tantamount to sending a Marine out in
the streets of Ramadi without body armor. Any military officer who did that
would - and should - be fired. So should members of Congress who send our
interrogators into those cells without cleaning up the McCain mess.
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush
administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and
author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward
Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe
are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004).
4. How should this country treat its
terror suspects? - Dallas Morning News Op-ed
If we're committed to winning this war, we can't back
down.
I promised myself that I was not going to return from a visit to the
Guantánamo Bay detention facility brandishing a know-it-all condescension.
I will keep to that promise, but the debate over detainee rights hits me in
very pointed ways as politicians argue over how to treat people I stood a
few yards from less than three weeks ago.
The debate over the Geneva Conventions seemed specious to me before I ever
set foot in Cuba. Devised as a compact between nations seeking at least a
base coat of civil wartime behavior, they are rules that apply in a specific
set of circumstances, none of which pertain to our current war.
We are not engaged in battle with any particular nation that might claim
signatory status to the Geneva Conventions. We are not fighting any
uniformed entity that remotely aspires to the pleasantries enumerated
within.
As such, it is tragically inane to hear United States senators whine about
our obligations to afford terrorist combatants certain dignities out of fear
of what enemy captors might do to us.
Think about that: What they might do to us? Do we need to review what they
already do to us? These enemies are very fond of the videotaped beheading,
for starters. They also have a penchant for hanging our charred bodies from
bridges. Spare me the absurdly phony concerns about what our enemies "might"
do if we fail to throw them the bone of Geneva Conventions protection.
This is sad to say, but I would expect Democrats to clumsily equate American
standards of detainee treatment with those of our enemies. But when
so-called Republicans join them, it is time to begin identifying, without
regard to political party, who is serious about keeping this nation safe and
who is not.
The GOP senators complaining about our inattention to detainee rights
include Virginia's John Warner, somewhat of a surprise in this regard, and
three more who are not: South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, an increasingly
squishy moderate who calls for us to "take the moral high ground" as if it
is immoral to do all we can to get vital information from terrorists; Susan
Collins of Maine, long known as a RINO (Republican in Name Only); and John
McCain, who brings his own credentials as a torture victim to the debate.
Those credentials are impossible to ignore. But they do not make him right.
Texas Rep. Sam Johnson was no more favorably treated by his Vietnamese
captors, yet he knows the ill wisdom of going soft on this enemy. He knew it
when he disagreed with Mr. McCain on the national self-emasculation that is
the Detainee Treatment Act, and he knows it now that we are engaged in a
hand-wringing exercise that flogs the integrity of the people charged with
securing information that could help us win the war.
It really is this simple: Even without making them full-fledged
beneficiaries of Geneva Conventions rules, we are treating this enemy with a
dignity unmatched in the history of warfare. From the dietary and religious
favors we bestow to the perpetual reviews of their combatant status, it is
specious to argue that we are somehow not generous enough with basic rights.
We have released detainees who have later been found back on the battlefield
working to kill more Americans. Against this backdrop, any effort to place
senseless roadblocks in the path of military or CIA interrogators is
evidence that we truly may not be committed enough to winning.
If lawmakers can ever get around to clearing the way for them, the tribunals
determining the disposition of hundreds of detainee cases will be conducted
with the care and professionalism on display every day at Guantánamo. It is
time for Congress to stop behaving as if the terrorists in our custody are
modern concentration camp survivors in need of a rescue from the allies.
What we need a rescue from is the election-year posturing that undeservedly
characterizes this phase of the U.S. war effort as sinister when it is
arguably not tough enough.
The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays on News/Talk WBAP-AM (820) and
nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. WBAP airtime is 9 a.m. to noon. His
e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.
WASHINGTON - When it comes to President Bush's approval rating - the number
that measures his political health - one factor seems more powerful than any
Oval Office address or legislative initiative.
It's the price of a gallon of gas.
Statisticians who have compared changes in gas prices and Bush's ratings
through his presidency have found a steady relationship: As gas prices rise,
his ratings fall. As gas prices fall, his ratings rise.
For some Americans, analysts speculate, gas prices provide a shorthand
reading of the general state of the economy. Even though prices at the pump
are largely outside the president's control, he gets credit when they fall -
and blame when they rise.
"Gas prices are a price everybody knows because it hangs on the street in
big letters," says Stuart Thiel, an economist at DePaul University in
Chicago who has been tracking the trend for several years.
A statistical analysis by Doug Henwood, editor of the liberal newsletter
Left Business Observer, found that an "uncanny" 78% of the movement in
Bush's ratings could be correlated with changes in gas prices. Based on
trends in crude oil prices, Henwood predicted last Thursday that it
"wouldn't be surprising to see his approval numbers rise into the mid-40s."
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, Bush's rating rose
to 44%, his highest in a year. Average gas prices, which peaked at more than
$3 a gallon in August, had dropped under $2.50, the lowest since March.
A renewed focus on terrorism contributed to Bush's turnaround, analysts say.
"When they put the terror issue out there, they tend to get political
points," says sociologist Robb Willer of the University of California,
Berkeley.
Gas prices may be "a proxy for larger developments in the political
economy," Henwood says. For instance, the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina,
which drove up fuel costs, also eroded Bush's support.
The ratings of Bush's three immediate predecessors weren't closely tied to
gas prices, Henwood found. Volatile prices and a supply crunch did
contribute to President Jimmy Carter's political travails.
For Bush, too, prices have been volatile, and his background as an oilman
may be a factor affecting public attitudes. In the USA TODAY poll, two in
five said the administration has deliberately manipulated gas prices to
decline before the fall elections.
Routine market forces are likely to deliver more good news to Bush, says Tom
Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service. Absent an international crisis,
he predicts gas prices will drop an additional 10 to 20 cents a gallon by
Election Day.