Best of the Web Today - June 28, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
We Have Returned
Thanks to all those who attended our events in Washington and Atlanta last week for "Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House," which by the way is available from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Special thanks to C. Boyden Gray and Ken and Carol Adelman for their enthusiastic support and gracious hospitality.
While we won't be traveling for awhile, we're still eager to talk to anyone who'll listen about the book, and about such timely subjects as the Reagan legacy, the Clinton memoir and how history will judge George W. Bush. One reader, who caught us on Fox News Channel over the weekend, describes us as "a sharp dresser, with a polished look and trained voice." So if you're a radio or TV producer or host and would like to book us, drop us an e-mail at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and we'll get back to you within 24 hours.
Justices to al Qaeda: Sue Away
The U.S. Supreme Court handed Osama bin Laden a victory this morning, ruling that terrorists and Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to sue in U.S. courts. "Military officials and lawyers for detainees . . . are bracing for an explosion of litigation," says the New York Sun. Our ambulance-chasers might want to reflect on just how apt a metaphor that is, since Islamist terrorists are known to use ambulances as weapons.
The ruling, in Rasul v. Bush (court opinions in PDF), is actually fairly narrow. It does not establish any constitutional protection for the terrorists. Rather, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by three liberal colleagues and swinging Sandra O'Connor, holds that under a habeas corpus statute, the federal courts have jurisdiction over the naval base at Guantanamo. The government had argued they do not because the base there is technically sovereign Cuban, not American, territory. But Stevens says America's "exclusive jurisdiction and control" over the base is close enough to actual sovereignty.
Because this ruling rests on a statute rather than the Constitution, it could be rendered moot by an act of Congress providing that Gitmo inmates have no habeas corpus rights. This would be an interesting debate to have, and we'd also like to know where John Kerry--who's said he prefers the pre-9/11 approach of treating terrorism as a "law enforcement" matter rather than a war--stands on the question of terrorists' rights.
The only mention of the Gitmo detainees we could find on Kerry's Web site is on this page. If you expand point III of Kerry's plan to "end the era of Ashcroft," you'll see they're mentioned as part of Kerry's accusation that Ashcroft is "using terrorism as an assault on immigration." Is this just a non sequitur, or does Kerry really advocate green cards for terrorists captured in Afghanistan?
Even if Congress doesn't act, the government can avoid lawsuits simply by holding detainees in countries where the U.S. does not exercise "exclusive jurisdiction and control" or by turning them over to foreign governments, many of which are less scrupulous about respecting prisoners' rights, including the right not to be tortured. So the court's ruling in Rasul may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for civil libertarians.
The court also ruled in a pair of cases involving U.S. citizens who are enemy combatants. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice O'Connor concluded that Yasser Hamdi, a Louisiana native who's lived most of his life in Saudi Arabia and was captured in Afghanistan, can be held without charge as an enemy combatant, but that he has the right to petition a court challenging the factual basis for that designation. This is precisely the position for which we argued two years ago.
In a third case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the court declined to decide the case of Abdullah al-Muhajir, né Jose Padilla, picked up in a dirty-bomb plot, on the ground that he sued in the wrong court.
Reuters Campaigns for Bush
Here's Reuters' headline on the Hamdi case: "U.S. Citizen Can't Be Held in Bush's War on Terror." That's inaccurate. The court found that Hamdi can be held as an enemy combatant, though he has the right to challenge that designation. But what got our attention about this headline was the phrase "Bush's war on terror." Isn't it the free world's war on terror, or at least America's war on terror?
The implication of calling it "Bush's war on terror" is that if John Kerry is elected, the terrorists will have won. While this column is, by and large, favorably disposed toward the Bush administration, we're appalled that Reuters would engage in blatant electioneering on the president's behalf in what is supposed to be a straight news story.
Independence Day
For the first time since the Gulf War, Iraq is a fully sovereign nation, and it has a chance for the first time ever to develop a humane, or even democratic, form of government. In National Review Online, Robert Alt reports from Baghdad on the transfer of sovereignty, which occurred two days early:
The ceremony was conducted in the Green Zone with a small number of press present. The remainder of the press was informed by a phone call to the International Press Center. While a number of my colleagues in the pressroom were clearly upset that they had been "duped" about the date of the handover, the "preemptive transfer" is an undeniably clever move by [ex-regent Paul] Bremer and [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi. The climate in Baghdad for the last week has been one of anxious anticipation. Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi made known, in his now infamous memorandum, that he wished to use the pretext of American occupation to increase terrorism in the days leading up to the June 30, leading many to fear that al Qaeda planned something in the nature of a Tet Offensive to go along with the transition. While the threat still lingers, the "pretext" does not. Any attack carried out from this day forward will unmistakably be one against the Iraqi people.
You've gotta love that bit about the press feeling "duped": He said the handover would be June 30, not June 28! BUSH LIED!!!!
Oh, Those Weapons of Mass Destruction
Remember the Joe Wilson brouhaha? (It was the one that begot the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.) Wilson emerged as an opponent of Iraq's liberation after he claimed to have debunked reports that the erstwhile Baghdad regime sought to buy uranium from Niger. This seemed plausible, since some of the documents that bolstered the Iraq-Niger connection turned out to be forgeries.
Yet Wilson changed his own story in his recent book, as we noted in April, and now the Financial Times reports there's new evidence that Baghdad did seek uranium in Niamey:
European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.
These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.
But not so fast! Blogger Josh Marshall says the FT is wrong:
I hear something different.
In fact, I know something different. . . .
I cannot begin to describe how much I would like to say more than that. And at some later point in some later post I will do my best to explain the hows and whys of why I can't. But, for the moment, I can't.
If that doesn't convince you Saddam Hussein was innocent, we don't know what would.
Meanwhile, the New York Sun notes "a little-noticed but highly significant interview aired Thursday evening by Fox News Channel," in which Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, revealed that his team has found "10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds" in Iraq.
Our Friends the Saudis
Saudi officials are claiming anew that "Zionists" are behind al Qaeda attacks in the kingdom, London's Sunday Telegraph reports:
In a television interview, . . . Prince Turki al-Faisal [the Saudi ambassador to London] is asked about comments made by Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, that "Zionist hands" have been behind the attacks.
The ambassador replies: "When you're under attack by people who come and kill your countrymen and visitors to your country, and you see at the same time an attack on the kingdom from the outside, from Zionist circles, it is natural to make a connection."
It's true, of course, that natural adversaries sometimes come together to fight a common enemy: one thinks of the Hitler-Stalin pact, the U.S.-Soviet alliance in World War II and, more recently, the ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. Even so, an alliance between "Zionist circles" and al Qaeda seems entirely implausible.
Failed Diplomacy
John Kerry voted to liberate Iraq, then reversed his position on liberation's eve and blasted the Bush administration for "failed diplomacy." But how effective a diplomat is Kerry? Consider this AP dispatch from Boston:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Sunday canceled an appearance at the U.S. Conference of Mayors rather than cross a promised police union picket line at the event.
"I don't cross picket lines. I never have," Kerry said. . . . His decision came hours after Boston Mayor Thomas Menino called on Kerry to attend, calling the conference "an important event for urban America," and saying the pickets set up by the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association and other union members did not constitute a legitimate picket line.
The Boston Globe quotes Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick: ''I'm extremely disappointed, and I'm leaning toward being angry. It's not a leadership move. Mayors are here from all over the country. If we don't get that message [from Kerry], how are we going to take it back to our constituents? We can't just be anti-Bush. I would hope that he'd reconsider. To mobilize voters in our city, we have to hear directly from Kerry."
As blogger Edward Morrissey points out, Kerry's failure to mediate a conflict between two groups that support him does not augur well for his ability to use diplomacy to persuade the likes of the French to act in America's interest.
Hitler and Hypocrisy
We had to laugh when we got the e-mail from the Kerry campaign Friday night. The subject line simply read "Disgusting":
Yesterday, the Bush-Cheney campaign, losing any last sense of decency, placed a disgusting ad called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" as the main feature on its website. Bizarrely, and without explanation, the ad places Adolf Hitler among those faces.
The Bush-Cheney campaign must pull this ad off of its website. The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.
We sent you a fundraising plea earlier this morning. But when this came up, we decided it was important to show you just what we're up against: a presidential campaign that is willing to do or say absolutely anything to win. You're our only line of defense against these underhanded tactics. Please contribute today.
The ad, called "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-Eyed," is available on the Bush campaign Web site. It is a medley of clips from the Angry Left, including rants from Al Gore, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt and Kerry himself (though Kerry looks downright lethargic compared with the others). The Hitler images--as the Kerry campaign must have known full well--are from a pair of ads the far-left, pro-Kerry outfit MoveOn.org posted to the Internet a few months back. In other words, the Bush campaign is not comparing Kerry to Hitler; it is criticizing Kerry's supporters for comparing Bush to Hitler.
One can nonetheless make an argument that the Bush campaign should not have used the Hitler images. There used to be a woman who would pop up on the streets of New York and wage solo protests against pornography. "Fight back, wim-min," she would shout at passersby, most of whom ignored her. We were not unsympathetic to her point of view, but we were, to say the least, put off by her means of expressing it. She had a pair of visual aids--large posters with violent pornographic images, that she would hold up to illustrate what she was fighting. One day we confronted her and said, "It's really offensive for you to show these pictures in a public place, where children can see them." Her reply was unprintable except in the kind of magazine she was seeking to ban.
Perhaps the image of Hitler is the political equivalent of pornography, offensive in itself, and it's just as bad for the Bush campaign to use it against MoveOn as for MoveOn to use it against Bush. (This argument, of course, rests on taste rather than law; likening the other fellow to Hitler may be noxious, but it's undoubtedly political speech, fully protected by the First Amendment.)
This, however, is not the argument the Kerry campaign is making. It is faulting only the Bush campaign and pretending to be shocked, shocked that Hitler comparisons are going on. To judge by the e-mails we received from Kerry supporters on this subject, they're credulous enough to swallow their man's dishonest line.
Kerry had the opportunity for a Sister Souljah-like moment here. He could have said: "I categorically reject any comparison of the president to Hitler, and MoveOn was wrong to disseminate these ads. But two wrongs don't make a right. I call on President Bush to withdraw his ad." Instead, he tacitly approved of his backers' Hitler analogies, thereby validating the substance of the Bush ad, if not its choice of images.
For a guy who served in Vietnam (didja hear?), John Kerry sure lacks courage.
Gore Imitates Gore Imitator
From a "Saturday Night Live" sketch that aired Dec. 13, 2003, in which Darrell Hammond played Al Gore and Jeff Richards played Howard Dean:
Hammond: As Paul Krugman has pointed out in the New York Times, George W. Bush is not only the worst president in American history; he is the worst leader of any nation on Earth going back more than 500 years.
Richards: Really? I mean, I'm no fan of President Bush, but what about Hitler?
Hammond: No. 3.
From a June 24, 2004, speech in which Al Gore played Al Gore:
Gore: The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President . . . you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation."
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"For Young Gays on the Streets, Survival Comes Before Pride"--headline, New York Times, June 27, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Don't Say
"Landfill Fires Can Be Very Dangerous"--headline, KSL-TV Web site (Salt Lake City), June 25
It's the Eponymy, Stupid
From the Illinois State Bar Association comes the sad news that an associate judge of the Land of Lincoln's 19th circuit has died of lung cancer at 54. His name: Judge Thomas Smoker.
First Same-Sex Marriage, Now This
"Drivers Still Wedded to Cars"--headline, News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.), June 25
Welfare Is Independence
On Friday we noted that the federal government wants to rename "food stamps" so as to "end the stigma" associated with them. It turns out at least one state has already done so. Over a decade ago Maryland instituted the nation's first all-electronic system for distributing food-stamp benefits. Recipients get a plastic "Independence Card" identifying them as dependent on government food. Is that Orwellian or what?
Reader Danny Garcia took issue with our item:
My wife, new daughter and I used food stamps for a year when I was 25. At the time I was working full-time (and paying taxes, of course) and going to school full-time. I was somewhat embarrassed by that I was not making enough to feed my family, but I felt much better about having my tax money used to subsidize my family instead of mohair ranchers or corn farmers.
With proper oversight, food-only assistance for the working poor is a reasonable use for the taxes generated in the wealthiest country on Earth.
That's not a bad argument, and we weren't calling for the abolition of food stamps. But we'd say it's a good thing if people are "somewhat embarrassed" to be on the dole. Such embarrassment is a powerful spur to get off it and achieve true independence. |
