Some 300,000 Turks protested against their Islamic-rooted prime minister Saturday, demonstrating the intense opposition he will face from Turkey's secular establishment if he decides to run for president next month.
Protesters draped themselves in the flag and poured into the capital's streets and squares, calling on the government to resign and chanting slogans including, "We don't want an imam as president."
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has brandished his strong religious convictions while at the same time pushing Turkey toward European Union membership, represents a challenge to secularists' traditional approach to government in this 99-percent Muslim country. Many fear that if he or someone close to him wins the presidency, the government will be able to implement an Islamist agenda without opposition.
But with Erdogan's popularity and firm control over parliament, his opponents may have little power to stop him if he does decide to run. His party was elected to an overwhelming majority in parliament and can appoint whomever it wants to the presidency.
The pro-secular military retains a strong influence over politics, however, and in 1997 generals pressured Erdogan's mentor out of the prime minister's office because he was viewed as excessively religious. Any serious tensions between the government and the military could have a serious effect on the economy, analysts warn.
The demonstration at times turned into a pro-military rally, with a changing of the guard accompanied by shouts of "Turkey is proud of you" to the soldiers. Turkey's powerful generals are seen as the guardians of the country's secular identity.
Tens of thousands traveled from across the country overnight to attend the rally in downtown Ankara. Police cordoned off the official meeting area — near the mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the revered founder of modern Turkey and the symbol of its secular identity.
There were varying estimates of the crowd size: military officials on the scene estimated close to 300,000, while organizers said the total number of participants was more than 1 million.
Many residents in the capital hung flags out of their balconies or windows in support of the rally.
"I'm here to prevent Recep Tayyip Erdogan from becoming president," said Serkan Ozcan, a 30-year-old engineer who traveled nearly 370 miles from Izmir to attend the rally. "Never has someone of that mentality been president and never will there be."
Turkey's staunchly pro-secular president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, said Friday that the threat Islamic fundamentalism posed to the country was higher than ever — a warning clearly directed at Erdogan.
"For the first time, the pillars of the secular republic are being openly questioned," Sezer said in an address to military officers.
Erdogan's government denies it has an Islamic agenda, but critics say the government is inching the country toward increased religious rule.
The prime minister has stoked secularist concerns by speaking out against restrictions on wearing Islamic-style head scarves in government offices and schools and taking steps to bolster religious institutions. He also tried to criminalize adultery before being forced to back down under intense EU pressure, and some party-run municipalities have taken steps to ban alcohol consumption.
Sezer steps down on May 16. Parliament, which is dominated by lawmakers from Erdogan's party, will elect the new president early next month. Erdogan's party was expected to announce its candidates for the position this month.
"We hope that someone who is loyal to the principles of the republic — not just in words but in essence — is elected president," Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the military, said Thursday in a statement widely interpreted as a warning to Erdogan not to run.
The fiercely secular generals staged three coups between 1960 and 1980, and in 1997 led a campaign that pressured Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan's pro-Islamic government out of power.
Although largely ceremonial, the presidency has become a symbol for secularism under Sezer. A former Constitutional Court judge, he has vetoed a record number of laws he deemed to be in violation of the secular constitution and has blocked efforts to appoint hundreds of reportedly Islamic-oriented candidates to important civil service positions.
Adding to secularists' concerns over an Erdogan run, some members of Erdogan's party have floated the idea of moving Turkey toward a U.S.-style presidential system with a more powerful executive rather than the current parliamentary system.
The generally pro-government newspaper Zaman reported Friday that Erdogan had ordered his party to avoid talk of moving toward a presidential system until after the elections.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Iran Atom Plan Shows Need for Missile Shield: Germany by R.
The latest developments with Iran's nuclear program reinforce the case for a U.S. missile shield to protect Europe from attacks, German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said.
``Precisely these latest developments also confirm that such protection makes sense,'' Jung told Reuters in an interview earlier this week.
``Timely precautions must be taken against the foreseeable increase of the range of offensive missiles of certain problem states, even if it concerns long-term developments,'' he said.
The minister did not name Iran directly but it was clear the countries he had in mind included Iran and North Korea -- the ``rogue states'' Washington says the shield would protect against.
The United States wants to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and a missile battery in Poland to defend against possible missile attacks.
Plans for the missile shield have angered Russia and German Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-left coalition partneranrs.
The comments by Jung, a member of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), are among the strongest yet from a senior German official favoring discussion of the U.S. project.
Iran said on Monday it had begun industrial enrichment of uranium, a process the West fears Iran will use to make atomic bombs. Tehran says its program is entirely peaceful.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told German newspaper Bild that members of the alliance could not ignore Iran's nuclear plans and missile capabilities.
``We also can't ignore the fact that Iran has tested missiles with a range of 1800 km, which could reach Europe. Naturally this will play a role in our discussion of missile Defense,'' Scheffer was quoted as saying on Bild's website.
NATO Defense ministers will discuss the missile shield at a meeting in Brussels in June though no decision is expected.
DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA
Russia sees the shield plan, which NATO has been discussing since 2002, as an encroachment on its former sphere of influence and says it could undermine global non-proliferation.
Senior members of Germany's Social Democrats (SPD), who rule in coalition with the CDU, fear it could trigger a new arms race between Russia and the West. But the government has already agreed the issue should be discussed within NATO.
Jung said it was crucial to involve Russia in discussions as the United States is doing now and was optimistic an agreement with Russia could be reached.
Asked about estimates of when Iran could possess a nuclear weapon, Jung said Tehran had a long way to go, if getting an atom bomb truly was its goal.
``According to expert assessments, Iran is years away from that point,'' he said.
Jung said it was possible to stop Iran through diplomacy.
``We can do everything possible to prevent Iran from successfully combining long-range missiles and atomic weapons. And I'm very hopeful that we -- the United States, Europe, Russia and China -- can achieve this diplomatically.''
The U.S. shield is intended to provide protection for most of Europe but would leave gaps, especially over southern Europe.
``I think that's a mistake and that would mean a splitting of Europe,'' Jung told reporters in Brussels.
He said in the interview NATO would have to discuss ways of bridging the gap with a possible NATO missile shield that would complement the planned U.S. missile Defense system.
SPD Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has been one of the most outspoken critics of the shield, saying Washington wanted it for protection against non-existent threats.
Jung said the threat from deadly weapons was all too real.
``Precisely these latest developments also confirm that such protection makes sense,'' Jung told Reuters in an interview earlier this week.
``Timely precautions must be taken against the foreseeable increase of the range of offensive missiles of certain problem states, even if it concerns long-term developments,'' he said.
The minister did not name Iran directly but it was clear the countries he had in mind included Iran and North Korea -- the ``rogue states'' Washington says the shield would protect against.
The United States wants to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and a missile battery in Poland to defend against possible missile attacks.
Plans for the missile shield have angered Russia and German Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-left coalition partneranrs.
The comments by Jung, a member of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), are among the strongest yet from a senior German official favoring discussion of the U.S. project.
Iran said on Monday it had begun industrial enrichment of uranium, a process the West fears Iran will use to make atomic bombs. Tehran says its program is entirely peaceful.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told German newspaper Bild that members of the alliance could not ignore Iran's nuclear plans and missile capabilities.
``We also can't ignore the fact that Iran has tested missiles with a range of 1800 km, which could reach Europe. Naturally this will play a role in our discussion of missile Defense,'' Scheffer was quoted as saying on Bild's website.
NATO Defense ministers will discuss the missile shield at a meeting in Brussels in June though no decision is expected.
DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA
Russia sees the shield plan, which NATO has been discussing since 2002, as an encroachment on its former sphere of influence and says it could undermine global non-proliferation.
Senior members of Germany's Social Democrats (SPD), who rule in coalition with the CDU, fear it could trigger a new arms race between Russia and the West. But the government has already agreed the issue should be discussed within NATO.
Jung said it was crucial to involve Russia in discussions as the United States is doing now and was optimistic an agreement with Russia could be reached.
Asked about estimates of when Iran could possess a nuclear weapon, Jung said Tehran had a long way to go, if getting an atom bomb truly was its goal.
``According to expert assessments, Iran is years away from that point,'' he said.
Jung said it was possible to stop Iran through diplomacy.
``We can do everything possible to prevent Iran from successfully combining long-range missiles and atomic weapons. And I'm very hopeful that we -- the United States, Europe, Russia and China -- can achieve this diplomatically.''
The U.S. shield is intended to provide protection for most of Europe but would leave gaps, especially over southern Europe.
``I think that's a mistake and that would mean a splitting of Europe,'' Jung told reporters in Brussels.
He said in the interview NATO would have to discuss ways of bridging the gap with a possible NATO missile shield that would complement the planned U.S. missile Defense system.
SPD Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has been one of the most outspoken critics of the shield, saying Washington wanted it for protection against non-existent threats.
Jung said the threat from deadly weapons was all too real.
European Cult of Appeasement by Arnaud de Borchgrave
Islamic activists in Europe have taken a leaf out of the old Communist guidebook for the "long march through the institutions." In Antwerp, for example, the City Council has been infiltrated by Islamist fundamentalists -- Belgian citizens, of course -- who keep pushing the envelope with impunity.
From the British city of Leeds to Livorno in Italy and from Luxembourg to Ljubljana in Slovenia, multiculturalism is pretty much a bust. Quicksand is the only common ground between Western values and militant Muslim fundamentalism. But some Islamist extremists have found willing partners among leftist radicals who never got over the end of the Cold War -- and jump at any opportunity to rumble against whatever government is in power.
In Germany, the weekly Der Spiegel documented case after case of Muslims, and local German benefactors or sympathizers, busy paving the way for a Muslim "parallel" society. A Moroccan-born, 26-year-old German who had been subjected to her husband's "corporal punishment" and was denied grounds for divorce triggered a nationwide cry of outrage.
Judge Christa Datz-Winter of Frankfurt's family court even quoted the Koran -- Sura 4, verse 34 -- when she wrote in her decision the Muslim Holy Book contains "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife."
Der Spiegel, Germany's foremost news magazine, commented, "In one fell swoop, Germany's Muslims took a substantial bite out of the legal foundations of Western civilization." Yet some liberal judges see Muslim subcultures as mitigating circumstances. "Polygamous marriages must be recognized if they are legal under the laws of the native country of the individuals in question," the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs instructed insurance agencies in 2004. Thus, Muslim men were allowed to add additional wives to government health-insurance policies without paying an additional premium. This was later reversed.
Zero tolerance for intolerance has gone the way of the Dodo. Now, misguided tolerance has spawned liberal opinions that categorize Muslim honor killings as manslaughter, not murder. Some Islamic experts in German universities are already asking whether Sharia law, or Islamic law, is gradually infecting German law.
Muslims are now authorized to take their kids out of swimming lessons, and prayer breaks for Muslims have won out in industrial plants. A year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, a Muslim religious leader in Hesse issued what became known as the "camel fatwa." A Muslim woman could travel no more than 49 miles from the home of her husband or parents without being accompanied by a male blood relative. That was the distance a camel caravan could travel within 24 hours in the days of the Prophet Mohammad.
Conservatives see the multicultural illusions of recent decades as naïve. Islamists are not interested in cultural diversity.
The European cult of appeasement has given free rein to radical imams whose only goal is to Islamicize Christian Europe. The terrain is fertile. Only 20 percent of Europe's Christians attend church services on Sunday, but mosques are packed with worshippers on Fridays, where sermons are political paeans to the courageous jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact they are fighting American and NATO troops (including Germans) is left unmentioned. But Judge Klaus Feldmann of the Potsdam District Court outside Berlin ruled that ZDF public television had to delete reference on its Web site to the former imam of Berlin's Mevlana mosque as a "hate preacher."
Judge Datz-Winter was finally removed from the case. But gradual encroachment of fundamentalist Islam continues apace in Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Albania, Kosovo and elsewhere. Denmark, where a cartoonist whose work disparaged Prophet Mohammed set off demonstrations in Europe and even riots in the Middle East in September 2005, has taken what for Europe passes for a stern measure: Foreigners who marry Danish women will not be entitled to any welfare-state benefits until their fifth anniversary.
From the British city of Leeds to Livorno in Italy and from Luxembourg to Ljubljana in Slovenia, multiculturalism is pretty much a bust. Quicksand is the only common ground between Western values and militant Muslim fundamentalism. But some Islamist extremists have found willing partners among leftist radicals who never got over the end of the Cold War -- and jump at any opportunity to rumble against whatever government is in power.
In Germany, the weekly Der Spiegel documented case after case of Muslims, and local German benefactors or sympathizers, busy paving the way for a Muslim "parallel" society. A Moroccan-born, 26-year-old German who had been subjected to her husband's "corporal punishment" and was denied grounds for divorce triggered a nationwide cry of outrage.
Judge Christa Datz-Winter of Frankfurt's family court even quoted the Koran -- Sura 4, verse 34 -- when she wrote in her decision the Muslim Holy Book contains "both the husband's right to use corporal punishment against a disobedient wife and the establishment of the husband's superiority over the wife."
Der Spiegel, Germany's foremost news magazine, commented, "In one fell swoop, Germany's Muslims took a substantial bite out of the legal foundations of Western civilization." Yet some liberal judges see Muslim subcultures as mitigating circumstances. "Polygamous marriages must be recognized if they are legal under the laws of the native country of the individuals in question," the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs instructed insurance agencies in 2004. Thus, Muslim men were allowed to add additional wives to government health-insurance policies without paying an additional premium. This was later reversed.
Zero tolerance for intolerance has gone the way of the Dodo. Now, misguided tolerance has spawned liberal opinions that categorize Muslim honor killings as manslaughter, not murder. Some Islamic experts in German universities are already asking whether Sharia law, or Islamic law, is gradually infecting German law.
Muslims are now authorized to take their kids out of swimming lessons, and prayer breaks for Muslims have won out in industrial plants. A year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, a Muslim religious leader in Hesse issued what became known as the "camel fatwa." A Muslim woman could travel no more than 49 miles from the home of her husband or parents without being accompanied by a male blood relative. That was the distance a camel caravan could travel within 24 hours in the days of the Prophet Mohammad.
Conservatives see the multicultural illusions of recent decades as naïve. Islamists are not interested in cultural diversity.
The European cult of appeasement has given free rein to radical imams whose only goal is to Islamicize Christian Europe. The terrain is fertile. Only 20 percent of Europe's Christians attend church services on Sunday, but mosques are packed with worshippers on Fridays, where sermons are political paeans to the courageous jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact they are fighting American and NATO troops (including Germans) is left unmentioned. But Judge Klaus Feldmann of the Potsdam District Court outside Berlin ruled that ZDF public television had to delete reference on its Web site to the former imam of Berlin's Mevlana mosque as a "hate preacher."
Judge Datz-Winter was finally removed from the case. But gradual encroachment of fundamentalist Islam continues apace in Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Albania, Kosovo and elsewhere. Denmark, where a cartoonist whose work disparaged Prophet Mohammed set off demonstrations in Europe and even riots in the Middle East in September 2005, has taken what for Europe passes for a stern measure: Foreigners who marry Danish women will not be entitled to any welfare-state benefits until their fifth anniversary.
The Spreading Al Qaeda Movement by Douglas Farah
The recent attack in Algeria by Al Qaeda’s Committee in the Islamic Maghreb in Algeria, coupled with the re-emergence and spread of the Islamist presence in Somalia, clearly show two things:
1) That the macro strategy of the core al Qaeda of fomenting the creation of small, autonomous groups to carry out jihad is firmly taking root and
2) That Africa, from the Northern tier to the Horn, with a network to Southern Africa and tactical alliances in West Africa, have made that continent one of the most important battle grounds in the long war on Islamist terrorism.
Algeria is particularly important because of its proximity to Europe and the large presence of Algerian diasporas in many European countries, and the radicalization of many of these diaspora groups.
The ability of the Algerian group to inflict large-scale casualties, the possible role of the group in fomenting violence in neighboring Morocco, and its operational presence down to Mali all indicate some important growth and growing capacity.
It is interesting that in many of the areas where Al Qaeda’s Committee in the Islamic Maghreb is growing in Africa have seen the growth of the presence of Saudi-financed Saudi wahhabist mosques and madrassas.
It is part of a clear pattern that has emerged in Europe and Southeast Asia as well as the Arab peninsula: The radicalizing message of the wahhabist preachers accompanies the recruitment of combatants, suicide bombers and others into the violent jihadist movements.
This is true too in many of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated mosques in Europe, who often preach similar messages of hatred toward the West, as has been amply demonstrated in recent taped statements in Britain and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the only tool in the tool box that seems to be available in the eyes of policy makers in dealing with the developments in Africa, is the military.
Given that the new Africa Command will take some time to be operational, and the fact that U.S. forces are already stretched beyond any reasonable limit, this is already a tool that is of limited effectiveness.
What is more alarming is that there seems to be so little thinking about using the tools of intelligent public diplomacy, outreach, serious intelligence-gathering or any other tool, in the region.
The default position seems to be to view the problem of spreading Islamist terrorism as a military one and shovel the responsibility to a military that no longer has the resources to tackle the problem, laying aside whether it is the most appropriate instrument to begin with.
The result will be (and has been) abandoning the field of non-military combat entirely to the salafists. There is no significant effort to counter the radicalization in any way.
One of the results is that we will see more semi-autonomous groups spreading more havoc, following in the wake of radical Islamist preachers funded by Saudi Arabia. Not a pretty picture.
1) That the macro strategy of the core al Qaeda of fomenting the creation of small, autonomous groups to carry out jihad is firmly taking root and
2) That Africa, from the Northern tier to the Horn, with a network to Southern Africa and tactical alliances in West Africa, have made that continent one of the most important battle grounds in the long war on Islamist terrorism.
Algeria is particularly important because of its proximity to Europe and the large presence of Algerian diasporas in many European countries, and the radicalization of many of these diaspora groups.
The ability of the Algerian group to inflict large-scale casualties, the possible role of the group in fomenting violence in neighboring Morocco, and its operational presence down to Mali all indicate some important growth and growing capacity.
It is interesting that in many of the areas where Al Qaeda’s Committee in the Islamic Maghreb is growing in Africa have seen the growth of the presence of Saudi-financed Saudi wahhabist mosques and madrassas.
It is part of a clear pattern that has emerged in Europe and Southeast Asia as well as the Arab peninsula: The radicalizing message of the wahhabist preachers accompanies the recruitment of combatants, suicide bombers and others into the violent jihadist movements.
This is true too in many of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated mosques in Europe, who often preach similar messages of hatred toward the West, as has been amply demonstrated in recent taped statements in Britain and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the only tool in the tool box that seems to be available in the eyes of policy makers in dealing with the developments in Africa, is the military.
Given that the new Africa Command will take some time to be operational, and the fact that U.S. forces are already stretched beyond any reasonable limit, this is already a tool that is of limited effectiveness.
What is more alarming is that there seems to be so little thinking about using the tools of intelligent public diplomacy, outreach, serious intelligence-gathering or any other tool, in the region.
The default position seems to be to view the problem of spreading Islamist terrorism as a military one and shovel the responsibility to a military that no longer has the resources to tackle the problem, laying aside whether it is the most appropriate instrument to begin with.
The result will be (and has been) abandoning the field of non-military combat entirely to the salafists. There is no significant effort to counter the radicalization in any way.
One of the results is that we will see more semi-autonomous groups spreading more havoc, following in the wake of radical Islamist preachers funded by Saudi Arabia. Not a pretty picture.
We're on a 'fast track' to bad trade policy by Lou Dobbs
The powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel, and I sat down together last night to talk about, among other things, his new book, "And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since."
For 36 years, Rangel has served the constituents of Harlem -- what the new Ways and Means chairman calls "the capital of black America." The chairman's new book is a terrific read and tells the fascinating story of his rise from the impoverished streets of New York to the corridors of power on Capitol Hill.
You'll love the book and the story of Rangel's life. And I suspect you'll have the same thought I did when you finally set the book down: How many more Charlie Rangels will be denied their shot at the American dream because Capitol Hill's corridors are now filled with corporate America's lobbyists, who are working to assure that our middle class and those who aspire to it have as little representation as possible?
Chairman Rangel and other House and Senate leaders face an early test of the Democratic Party's commitment to restoring the vigor of the world's most successful political economy. The test will come in the form of the mind-numbingly dull piece of legislation called Trade Promotion Authority, or "fast track." But there is nothing dull about the impact of the legislation, through which Congress cedes its constitutional authority on trade policymaking to the White House (as cited in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).
Thirty-one years of consecutive trade deficits and the loss -- in just the last six years -- of millions of manufacturing and good-paying middle-class jobs to outsourcing have been the result of what I consider this unconstitutional ceding of power to the executive branch in the form of fast-track authority.
Last week, I testified to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade that our failed "free trade" of the past three decades has been the most expensive policy the U.S. government has ever pursued.
I also told the committee: "The pursuit of so-called free trade has resulted in the opening of the world's richest consumer market to foreign competitors without negotiating a reciprocal opening of world markets for U.S. goods and services. That isn't free trade by any definition, whether that of classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo or that of current propaganda ministers who use the almost Orwellian term to promote continuation of the trade policies followed for the last three decades." Extending fast-track authority assures that continuation.
I'm not alone in the view that free-trade-at-all-costs has harmed American workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan S. Blinder has joined Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson and Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as skeptics of the benefits the faith-based economists in this administration love to tout.
Blinder is now stating loudly that a new industrial revolution will put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next decade or two. Blinder has said, "Economists who insist that 'offshore outsourcing' is just a routine extension of international trade are overlooking how major a transformation it will likely bring -- and how significant the consequences could be. The governments and societies of the developed world must start preparing, and fast."
I hope that Chairman Rangel and the Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate will refuse to renew fast-track authority and demand their constitutional power over trade policymaking and begin representing working men and women in all future trade negotiations.
I'm sure Charlie Rangel would agree with me that every American deserves the right to better days, a promise that is the foundation of our country and the American dream.
For 36 years, Rangel has served the constituents of Harlem -- what the new Ways and Means chairman calls "the capital of black America." The chairman's new book is a terrific read and tells the fascinating story of his rise from the impoverished streets of New York to the corridors of power on Capitol Hill.
You'll love the book and the story of Rangel's life. And I suspect you'll have the same thought I did when you finally set the book down: How many more Charlie Rangels will be denied their shot at the American dream because Capitol Hill's corridors are now filled with corporate America's lobbyists, who are working to assure that our middle class and those who aspire to it have as little representation as possible?
Chairman Rangel and other House and Senate leaders face an early test of the Democratic Party's commitment to restoring the vigor of the world's most successful political economy. The test will come in the form of the mind-numbingly dull piece of legislation called Trade Promotion Authority, or "fast track." But there is nothing dull about the impact of the legislation, through which Congress cedes its constitutional authority on trade policymaking to the White House (as cited in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution).
Thirty-one years of consecutive trade deficits and the loss -- in just the last six years -- of millions of manufacturing and good-paying middle-class jobs to outsourcing have been the result of what I consider this unconstitutional ceding of power to the executive branch in the form of fast-track authority.
Last week, I testified to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade that our failed "free trade" of the past three decades has been the most expensive policy the U.S. government has ever pursued.
I also told the committee: "The pursuit of so-called free trade has resulted in the opening of the world's richest consumer market to foreign competitors without negotiating a reciprocal opening of world markets for U.S. goods and services. That isn't free trade by any definition, whether that of classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo or that of current propaganda ministers who use the almost Orwellian term to promote continuation of the trade policies followed for the last three decades." Extending fast-track authority assures that continuation.
I'm not alone in the view that free-trade-at-all-costs has harmed American workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan S. Blinder has joined Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson and Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as skeptics of the benefits the faith-based economists in this administration love to tout.
Blinder is now stating loudly that a new industrial revolution will put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next decade or two. Blinder has said, "Economists who insist that 'offshore outsourcing' is just a routine extension of international trade are overlooking how major a transformation it will likely bring -- and how significant the consequences could be. The governments and societies of the developed world must start preparing, and fast."
I hope that Chairman Rangel and the Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate will refuse to renew fast-track authority and demand their constitutional power over trade policymaking and begin representing working men and women in all future trade negotiations.
I'm sure Charlie Rangel would agree with me that every American deserves the right to better days, a promise that is the foundation of our country and the American dream.
Imus isn’t the Real Bad Guy by Jason Whitlock
Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.
I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.
But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.
I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.
You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.
You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.
Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.
The bigots win again.
While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.
I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.
It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.
It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.
I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.
But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.
I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.
In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Sallie Mae makes settlement in probe by Karen Matthews
The nation's largest student loan provider will stop offering perks to college employees as part of a settlement announced Wednesday in a widening probe of the student loan industry.
SLM Corp., commonly known as Sallie Mae, also agreed to pay $2 million into a fund to educate students and parents about the financial aid industry, and it will adopt a code of conduct created by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is heading the probe.
Cuomo said the expanding investigation of the $85 billion student loan industry has found numerous arrangements that benefited schools and lenders at the expense of students. Investigators say lenders have provided all-expense-paid trips to exotic locations for college financial aid officers who then directed students to the lenders.
"Our position is very simple," Cuomo said. "Loan decisions should be made in the best interest of the students, and not the best interest of the school."
Sallie Mae CEO Tim Fitzpatrick said in a statement Wednesday, "We are pleased that Attorney General Cuomo has recognized Sallie Mae's leadership in the student loan industry and our ethical market practices with students and schools."
The language closely resembled that of a statement from Citibank, which last week also agreed to a $2 million settlement with the Attorney General's office.
Investigators found that many colleges have established "preferred lender" lists and entered into revenue sharing and other financial arrangements with those lenders. Some colleges have "exclusive" preferred lender agreements with the companies.
"There is a spectrum of what we consider to be deceptive and illegal practices, from financial incentives that go back to the schools to financial incentives to financial aid officers, to perks to financial aid officers, to employees of lenders being stationed at schools," Cuomo said at his Manhattan office.
The newly established code of conduct prohibits revenue sharing between lenders and schools, mandates disclosure of relationships between colleges and lenders, sets restrictions on how lenders are chosen for school "preferred lender" lists, and bans gifts or trips to university employees from lenders.
Reston, Va.-based Sallie Mae, which has relationships with more than 5,600 schools, agreed to stop running call centers or providing additional staff for college financial aid offices. It will also stop paying financial aid officers who serve on advisory boards and will no longer fund trips for school officials.
So far, six schools — the University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Syracuse University, Fordham University, Long Island University and St. John's University — have agreed to reimburse students a total of $3.27 million for inflated loan prices caused by revenue sharing agreements, Cuomo said.
Those schools, along with all 29 four-year State University of New York campuses and St. Lawrence University, also agreed to abide by the code of conduct.
Within the past week, six financial aid officers at various schools and a federal Department of Education official were placed on leave after Cuomo's office said they received stock, consulting fees or other compensation from Student Loan Xpress. The company was acquired by CIT Group Inc. in 2005 when it bought Education Lending Group Inc.
On Monday, CIT suspended the top three executives at Student Loan Xpress amid its own investigation into the unit's business practices.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said Wednesday he has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to open an investigation into the student loan scandal.
Kennedy, who chairs the Senate education committee, asked the SEC to look into the transfer of stock from the current president of Student Loan Express, Fabrizio Balestri, to loan officers at three schools and the official at the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter sent to the SEC on Tuesday night, Kennedy said his own investigation revealed that Balestri apparently acquired the stock through a private placement of stock at a discount and then sold it to the others at a discount. The sale of private placement stock could be considered a securities violation, depending on when the sale took place.
An SEC spokesman declined to comment.
A spokesman for CIT Group did not return requests for comment on Kennedy's letter.
Luke Swarthout, of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said the settlement with Sallie Mae, while helping to shed light on problems in the student loan industry, was a "Band-Aid" approach to bringing more consumer choice and better rates to students.
"We really feel addressing the broader problems in the industry will require federal congressional action," he said.
SLM Corp., commonly known as Sallie Mae, also agreed to pay $2 million into a fund to educate students and parents about the financial aid industry, and it will adopt a code of conduct created by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is heading the probe.
Cuomo said the expanding investigation of the $85 billion student loan industry has found numerous arrangements that benefited schools and lenders at the expense of students. Investigators say lenders have provided all-expense-paid trips to exotic locations for college financial aid officers who then directed students to the lenders.
"Our position is very simple," Cuomo said. "Loan decisions should be made in the best interest of the students, and not the best interest of the school."
Sallie Mae CEO Tim Fitzpatrick said in a statement Wednesday, "We are pleased that Attorney General Cuomo has recognized Sallie Mae's leadership in the student loan industry and our ethical market practices with students and schools."
The language closely resembled that of a statement from Citibank, which last week also agreed to a $2 million settlement with the Attorney General's office.
Investigators found that many colleges have established "preferred lender" lists and entered into revenue sharing and other financial arrangements with those lenders. Some colleges have "exclusive" preferred lender agreements with the companies.
"There is a spectrum of what we consider to be deceptive and illegal practices, from financial incentives that go back to the schools to financial incentives to financial aid officers, to perks to financial aid officers, to employees of lenders being stationed at schools," Cuomo said at his Manhattan office.
The newly established code of conduct prohibits revenue sharing between lenders and schools, mandates disclosure of relationships between colleges and lenders, sets restrictions on how lenders are chosen for school "preferred lender" lists, and bans gifts or trips to university employees from lenders.
Reston, Va.-based Sallie Mae, which has relationships with more than 5,600 schools, agreed to stop running call centers or providing additional staff for college financial aid offices. It will also stop paying financial aid officers who serve on advisory boards and will no longer fund trips for school officials.
So far, six schools — the University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Syracuse University, Fordham University, Long Island University and St. John's University — have agreed to reimburse students a total of $3.27 million for inflated loan prices caused by revenue sharing agreements, Cuomo said.
Those schools, along with all 29 four-year State University of New York campuses and St. Lawrence University, also agreed to abide by the code of conduct.
Within the past week, six financial aid officers at various schools and a federal Department of Education official were placed on leave after Cuomo's office said they received stock, consulting fees or other compensation from Student Loan Xpress. The company was acquired by CIT Group Inc. in 2005 when it bought Education Lending Group Inc.
On Monday, CIT suspended the top three executives at Student Loan Xpress amid its own investigation into the unit's business practices.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said Wednesday he has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to open an investigation into the student loan scandal.
Kennedy, who chairs the Senate education committee, asked the SEC to look into the transfer of stock from the current president of Student Loan Express, Fabrizio Balestri, to loan officers at three schools and the official at the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter sent to the SEC on Tuesday night, Kennedy said his own investigation revealed that Balestri apparently acquired the stock through a private placement of stock at a discount and then sold it to the others at a discount. The sale of private placement stock could be considered a securities violation, depending on when the sale took place.
An SEC spokesman declined to comment.
A spokesman for CIT Group did not return requests for comment on Kennedy's letter.
Luke Swarthout, of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said the settlement with Sallie Mae, while helping to shed light on problems in the student loan industry, was a "Band-Aid" approach to bringing more consumer choice and better rates to students.
"We really feel addressing the broader problems in the industry will require federal congressional action," he said.
In bed with Islamists by Paul Belien
For almost four decades, Muslims have been the fastest-growing segment of the population in Western Europe. As a consequence, the Muslim vote is becoming ever more important. This first became apparent in the September 2002 general elections in Germany, when Socialist candidate Gerhard Schroeder beat Conservative opponent Edmund Stoiber with the slightest of margins -- barely 8,864 votes. Germany is home to almost 700,000 Turkish-German voters -- in addition to nearly 3 million non- (or rather not-yet-) voting Turkish immigrants. The Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Schroeder.
They did so again in 2005, though then the native, or "German-German," vote went to the right to such an extent that it resulted in a narrow victory for Christian-Democrat candidate Angela Merkel. As time goes by, however, it will become ever more difficult to counter the Muslim voting bloc.
Last year the Muslim vote tipped the balance toward the left in the local elections in both the Netherlands and Belgium. The Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam found that 84 percent of the Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands voted for the left, as did 90 percent of the Moroccans. In Antwerp, Belgium's largest port, the anti-Islamist Vlaams Belang party won 33.5 percent in October's local elections. Sociologist Jan Hertogen calculated that without the immigrant vote the VB would have polled 40.4 percent and would have beaten the Socialists.
Most of the immigrants who came to Europe during the past decades were attracted by the generous welfare benefits that Western Europe lavishly bestows on the "underprivileged." Today, as more and more young Muslims reach voting age, European parties have begun to cater to Islamist causes. Left-wing politicians in Europe introduce separate swimming hours for women in public pools, impose halal food on cafeterias and demand that schools banish the Holocaust from history lessons.
Pundits who predict that Western Europe is about to witness a shift to the anti-immigrant right are mistaken. This trend will be over by the end of the decade, when the impact of the immigrant vote will move European politics dramatically to the left. The right's chances of winning elections are dwindling. The anti-immigrant right realizes this. As Filip Dewinter, the Antwerp VB leader, said after last year's elections: "I am a realist. The number of potential voters for our party is declining year by year... In the past ten years the number of new Belgians in Antwerp -- half of whom are Moroccans -- has doubled. ... If the number of foreigners in Antwerp continues to grow by 1.5 percent a year, as it currently does, then in 20 years from now there will be more people of foreign than of indigenous extraction in this city."
The Muslim vote is also bound to have a major impact on the upcoming French presidential elections on April 22. More than 10 percent of the French electorate is Muslim. Since Muslims are the youngest part of the population, representing almost a quarter of those under 20 years of age, their political importance will only grow. In some French cities already half the inhabitants are Muslims. This makes it all but impossible for the right to win in urban constituencies -- unless virtually all the indigenous "French-French" cast a right-wing vote.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the ruling center-right UMP party, seems convinced that many indigenous French might, indeed, do this. Hence, he is speaking out loudly against an Islamist takeover of French urban neighborhoods, such as the Parisian suburbs. If Mr. Sarkozy's strategy proves to be the right one, it shows that many French have come to realize that these elections offer the last chance to preserve something of the old France.
Some politicians on the European far-right, however, seem convinced that the Islamization of Western Europe has become inevitable. Like the parties of the left, they hope to counter electoral decline by striking a deal with the Islamists. This explains why last week Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Front in France, emphasized that, unlike Mr. Sarkozy, he does not want to "clean the suburbs out with a high pressure hose." Mr. Le Pen told the Muslim youths in the suburbs: "You are the branches of the French tree. You are as French as can be."
We are on the eve of a crackup of the so-called European far right between pro-Islamists and anti-Islamists. This rift was one of the reasons why the Austrian Freedom Party fell apart. Within the French NF, too, traditionalist Catholics feel less and less at ease with the pro-Arab policies of those who consider America to be a greater threat to Europe than North Africa and who prefer Hamas over Israel. One might argue that anti-Semitism is at play here. But it might also be just the same political opportunism that has affected the left.
They did so again in 2005, though then the native, or "German-German," vote went to the right to such an extent that it resulted in a narrow victory for Christian-Democrat candidate Angela Merkel. As time goes by, however, it will become ever more difficult to counter the Muslim voting bloc.
Last year the Muslim vote tipped the balance toward the left in the local elections in both the Netherlands and Belgium. The Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam found that 84 percent of the Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands voted for the left, as did 90 percent of the Moroccans. In Antwerp, Belgium's largest port, the anti-Islamist Vlaams Belang party won 33.5 percent in October's local elections. Sociologist Jan Hertogen calculated that without the immigrant vote the VB would have polled 40.4 percent and would have beaten the Socialists.
Most of the immigrants who came to Europe during the past decades were attracted by the generous welfare benefits that Western Europe lavishly bestows on the "underprivileged." Today, as more and more young Muslims reach voting age, European parties have begun to cater to Islamist causes. Left-wing politicians in Europe introduce separate swimming hours for women in public pools, impose halal food on cafeterias and demand that schools banish the Holocaust from history lessons.
Pundits who predict that Western Europe is about to witness a shift to the anti-immigrant right are mistaken. This trend will be over by the end of the decade, when the impact of the immigrant vote will move European politics dramatically to the left. The right's chances of winning elections are dwindling. The anti-immigrant right realizes this. As Filip Dewinter, the Antwerp VB leader, said after last year's elections: "I am a realist. The number of potential voters for our party is declining year by year... In the past ten years the number of new Belgians in Antwerp -- half of whom are Moroccans -- has doubled. ... If the number of foreigners in Antwerp continues to grow by 1.5 percent a year, as it currently does, then in 20 years from now there will be more people of foreign than of indigenous extraction in this city."
The Muslim vote is also bound to have a major impact on the upcoming French presidential elections on April 22. More than 10 percent of the French electorate is Muslim. Since Muslims are the youngest part of the population, representing almost a quarter of those under 20 years of age, their political importance will only grow. In some French cities already half the inhabitants are Muslims. This makes it all but impossible for the right to win in urban constituencies -- unless virtually all the indigenous "French-French" cast a right-wing vote.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the ruling center-right UMP party, seems convinced that many indigenous French might, indeed, do this. Hence, he is speaking out loudly against an Islamist takeover of French urban neighborhoods, such as the Parisian suburbs. If Mr. Sarkozy's strategy proves to be the right one, it shows that many French have come to realize that these elections offer the last chance to preserve something of the old France.
Some politicians on the European far-right, however, seem convinced that the Islamization of Western Europe has become inevitable. Like the parties of the left, they hope to counter electoral decline by striking a deal with the Islamists. This explains why last week Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the anti-immigrant National Front in France, emphasized that, unlike Mr. Sarkozy, he does not want to "clean the suburbs out with a high pressure hose." Mr. Le Pen told the Muslim youths in the suburbs: "You are the branches of the French tree. You are as French as can be."
We are on the eve of a crackup of the so-called European far right between pro-Islamists and anti-Islamists. This rift was one of the reasons why the Austrian Freedom Party fell apart. Within the French NF, too, traditionalist Catholics feel less and less at ease with the pro-Arab policies of those who consider America to be a greater threat to Europe than North Africa and who prefer Hamas over Israel. One might argue that anti-Semitism is at play here. But it might also be just the same political opportunism that has affected the left.
Mike Nifong, Meet Alberto by Dahlia Lithwick
Today represents one of those serendipitous moments in which two scandals merge. Where the denouement of one national outrage—the Duke rape fiasco—reveals something incredibly important about another one—the U.S. attorney purge. Both cases highlight the stunning power of prosecutors and the need for those prosecutors to be as independent and honest as possible.
If this afternoon's statement by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper—announcing that all charges had been dropped against the three former lacrosse players—clarified anything, it was that the catalyst for all of the harm in the Duke case was Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, whose "tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations" has ruined lives, probably irreparably. Cooper didn't mince words today. "Rogue prosecutor" can't really be parsed in a gentle way.
That's a thought worth holding onto as we reflect on the U.S. attorney purge that's taken over the front pages of our newspapers.
It's easy to be distracted, even slightly amused, by the banal office shenanigans that make up the day-to-day coverage of the scandal. Increasingly, the Justice Department is revealed in all its wacky Dunder Mifflin glory. Alberto Gonzales is unmasked as The Office's Michael Scott—in so far over his head that he has no idea what his youthful employees are up to. With our daily focus on who was e-mailing whom and who was spending what on their fancy investitures, it's tempting to dismiss senior Justice Department staff ranking U.S. attorneys for their "loyalty" to the president as sophomoric. The Duke case is a useful reminder that the little plastic game cards being shuffled around and swapped by Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were, in fact, loaded weapons.
Federal prosecutors, like state district attorneys, have tremendous power and almost limitless discretion to launch investigations, to subpoena, to file charges, to question witnesses, and to drop charges when the facts don't bear them out. And if the Duke case reminds us of anything, it's that the innocent targets of such investigations and indictments have only one power: to wait it all out and hope for the best.
When politics are injected into these individual prosecutions—when officials have one eye on the law and the other on mollifying either the party bosses or local voters—it's a certainty that justice will be lost in the shuffle. Look at the list of Mike Nifong's prosecutorial errors, as cataloged today by Cooper: "The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable"; "no DNA confirms the accuser's story"; "no other witness confirms her story"; the witness even "contradicts herself." Yet still Nifong drove forward with his case.
In Durham, the politics that drove Mike Nifong were complicated: Race and class and his need to pander to voters in an election year may have motivated him, in the words of Attorney General Cooper, to "push forward unchecked." But if these subtle pressures can twist a district attorney in Durham, imagine the damage to justice when a U.S. attorney is pressed by the White House, or his congressman, to haul in more death penalties, at whatever cost, or to hand down an indictment by November.
Senate Democrats have begun to scrutinize the prosecutions undertaken by some of the U.S. attorneys who kept their jobs last year, beginning with the case of a Wisconsin state worker who got an 18-month jail sentence for a corruption case. When a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dramatically overturned Georgia Thompson's conviction after oral argument last week and ordered her released immediately from prison, one of the judges opined that the prosecution's evidence against her was "beyond thin."
On the basis of that thin evidence, however, Thompson served four months in prison, lost her job, and sold her home in order to pay more than $250,000 in legal bills.
Both the Duke case and the U.S. attorney purge confirm that there is no such thing as law without politics or politics without law. But both stories ought to remind us that "prosecutorial independence" isn't just some meaningless ethical jargon or a gauzy law-school ideal. Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson gave a speech in 1940 in which he warned that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations." Jackson added that "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes. ..."
We've heard those words a lot these past weeks, but it took Mike Nifong to make them real.
If this afternoon's statement by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper—announcing that all charges had been dropped against the three former lacrosse players—clarified anything, it was that the catalyst for all of the harm in the Duke case was Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, whose "tragic rush to accuse and failure to verify serious allegations" has ruined lives, probably irreparably. Cooper didn't mince words today. "Rogue prosecutor" can't really be parsed in a gentle way.
That's a thought worth holding onto as we reflect on the U.S. attorney purge that's taken over the front pages of our newspapers.
It's easy to be distracted, even slightly amused, by the banal office shenanigans that make up the day-to-day coverage of the scandal. Increasingly, the Justice Department is revealed in all its wacky Dunder Mifflin glory. Alberto Gonzales is unmasked as The Office's Michael Scott—in so far over his head that he has no idea what his youthful employees are up to. With our daily focus on who was e-mailing whom and who was spending what on their fancy investitures, it's tempting to dismiss senior Justice Department staff ranking U.S. attorneys for their "loyalty" to the president as sophomoric. The Duke case is a useful reminder that the little plastic game cards being shuffled around and swapped by Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling were, in fact, loaded weapons.
Federal prosecutors, like state district attorneys, have tremendous power and almost limitless discretion to launch investigations, to subpoena, to file charges, to question witnesses, and to drop charges when the facts don't bear them out. And if the Duke case reminds us of anything, it's that the innocent targets of such investigations and indictments have only one power: to wait it all out and hope for the best.
When politics are injected into these individual prosecutions—when officials have one eye on the law and the other on mollifying either the party bosses or local voters—it's a certainty that justice will be lost in the shuffle. Look at the list of Mike Nifong's prosecutorial errors, as cataloged today by Cooper: "The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable"; "no DNA confirms the accuser's story"; "no other witness confirms her story"; the witness even "contradicts herself." Yet still Nifong drove forward with his case.
In Durham, the politics that drove Mike Nifong were complicated: Race and class and his need to pander to voters in an election year may have motivated him, in the words of Attorney General Cooper, to "push forward unchecked." But if these subtle pressures can twist a district attorney in Durham, imagine the damage to justice when a U.S. attorney is pressed by the White House, or his congressman, to haul in more death penalties, at whatever cost, or to hand down an indictment by November.
Senate Democrats have begun to scrutinize the prosecutions undertaken by some of the U.S. attorneys who kept their jobs last year, beginning with the case of a Wisconsin state worker who got an 18-month jail sentence for a corruption case. When a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dramatically overturned Georgia Thompson's conviction after oral argument last week and ordered her released immediately from prison, one of the judges opined that the prosecution's evidence against her was "beyond thin."
On the basis of that thin evidence, however, Thompson served four months in prison, lost her job, and sold her home in order to pay more than $250,000 in legal bills.
Both the Duke case and the U.S. attorney purge confirm that there is no such thing as law without politics or politics without law. But both stories ought to remind us that "prosecutorial independence" isn't just some meaningless ethical jargon or a gauzy law-school ideal. Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson gave a speech in 1940 in which he warned that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations." Jackson added that "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes. ..."
We've heard those words a lot these past weeks, but it took Mike Nifong to make them real.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Easter Observed in Iraq by Evan Belanger
As fighting continues this week in Iraq, a group of about 200 soldiers celebrated Easter today under the religious guidance of a Cullman County native.
U.S. Army Capt. Bruce Wagner, a 1980 graduate of West Point High School, has been serving as a military chaplain in Iraq for about six months. He leads a small congregation of Southern Baptist soldiers.
The group meets in a former garage built before the war. The building, which has two-foot-thick walls, affording protection from incoming enemy fire, is now known as Warrior Chapel.
“It’s not an overwhelming presence,” Wagner said. “But those who are religious and do want to practice their faith have the ability here.”
Wagner’s congregation meets regularly for religious services, which include prayer, praise and song. They met earlier this week to celebrate Good Friday and held a sunrise Easter service today.
Wagner said there are also chaplains stationed in Iraq for soldiers who are Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, other Protestant religions, Buddhist and Wiccan.
“The Army is definitely trying to diversify and meet the spiritual needs of as many soldiers as possible,” he said.
While Wagner says the morale of most of the troops he deals with is “very, very high,” he also admits the trials of war have a profound effect on the young soldiers he deals with and impact the religious services he presents.
In a long-distance phone interview Thursday, he told The Times he often looks out over his congregation, knowing it could be the last time he sees some of them.
“At home, we don’t have to recognize, as much, the potential for loss of life and being ready to meet your creator God,” he said. “As I prepare for a sermon, it needs to be meaningful. It can’t be trite, and it needs to apply to their lives.
“We’re all away from our families, and we pull support from each other when we’re here.”
In addition to helping soldiers face the potential of their own deaths, Wagner said he also counsels those who have seen others die or perhaps taken lives themselves.
He describes killing another human being as one of the most unnatural acts that can be committed, but says it is part of his job to help them understand that they can be soldiers and Christians.
“I guess taking lives is probably one of the most difficult things a soldier does, and I don’t think they ever become so hardened to it that it becomes easy,” he said. “Soldier are very effected by every life they take.”
The grandson of a preacher and the son of an Air Force veteran, Wagner has grown up with values from both backgrounds deeply instilled in him.
“I listen to [the soldiers], and I feel that it’s my job to help them understand that what we’re doing here is ultimately protecting our country,” he said. “I know to a lot of people outside of here, it may not seem like that, but we go where our government tells us to go.”
A life-long military man, Wagner joined the Air Force when he was 19. He is currently serving a second tour in Iraq, having been deployed with the National Guard in Birmingham early in the conflict.
He said he hopes to finish his current tour sometime this year, but will stay longer if the mission requires.
“The Bible says, ‘No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his brother,’” he said. “If nothing else, we spend a year away from our families, and give that year to the American people.”
Currently, Wagner’s home is in Killeen, Tex., near Fort Hood. He is married to the former Denise Harbison, also a graduate of West Point High School. They have three children together.
At 45-years-old, Wagner says he plans to retire in the Bethel community in Cullman County.
U.S. Army Capt. Bruce Wagner, a 1980 graduate of West Point High School, has been serving as a military chaplain in Iraq for about six months. He leads a small congregation of Southern Baptist soldiers.
The group meets in a former garage built before the war. The building, which has two-foot-thick walls, affording protection from incoming enemy fire, is now known as Warrior Chapel.
“It’s not an overwhelming presence,” Wagner said. “But those who are religious and do want to practice their faith have the ability here.”
Wagner’s congregation meets regularly for religious services, which include prayer, praise and song. They met earlier this week to celebrate Good Friday and held a sunrise Easter service today.
Wagner said there are also chaplains stationed in Iraq for soldiers who are Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, other Protestant religions, Buddhist and Wiccan.
“The Army is definitely trying to diversify and meet the spiritual needs of as many soldiers as possible,” he said.
While Wagner says the morale of most of the troops he deals with is “very, very high,” he also admits the trials of war have a profound effect on the young soldiers he deals with and impact the religious services he presents.
In a long-distance phone interview Thursday, he told The Times he often looks out over his congregation, knowing it could be the last time he sees some of them.
“At home, we don’t have to recognize, as much, the potential for loss of life and being ready to meet your creator God,” he said. “As I prepare for a sermon, it needs to be meaningful. It can’t be trite, and it needs to apply to their lives.
“We’re all away from our families, and we pull support from each other when we’re here.”
In addition to helping soldiers face the potential of their own deaths, Wagner said he also counsels those who have seen others die or perhaps taken lives themselves.
He describes killing another human being as one of the most unnatural acts that can be committed, but says it is part of his job to help them understand that they can be soldiers and Christians.
“I guess taking lives is probably one of the most difficult things a soldier does, and I don’t think they ever become so hardened to it that it becomes easy,” he said. “Soldier are very effected by every life they take.”
The grandson of a preacher and the son of an Air Force veteran, Wagner has grown up with values from both backgrounds deeply instilled in him.
“I listen to [the soldiers], and I feel that it’s my job to help them understand that what we’re doing here is ultimately protecting our country,” he said. “I know to a lot of people outside of here, it may not seem like that, but we go where our government tells us to go.”
A life-long military man, Wagner joined the Air Force when he was 19. He is currently serving a second tour in Iraq, having been deployed with the National Guard in Birmingham early in the conflict.
He said he hopes to finish his current tour sometime this year, but will stay longer if the mission requires.
“The Bible says, ‘No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for his brother,’” he said. “If nothing else, we spend a year away from our families, and give that year to the American people.”
Currently, Wagner’s home is in Killeen, Tex., near Fort Hood. He is married to the former Denise Harbison, also a graduate of West Point High School. They have three children together.
At 45-years-old, Wagner says he plans to retire in the Bethel community in Cullman County.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)