Download Full Content
Nat Hentoff says when it come to Sudan, the UN and Africa have disgraced themselves.
The American draft of the resolution before the U.N. General Assembly could not have been any clearer or more vital, especially since an increasing number of governments and their murderous militias are using rape as a political weapon. As reported in The New York Times (Nov. 17), America intended to condemn “rape used by governments and armed groups to achieve political and military ends.”
But, as often happens at the spineless, rampantly disingenuous United Nations, the final resolution — after itself being savaged by many self-protecting revisions — stated that, in general, rape is not acceptable, but stripped out rape as an “instrument to achieve political objectives.” There was no mention left of government “soldiers and militia members.”
Instead, the United Nations weakly says that rape should not be used “in conflict and related situations.”
Who crippled the original American draft language? Not surprisingly, it was the 43-nation African Group Coalition. Said South African ambassador Dumisnai Kumalo, America had created two categories of rape and the African delegates wanted “to balance the text by making certain that there was no politicization of rape.”
Huh? …
Stuart Taylor is regarded highly here at Pickings. He has harshly criticized Bush’s policy regarding detainees. Seems like it ought to be here.
Lakhdar Boumediene was abducted almost six years ago from his home in Bosnia and flown to Guantanamo. He may be a bad guy. Or he may not be. We have no idea. The reason is President Bush’s continuing war on due process, which has blighted the lives of some unknown number of innocent men while doing vast damage to America’s standing in the world.
Boumediene’s petition for release, and those of 62 other Guantanamo detainees, will come before the Supreme Court on December 5. Based on the Court’s previous war-on-terrorism decisions and its unusual alacrity in agreeing on June 29 to hear these detainees’ appeals, Bush seems likely to get his fourth drubbing from the justices since 2004.
Bush deserves to lose. But even the wisest Court decision could barely begin to fix the mess that Bush has made of detention policy. And a judicial over-reaction — along the lines urged by left-leaning human-rights groups — could tie the hands of Bush’s successors. No would-be successor has suggested a sensible alternative policy. And most in Congress punt to the courts (or to Bush) the little-discussed, quintessentially legislative question of what our policy on detaining suspected foreign combatants should be.
So here’s my hope for a three-step quick fix: …
David Warren cruises the world looking for bullies like mobs in Sudan and diplomats from Saudi Arabia.
… My third example of bullying is a more subtle one. It is from the conference at Annapolis this week, and could be seen on television, by any perceptive person. Naturally, it was widely noticed in Israel, but not elsewhere. The royal Saudi delegates not only did not politely applaud, as is the genteel custom, after the Israeli delegate spoke. They had declined to put in their earphones, to hear the translation while that delegate spoke. From a party to actual peace negotiations, comes this rude gesture to announce that nothing a representative of Israel could say would be worth hearing.
After the conference, the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, whose national affiliation is compounded by the fact she is a woman, made an unprecedented public complaint. She said that none of the Arab foreign ministers would shake her hand; that she was treated as a pariah. Or as Frans Timmermans put it — a Dutch government minister who was in attendance — they “shun her like she is Count Dracula’s younger sister.”
The questions should ask themselves: Why do we treat Arab foreign ministers diplomatically, who are themselves incapable of diplomacy? Why do we confer dignities upon Saudi royalty who will confer no dignity upon our friends? …
NY Times editors agree about the Saudis. That’s right, a Times editorial here.
Pickings has recently praised Dianne Feinstein. Barbara Boxer, however, is a creep. John Fund has the story.
How much more partisan and petty can Washington get? California’s Sen. Barbara Boxer is refusing even to allow a hearing for a judicial nominee who has the backing of prominent Democrats, in part because she harbors a decade-old grudge about the Clinton impeachment. …
… Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to President Clinton, is disappointed in the Boxer rebellion against Mr. Rogan. “This is a man who would make a great judge,” he told the Washington Post, adding that if Ms. Boxer “got to know Jim Rogan since the impeachment days as I have, [she] would reconsider her opposition.”
Many California legal figures are shocked at Ms. Boxer’s sudden animus. In 2001, the Bush administration struck an agreement with Sen. Boxer and her California colleague, Dianne Feinstein, to create a panel to fill federal district court vacancies in the Golden State. Known as the Parsky Commission after Bush adviser Gerald Parsky, it is composed of members appointed separately by President Bush and both senators. Since 2001, its members have unanimously approved 27 candidates for judicial vacancies, all of whom have been later approved by Sens. Boxer and Feinstein. Indeed, Ms. Boxer recently praised the committee’s picks as “the best of the best.” At least one Democrat who has served on the committee told me of their profound disappointment that Ms. Boxer has now decided to second-guess its work: “This sends a bad message to good people who should be on the bench, since it shows the rug can be pulled out from under them at a very late stage.” …
The Captain says Clinton is going after Obama’s character. Say what?
Paul Greenberg writes for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Before that he was with the Pine Bluff Commercial. He has long experience with the Narcissist and thus is uniquely qualified to write about slick Willie.
… Bill Clinton tends to bet for and against any political proposition that involves taking a risk, then recall only the position that proved popular. That way, he can’t lose. Principle has nothing to do with it; he’s just betting across the board.
An escape hatch is almost standard equipment on any Clinton assertion. By now there’s even a term for it – the Clinton clause. It’s a kind of art form, really, and connoisseurs of the Clintonesque will be able to remember the exact moment they caught on to it. …
Tim Rutten, media critic of the LA Times has the harshest criticism of CNN’s debate performance.
… Selecting a president is, more than ever, a life and death business, and a news organization that consciously injects itself into the process, as CNN did by hosting Wednesday’s debate, incurs a special responsibility to conduct itself in a dispassionate and, most of all, disinterested fashion. When one considers CNN’s performance, however, the adjectives that leap to mind are corrupt and incompetent. …