Editorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials

On the Net:

http://www.reporterherald.com

___

March 8

Chicago Tribune, on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

Some of the nation's highest military officers have a difference of opinion on a major issue of government policy.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come out in favor of repealing the Pentagon policy that bars open homosexuals from serving in the ranks, as proposed by President Barack Obama. The Army and Air Force chiefs, Gen. George Casey Jr. and Gen. Norton Schwartz, say they're not convinced now is the right time to lift the ban. Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Conway says "the current policy works."

In some places, people kill each other over political disagreements. But these officers would have no trouble fighting alongside each other in spite of their varying opinions. Soldiers, airmen and seamen are good at overcoming their differences to carry out a mission.

Could the American military survive the presence of gays and lesbians in its ranks? As a matter of fact, it already has. Since 1993, when Congress passed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly homosexual personnel, some 14,000 have been kicked out. Nearly 4,000 voluntarily depart each year.

Gays have always been there and always will be. What difference would it make if they could be open about their identity? Probably not much. ...

Decades ago, many people in the U.S. military didn't welcome integrating blacks or women into their ranks. Today, it's hard for young people to wonder why all the fuss.

Someday, long after "don't ask, don't tell" is history, posterity will wonder the same thing.

On the Net:

http://www.chicagotribune.com

___

March 7

The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, N.Y., on children in air traffic control towers.

The idiom that children should be seen and not heard is probably nowhere more appropriate than in an air traffic control tower. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case at John F. Kennedy Airport in February.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating a report that a controller twice brought a child to work at the JFK control tower and allowed the child to radio instructions to pilots.

Audio recordings from mid-February — during the winter break for many New York schoolchildren — were posted last month on a Web site. In them, a child can be heard making five transmissions to pilots preparing for takeoff. The child seems to be under an adult's supervision, because a male voice comes on after one exchange and says with a laugh, "That's what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school."

There's nothing cute about this. Air traffic controllers have one of the most difficult, if not stressful, jobs going — much less at JFK, one of the nation's busiest airports. Thousands of lives depend on them. It's no place for child's play.

The union representing controllers condemned the behavior, and the FAA has suspended the controller and his supervisor pending the investigation.

If found guilty, it should be over and out for these jokers.

On the Web:

http://www.uticaod.com

___

March 10

The Boston Globe, on conservative attacks on lawyers defending terrorist suspects:

A recent attack ad put out by Keep America Safe, a conservative national security organization headed by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, twists the very values it purports to defend.

The ad demands that Attorney General Eric Holder release the names of Department of Justice attorneys who have represented or advocated in the past on behalf of Guantanamo detainees, referring to the attorneys as "the al-Qaida 7," and asking "Whose values do they share?" The implication is that they have terrorist sympathies.

In the American justice system, defendants have the right to representation. This is nonnegotiable — the nature of the crime has no bearing on this right. John Adams defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre. An attorney seeking to uphold this bedrock principle by defending an unpopular client is a reflection of our justice system's highest ideals — not, as Cheney's group maliciously suggests, a sign that we have traitors in our midst.

Several conservative lawyers, including former special prosecutor Ken Starr and former deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, have already signed a statement denouncing Keep America Safe's ad, and they should be applauded for doing so. They've realized something Cheney and her ilk haven't: The fundamental principles of the American justice system aren't left-wing or right-wing — they're American.

On the Net:

http://www.boston.com

___

March 8

Chattanooga (Tenn.) Free Press, on extending collective-bargaining rights to federal baggage screeners:

It was wrong for baggage screeners at our nation's airports to be made federal employees, and there is no reason for those screeners now to gain collective-bargaining rights.

Better security was the excuse for making screeners federal workers — at great taxpayer expense — after the 9/11 attacks. But it was never clear how taking virtually the same pool of workers and putting them on the U.S. payroll would improve their skills.

Sadly, multiple tests show the federalization of the workers did not boost security. Privately employed screeners outperformed federal screeners in 2005. And in tests in 2007, banned materials were three to four times more likely to get through federal screeners in Los Angeles and Chicago than through privately employed screeners in San Francisco. ...

But now, with our security protocols already apparently ineffective, the Obama administration is likely to extend collective-bargaining rights to 40,000 federal baggage screeners. That's a bad idea, because the Transportation Security Administration needs flexibility to hire and fire workers rapidly in response to employee qualifications and terrorist threats. Drawn-out labor disputes and hearings will make that flexibility impossible. And as public servants, government employees should not be unionized anyway.

But the administration wants to keep union campaign donors happy, and union leaders expect that once the president names a new Transportation Security Administration head, that person will give screeners collective-bargaining rights.

That unfortunately puts Big Labor politics ahead of national security.

On the Net:

http://www.timesfreepress.com

___

March 7

The Natchez (Miss.) Democrat, on Census participation:

Americans by their nature don't like other people poking around in their business.

That spirit of independence is in part what led to the founding of our great nation.

Few of us like people questioning us, especially if the question asker is the government.

President Ronald Reagan once joked that the 10 most dangerous words uttered were: "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

But once every 10 years the government has some important questions, and we all need to answer them.

This month, the U.S. Census Bureau will begin its constitutionally mandated count of the American population, the 2010 Census.

And invariably some of the government naysayers will refuse to participate. But that's a huge mistake that hurts our entire community.

Census data is used, in part, to help determine how billions of dollars of federal money is disbursed. And it's also the basis for determining which areas receive political representation. ...

We urge every single citizen to realize that this count is critical to our livelihood in the future.

Despite what you may think about the government, this one count is extremely important. It's also the law. Title 13 of the U.S. Code requires citizens to respond.

So please, do the right thing — and the legal thing — and participate in the Census.

On the Net:

http://www.natchezdemocrat.com

___

March 8

The Seattle Times, on states' gun rights:

State governments can and should enact gun regulations that increase the public's safety, but Americans do have an individual right to own them.

That last part is an unwelcome thought to some people. There has long been an argument that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," guaranteed by the Second Amendment, was meant to apply only to militias.

That was a specious argument, and in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court threw it out. Gun rights belong to individuals, like the others in the Bill of Rights.

In Heller, the Court didn't apply the Second Amendment to the states. Recently, the Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that asks it to do that. It should do so, while allowing states to have reasonable regulations.

It can be done. Washington state has had an individual gun right in its constitution since statehood in 1889.

In this state you can't have an armed gang, but you can arm yourself. Your gun rights are limited if you are under age, incapable, or are convicted of a crime. The law limits what sort of arms you can have, and it requires a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It forbids you from taking your gun into a prison, a mental institution or a school. And so on.

Always, there are lines to draw. Justice John Paul Stevens wondered aloud if Second Amendment rights might be limited to the home. Probably not.

We are reminded of Seattle's recent argument with the state about whether the city can ban guns in parks. One of the plaintiffs was a female parole officer, who presumably feared some of the people she'd dragged back to prison. Another was a gay man who feared being a victim of a hate crime.

The justices need to define federal gun rights in a way that gives them substance while allowing the states a strong power to protect public safety.

On the Net:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com

___

March 9

San Francisco Chronicle, on Iraq's elections:

It wasn't pretty, but it worked. Nearly two-thirds of Iraq's voters turned out despite bombings, religious feuds and fragmented politics.

For Americans, the vote has another message: There's no stopping a scheduled drawdown of U.S. troops this summer. President Barack Obama, committed to the phased withdrawal, said the vote "demonstrates that the Iraqi people have chosen to shape their future through the political process."

With both Shiite and Sunni factions taking part, the significance of the election can't be diminished. Iraq's security forces passed a major test, and the voting public signaled it wants nothing to do with terrorist groups despite mortar rounds and rockets aimed at government buildings.

But it may take months to craft a working majority within Iraq's young parliament. The slow pace of law making has delayed decisions over splitting oil revenues, sharing power within key ministries, and bridging the gulf between Baghdad and the northern Kurdish regions. The central government, tinged with corruption, remains the main employer. Iraq's civic institutions are anything but strong.

Despite Obama's proud words, his team must be anxious. As American troops depart, the infant democracy will be tested — and left on its own by the end of next year. The 90,000 American troops are due to drop by half later this year with full pullout at the end of 2010.

The downbeat, war-weary Oscar winner "The Hurt Locker" may be this country's vision of Iraq right now. Iraq's voters also want to turn the page. Now begins the hard work of fulfilling that wish.

On the Net:

http://www.sfgate.com

___

March 9

Financial Times, London, on U.S. and U.K. banking regulations:

Bank share prices have risen sharply from their nadir a year ago. But this is not a sign of underlying health; many of the world's largest banks remain in a sclerotic state. In the US and UK, parts of the credit market only function because of the continuing intervention of taxpayers. To remove this precipitately would run the risk of another panic. ...

Governments have not played their hands as well as they might have done. They missed a trick in not imposing new rules when the banks were down. The U.S. government was unwise to let banks extricate themselves from the Tarp (and its restrictions) before it had worked out what the new system should be. However, reform has not stalled altogether. And whatever form new regulations take, two elements are essential.

The first is haircuts on debt investors when losses overwhelm a bank's equity. It could be done by having some bank debt convert into equity in defined circumstances. If the amount were big enough — say 20 per cent of the balance sheet — this would restore market discipline. The resulting bigger equity cushion should also reduce the risk of failure.

The second is a resolution regime that would allow losses to fall where they should without bringing down the system. This would prevent creditors from sheltering behind vital functions, such as the payments system, in a crisis and thus pushing losses onto the taxpayer. The regulator must have the ability to firewall these sensitive activities and guarantee them — while allowing the rest to fail.

Though these innovations are necessary, it is not enough just to announce them. Investors need to believe that they will in fact be triggered if needed. The only credible finger on the trigger is that of the regulator. In the case of very large banks, the scale of the resultant dilution and losses in the event of a conversion or seizure would be daunting. This is why bank size remains a live issue.

On the Net:

http://www.ft.com

___

March 10

Arab News, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on U.S. commitment to Israeli security:

How can Arabs trust the U.S. when it blatantly supports Israeli positions? Even a U.S. president as smart as Barack Obama does not seem to get it. He has sent his Vice President Joe Biden on a Middle-East trip with the same old blinkered message for the Israelis, which immediately causes suspicion and anxiety in the Arab world.

A grinning Biden stood beside Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of their talks and promised that Washington was committed to the security of Israel and determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Biden, however, did not bother to say anything about the security of the Palestinian people.

Nor — and this is the elephant in the room of U.S. policy toward Iran's assumed nuclear ambitions — did he allude in the slightest to the fact that Israel is already an undeclared, unmonitored and unrepentant Middle East nuclear-armed power.

How can the Americans expect the Arab world to take seriously their protestations that they are intent on brokering a just and lasting Palestinian settlement, when their opening position is so distorted by such blatant partiality toward the Israeli position? ...

On the Net:

http://arabnews.com

___

March 9

The Japan Times, Tokyo, on the international cluster-bomb treaty:

Cluster munitions rank among the most ghastly weapons of war commonly found in arsenals around the world. Dropped from the air or launched from the ground, they explode in mid-air and release as many as 2,000 submunitions that carpet-bomb targeted areas. ...

An international treaty that includes prohibitions on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster bombs, the U.N. Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted by 107 nations, including Japan, on May 30, 2008, in Dublin. In December of that year it was signed by Japan and 93 other states. To take effect, however, the treaty had to be ratified by 30 countries. On Feb. 16, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced that milestone had been reached. The treaty will enter into force Aug. 1.

While this is a monumental achievement, much work remains to be done before the scourge of cluster bombs is eradicated. The treaty binds only those who have ratified it, and some of the world's biggest military powers — including China, Russia and the U.S. — have refused to sign it. Other lesser powers that rely heavily on cluster bombs, such as Israel, Pakistan and India, have also refused to get on board. All argue that cluster bombs have legitimate uses on the battlefield. Even Britain and Italy, which have signed the treaty, have yet to ratify it. ...

Japan should work closely with Germany, France and other countries that have ratified the treaty to persuade all the world's states — and its top military powers in particular — to sign and ratify it. Only after all nations forswear their use will the indiscriminate threat posed by cluster bombs be truly eliminated.

On the Net:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp

___

March 10

China Daily, Beijing, on China's foreign exchange policy:

The message from Yi Gang, head of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, is noteworthy in that China's foreign exchange policy mainly aims to facilitate trade, cross-border investments and economic exchanges as the country opens up more to other nations.

Both advocates for and opponents against revaluation of the Chinese currency should reconsider their stances in view of this important function of China's $2.4 trillion foreign reserves. Management of the world's largest sum of forex reserves is closely watched, especially amid the global recession.

Yi, a central bank vice-governor, reaffirmed that China will keep the exchange rate of the renminbi at a reasonable and balanced level. That remark may be not enough to disperse recent speculations on revaluation of the yuan.

On the one hand, the gradual recovery of the global economy has added to renewed momentum in Chinese exports. On the other hand, foreign direct investment is expected to increase steadily as China's economic growth gains steam.

Some people argue that China should re-value its currency to deal with greater pressures from the rising inflow of trade surplus and foreign investment funds. Others insist that an appreciation of the yuan will exert unbearable pressure on domestic industries struggling with climbing labor costs at home and declining demand abroad.

The emphasis that Yi put on the fundamental function of China's foreign exchange policy provides a key criterion to measure their appropriateness.

A relatively stable yuan has so far served as an anchor for both the Chinese economy and the global economy to survive the economic crisis. No adjustment in China's foreign exchange policy should override this critical role it plays.

On the Net:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn