Staying Clean in a Dirty War

The heart sinks at the ongoing struggle of a President who exalts American decency trying to maintain it in fighting enemies imbued with the holiness of a cause that sanctions any and all abuses of human beings.

The inner conflict is crystallized in his decision today to resist court-ordered release of photographs showing alleged torture of Mideast detainees following a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Publication, he says, would be of no benefit to investigations being carried out and could put future inquiries at risk:"In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

Today's decision, a reversal of his previous stand, inspires ACLU condemnation: “The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government."

Those of us grateful for the contrast of Barack Obama with George W. Bush may be forgiven for not subscribing to this rhetoric. Transparency is an ideal to be ardently pursued, but it can't include exposing everything we've ever done in a dirty war to public view.

Isn't it enough that that Obama has definitively ordered an end to such behavior? Can't we express our sorrow at past wrongs without inflaming an Arab world that won't make fine distinctions between then and now? Just as we can't bring back the dead from a misbegotten war in Iraq, isn't the best way to honor them not to repeat the mistakes that took their lives?

There is a line between transparency and self-righteous breast-beating, and we're lucky to have a president who keeps trying to find it.

Troubling Questions About Spitzer Scandal

The New York Times, which failed to make a sex-scandal charge against John McCain stick, has settled for the scalp of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, exposing his involvement with high-priced prostitutes that will likely lead to his resignation.

Spitzer, whose career was built on bull-in-the-china-shop pursuit of corporate malfeasance as Attorney General of New York and whose term in Albany has made him less than lovable, will get little sympathy from politicians, the press and most of the public, but journalistically, there are some troubling questions.

"Mr. Spitzer’s involvement with the prostitution operation came to light in court papers filed last week," the Times reports today, citing unnamed "federal authorities" and "officials," although Spitzer was not named in the affidavit by Assistant US Attorneys.

The case started with IRS investigation of "suspicious transactions" about possible bribery, but it soon became clear from wiretaps authorized by the US Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales?) that Spitzer's financial gyrations involved sex rather than official corruption.

The prostitution ring is now being prosecuted, but Spitzer's legal exposure seems limited to possible charges of "a crime called structuring" that involves concealing of payments and sources.

What, then, justifies the outing of Spitzer at this point by anonymous federal officials and the Times of activity that so far has not been deemed illegal and does not involve his duties as Governor?

Spitzer's leaving office in this situation would be in sharp contrast to two Senators who remain in their positions, Louisiana's David Vitter, who admitted patronizing prostitutes last year, and Larry Craig, who pled guilty to soliciting men's room sex but was defended by the ACLU on the basis that it was private behavior.

John McCain is likable and Eliot Spitzer is far from lovable, but does that difference justify his destruction by front-page exposure of personal misbehavior?

Mile-High Club Comes Down to Earth

If the ACLU has its way, the thrill of the forbidden will disappear from air travel. In a brief today supporting Sen. Larry Craig, the freedom-loving organization argues that people who have sex in public rest rooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Should the Idaho Senator prevail in an effort to withdraw his guilty plea of disorderly conduct during a men's room sting at the Minneapolis airport, the Mile-High Club will have to disband. What would be the point of in-flight lavatory liaisons if they were completely legal, even before takeoff?

In its brief, the ACLU asserts, "The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom."

The defenders of Larry Craig may end up expanding civil liberties but striking a blow at one of the few well-established ways of relieving the tedium of long flights.

The Larry Craig Saga Goes On

American weirdness is alive and well.

The embattled senator from Idaho was back in Washington yesterday casting votes and having lunch with his colleagues as the ACLU came to his defense and his bathroom stall in the Minneapolis/St. Paul air terminal became a mecca for tourists.

Craig’s appearance may be a last hurrah before leaving the Senate, but he is still trying to withdraw his Minneapolis guilty plea and is getting legal support from an unlikely source.

"To be able to solicit sex in private, in public spaces, for instance, is constitutionally protected speech," according to Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU.

No word on whether there are plans for a bronze plaque commemorating the First Amendment for the men's room stall. Stay tuned.

Is Bush Making Absolutists of Us All?

If truth is the first casualty of war, public reason may be the second. In the world this President has created, with the help of terrorists who want to take away our peace of mind, every issue has been infected by their good-or-evil view of the world.

In reporting the Senate debate on wiretapping authority last night, the New York Times cites a White House “victory” over a measure that would temporarily allow more latitude to eavesdrop on foreign communications by suspected terrorists.

The ACLU says “Democrats caved in to the politics of fear,” while the Republican sponsor crows “I can sleep a little safer tonight.”

All this hyperbole is prompted by what in a saner society would be a serious discussion about resolving the conflict between public safety and individual rights.

The vocal defenders of privacy are doing their cause, our cause, no service by reducing every complicated question to right or wrong, black or white, us or them. Bush, Cheney and their ilk may be deaf to arguments on these issues, but shouting louder won’t get through to them.

The questions will still be there after they are gone, and the voices of reason will be needed as much as ever.

By all means, let’s set severe limits on what this paranoid gang can do, but not get pushed into defending doing nothing. If politics no longer ends at the water’s edge, neither should good sense.