Presidential Good Behavior
By Rich Davis, Contributor
Originally they could serve for life if they were good.
That is a standard we cannot do without today.
By Rich Davis, Contributor
WASHINGTON - The White House lawyers would have Americans believe President Clinton's actions don't conflict with his Constitutional duties. That is wrong for two reasons. Public opinion is generally uninformed on legalism, and the White House has its facts wrong.
It should also be added, that Mr. Clinton's conduct has also made him unfit as an commander-in-chief. Not just the perjury, and the obstruction of justice, but the adultery. Clinton, who is subordinate to the law, disobeyed direct orders - to tell the truth and to abstain from adultry. Insubordination, if you will, makes anyone unfit from service in a high office ... from citizen to the commander in chief.
It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, there were no presidential term limits. When people try to distinguish judges from presidents they need to remember judges serve for life (good behavior), but when the Constitution was created, a president was to be held to the same standard and could also serve for life.
The argument now is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a different meaning for judges than it does for presidents. Because a judge could serve for life, "perjury is a more serious" crime.
Since the original phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was written, presidents have been barred from serving more than two terms.
Presidents, judges and civil officers could all, potentially, serve for life. To safeguard from that happening, they were all subject to removal for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Same standard for all. A universal standard throughout that founding document. It was originally intended that both judges and presidents be held to the same high standard of exemplary conduct. That American ideal is now at risk. Where do we go from here?
Lost Values By M.L. King, Contributor
It can't be because we don't know enough, today. For the real cause
of man's problems we have to look a lot deeper than that.
By M.L. King, Contributor
DETROIT - There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.
We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.
And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind. That is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in chains, so that today it's possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1753 it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today you can go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.
I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.
[Editor's Note. From the Daily Republican archives. The text was taken from a speech given in Detroit at the Second Baptist Church by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on February 28, 1954.]
Strong Opening Statements By William Heartstone, Washington Correspondent
First day of Senate trial prepares nation for what's to come
By William Heartstone, Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Its the opening day of the worst day in president William Jefferson Clinton's presidency. It's Mr. Clinton's bookmark in the dust bin of history.
House managers, James Rogan (R) and Asa Hutchinson (R) presented the outline of the gruesome case against the president and stated an impressive argument for calling a number of key presidential aides, friends, confidants, and paramours, as witnesses.
"I feel I will never do anything as important," said Senator Barbara Mikulski(D), "Trying a president. It's all sunk in." However, in order to proceed to conviction and removal from office, the Senate will be required to muster two-thirds or 67 votes. It is also likely that the only way the Senate trial will ever see any witnesses is if two thirds of the Senate agree to call them into the trial.
Senator Bob Smith(R) on removing Mr. Clinton said, "I've heard a very, very respected senator stand up and say we don't have 67 votes ...I don't know if there are 67 votes. I hope I don't know."
Representative Henry Hyde(R) is the manager of the House prosecution team who painstakingly presented facts that showed the gravity of Mr. Clinton's denials as intentional perjury and obstruction of justice. Hyde said the denials of Mr. Clinton "... strained all boundaries of common sense."
Meanwhile, Representative James Sensenbrenner(R)depicted Mr. Clinton's conduct as a "What he did was criminal time and time again ... Failure to bring President Clinton to account ... will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations."
Hutchison said of Clinton "... At every turn he used whatever means available to him to evade the truth, destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, and any other action required to prevent evidence coming forth that would prove a truth contrary to the president's interests."
Senator Ted Stevens(R) said he would now call for testimony from Monica Lewinsky and oval office secretary Betty Currie. "Today may have changed my mind on calling witnesses. I definitely think I would have those witnesses explain how Currie came to retrieve presidential gifts from Lewinsky," he told reporters.
The procedural question of calling witnesses has been put off until after the opening statements have concluded. House prosecutors are expected to finish the opening statements by Friday. A short interruption in the trial will follow an announced break on Sunday and Monday to commemorate the Martin Luther King Day.
By mid week Mr. Clinton's attorneys will begin their 24 hour time limit for stating a rebuttal. Following this schedule, the Senate will be allotted about two more days in which to question the House managers or Mr. Clinton's attorneys as chief justice Rehnquist presides over the trial.
"We are here today because President William Jefferson Clinton decided to put himself above the law – not once, not twice, but repeatedly," Senator Sensenbrenner added, for the record.
Senate Trial in Peril By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
A full adversarial hearing is mandated.
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
WASHINGTON - Behind the scene bipartisan negotiations in the Senate are pushing toward a Constitutional disaster. A full presidential impeachment trial complete with witnesses cannot be negotiated away. It is required.
Bipartisan moves that would arrange for a dismissal vote prior to a decision on calling witnesses to the Senate is a "... grievously mistaken attempt to avoid a full exploration of the sordid details of presidential high crimes and misdemeanors," according to Constitutional scholar, Victor Williams, of the University of Tampa and a member of the bar of the District of Columbia.
Williams' position is well researched and there is a recent case supporting his opinion in this matter. The Constitution requires a full public trial with 100 impartial Senate jurors hearing from any and all witnesses the House managers need for their prosecution and any defense witness Bill Clinton wants to testify.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution dictates that the impeachment court, with the chief justice presiding, fully adjudicate the case."It is not to be a rubber stamp of a closed-door committee process," says Williams.
"For the first 197 years of the Republic's history, the entire Senate transformed itself into a court, receiving evidence and hearing witnesses during all impeachment trials," he added.
It was only in 1986 that the Senate began the practice of commissioning an "evidence committee" to shortcut the impeachment trials of the three federal jurists who were variously impeached for perjury, false statements and justice obstruction offenses. For each impeached judge receiving a Senate trial, only the members of the "evidence committee" heard the actual testimony and received all the evidence. The public was excluded from the process.
The "evidence committee" only provided evidentiary reports and full transcripts of their hearings to the Senate jurors who were not even present for the testimony. So, as it worked out, 88 out of 100 Senate jurors voted on the removals without having personally witnessed the dubious testimony of some witnesses or having confronted the conflicting evidence.
The full Senate then voted to convict each of the judges on trial for the impeachment charges brought in the House. Because of the obvious lack of fairness in that process, senator Howell Heflin(D}openly criticized the Senate's short-circuit judicial impeachment trial with, "It seems clear that the framers of the Constitution intended that the Senate conduct a full judicial trial."
The Senate's impeachment removal of Judge Alcee Hastings, was subsequently reversed. In 1992 Judge Stanley Sporkin, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled on appeal, the debenched Hasting's challenge to his removal without a full public trial in the Senate was unconstitutional. Judge Sporkin agreed with Hastings and set aside the Senate's impeachment conviction and ordered that the Senate impeachment court grant Hastings the full open and public trial guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That case appears to be the controlling precedent, Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C.).
The legal implications are heavy for the Clinton administration attorneys and for Mr. Clinton. Professor Williams said this week, "The use of any small cabal of senators to take evidentiary authority away from the constitutionally constituted presidential impeachment court should be suspect [and] confuses the legislative process of the Senate and the judicial role of the impeachment court [and] may also impinge on the explicit textual role of the presiding judge, William Rehnquist... Senators are constitutionally charged with "sitting" as a court for the purposes of rendering a 'judgment in cases of impeachment'... They cannot shortcut justice or redirect fact-finding to a legislative screening committee."
An inescapable Constitutional requirement of a full public trial of Mr. Clinton with many witnesses is all the more necessary because of Mr. Clinton's obsessing denials of the central elements of these crimes set forth in the impeachment articles' accusation.
Mr. Clinton continues to make repeated blanket statements that he did not perjure himself, that he did not encourage perjury by his White House secretary, that he that he did not suborn perjury of his administration's Cabinet secretaries, and that he did not mastermind a criminal conspiracy with various lawyers, officials and advisers to obstruct justice.
In furtherance of Mr. Clinton's full year of public denials, he continues to plead that he "...did not have sexual relations with that woman." The only constitutional means of providing for the resolution of the public dilemma posed by Mr. Clinton's antics is a deliberative trial with a complete slate of witnesses subject to cross-examination. This method is required for the resolution of such accusations and counter claims because of the trustworthiness in both the evidentiary standard for testimonial credibility and the constitutional standard for impeachment removal of a Constitutional officer of the government.
The American people need to concentrate on the reason for this procedure and the reason that Mr. Clinton cannot escape from it. President William Jefferson Clinton was not impeached by the House of Representatives in order to punish an illicit sex act nor even the lying under oath to cover it up. Mr Clinton has been impeached for the reason that an officer of government who lies under oath, then obstructs justice and suborns the perjury of others to cover it up, cannot be trusted to be a fiduciary servant of the people.
So, any government official who lies in a court proceeding or tampers with witnesses or obstructs justice is subject to impeachment removal because he has demonstrated himself untrustworthy to administer justice.
The greater the power of the official, the higher the requirement for trustworthiness and the lower the bar to removal. Mr. Clinton's attorneys have contended that nothing less than a presidential act resulting in "fundamental injuries to the governmental processes" is impeachable. It asserts that the congressional impeachment process may only examine "public acts, performed in the president's public capacity, and affecting the public interest." Public officials are "not to be impeached for private conduct, however wrongful."
Professor Williams depicts the Clinton defense as an, "... attempt to create out of whole cloth a different and more difficult and exacting impeachment standard for president Clinton's impeachment removal."
In keeping with that defense, Mr. Clinton should be formally invited to testify in his own defense and face full cross-examination, since he says he has nothing to hide. It would provide him with the public forum for his honorable acquittal.
However, for some reason, Mr. Clinton and his legal team reject the opportunity to make or break his defense in the Constitutional forum provided in such cases by the rule of law.
The Decline of American Education
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
Professor Roy Weaver of Ball State University
wants a more balanced form of teacher training.
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
WASHINGTON - The counter productive effects of educational fads, empty ideologies, and the never ending need to base public choice on reliable research has pushed American educators into full scale flight. American education from Kindergarten thru Community College is rapidly being transformed into an American third world mission. Can teacher education institutions in our prestigious universities come to terms with the new populism?
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in the past few days that some of the nation's community college English Department heads publicly acknowledged the difficulty experienced in teaching college students who have only an Eighth Grade education.
One first step for schools of education, would be to return to the research summary in "What Works:Research About Teaching and Learning" by William J. Bennett, former secretary of education, under president Ronald Reagan.
Bennet's research summary about teaching and learning should be required reading for all prospective public school teachers. It should be taken seriously, because what top educational researchers in scientific fields agreed on in 1986, forms a body of discrete knowledge and practices which are the indispensible foundation of a complete public educational foundation.
Instead of holding to 'What Works', educationalists in schools of education have adopted a radical 'constructivist' ideology at odds with 'mainstream' learning theory. Instead of reliance upon science, the field of education has over reached itself.
Research shows there are long lasting harms that children experience from faulty educational practices. Promotion of the most unreliable tests, such as, performance based assessments are humiliating examples of misguided educational practice.
Withholding challenging content from young children on the ground that young children are not developmentally ready for it, is another example of faulty thinking common in educational practice, today, and one that is far removed from what should be done to come to grips with the cognitive, affect, and psychomotor processes involved in learning to manipulate information to develop independent thinking in students who are learning to read, and reading to learn with a purpose.
The question now posed for American public schools is why are higher educational institutions helping to dig deeper trenches in the American landscape.
On March 23, 1998, Ball State University Dean of Education Roy Weaver, one of the top university educators in the nation, described a more balanced form of teacher training and listed global citizenship, multicultural education, effective use of technology and keeping a balance to students' education as his concerns.
In support of the knowledge based studies, he told reporters, "As we become a global economy, we need to make sure students and teachers are prepared to be a part of that".
Weaver noted that cognitive demands were going to be high for teachers coming out of the Ball State University School of Education. He said "...language requirements need to be evaluated and all students should know two to three languages by the time they graduate."
Technology will have a huge impact on how teachers teach and what students learn," he said, " by the time they graduate."
Professor Weaver is contributing author of a leading Case Method of Teaching strategy reviewed in the Handbook of College Teaching by Prichard and Sawyer. It is a reference that deals primarily with undergraduate teaching at two- and four-year institutions of higher education, emphasizing the practical application of theory within the domain of college classroom teaching.
University professors are becoming increasingly committed to effective teaching, and much has been done to improve instructional methods. Weaver's work provides solid theoretical information on educational psychology and presents practical information on general concerns likely to face college faculty in these times of declining academic prospects.
[Note: Howard Hobbs is the Editor & Publisher of the Daily Republican Newspaper Co. in Washington D.C. and the Pacific News Bureau in Guam. Hobbs is a Ford Fellow, and holds doctorates from the University of Southern California in economics education, and from Walden University in Minneapolis, in educational psychology.]
Motion to dismiss By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
Clinton defense team strategy to stall & delay trial.
By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON - While president Clinton's defense team ready a series of procedural motions, a motion to dismiss will attract most of the attention this week. Kudo's to the Daily Republican Newspaper for it's excellent coverage of this national crisis and the corrupt Clinton administration.
White House attorneys are preparing to rapidly prepare the ground work today for the opening phase of the Senate trial. They will file a flurry of routine motions to delay proceedings, none of which are expected to save the Clinton presidency.
A so-called 'bipartisan agreement' was reached on Friday as to witnesses. But that will not be openly discussed in the senate until later. The House prosecutors are already trimming down the number of witnesses. It is expected that the prosecution will present an Opening Statement which will outline the need for extensive witness testimony, however.
House Judiciary Committee chair, Henry Hyde(R) will introduce the prosecutions case to the full Senate this week, laying the case for limited testimony of key witnesses for the prosecution.
In the meantime, Mr. Clinton's lawyers are said to be testing Senate Democrats on the idea of a defense 'motion to dismiss' at the outset of case, before witnesses can testify. The Clinton motion strategy will most certainly fail.
It is not likely to discourage the prosecution to change its witness deposition strategy.
Both the defense and the prosecution will have a chance to privately question witnesses. White House lawyers, meeting last week with a bipartisan group of senators, warned they would be making use of extensive subpoena power on all witnesses called by the prosecution.
Making matters worse, as the trial proceeds, Mr. Clinton is insisting on continuing with his plans to deliver a "State of the Union" address to the assembled members of Congress in the middle of the Senate trial. The prosecution team is advising the president to postpone his speech.
Through it all, the Daily Republican Newspaper has been the only mainstream publication, of comparable readership and circulation, consistently calling the Clinton White House on the carpet for their highly dubious actions since 1992. That's the purpose and function of a free press, the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution.
DARK DAY AT WHITE HOUSE By Edward Anderson, Washington Correspondent
"You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore hereby summoned
to file with the Secretary of the Senate an answer to the said articles"
By Edward Anderson, Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Senate sergeant at arms, James Ziglar served a Summons To Appear on William Jefferson Clinton at 5:30 pm on Friday. It notified Mr. Clinton of his impeachment trial in the Senate on charges of committing the high crimes and misdemeanors of perjury and obstruction of justice.
However, the person who answered the door of the White House said the president was not in. Mr. Clinton was returning from a day trip to Detroit, White House spokesman Amy Weiss said.
Eventually, White House counsel Charles Ruff received service of the Summons in the White House staff secretary's office.
``You, the said William Jefferson Clinton, are therefore hereby summoned to file with the Secretary of the Senate an answer to the said articles ... and thereafter to abide by, obey and perform such orders, directions and judgements as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Hereof you are not to fail.''
It was doubtful that Clinton would even see the Summons on Friday, though it required a complete response no later than noon, Washington time, on Monday.
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye! By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment!
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
WASHINGTON - With those words, James W. Ziglar, the Senate sergeant at arms, began reading a proclamation used in the presidential trial of Andrew Johnson in the year 1868. That was the way the presidential trial of William Jefferson Clinton began in the U.S. Senate at 10 A.M. on Thursday. Those present included, the presiding judge, William Hubbs Rehnquist, chief justice of the Supreme Court. In turn, the Senate duly began the trial of William Jefferson Clinton on referral of charges of high crimes and misdemeanors from the House of Representatives.
This, then is the trial of the first president to be publicly tried by the U.S. Senate in 131 years, and the first impeachment trial of an elected president in the history of the republic. As if to counter the weight of these proceeding, the Clinton White House is floating a trial press release that there will soon be an acquittal of the president on all charges. Yet, it was a somber occasion at the White House when the president witnessed "100 of best and brightest" stand at their Senate desks, raise their right hands and give the oath to render impartial justice in the trial.
This forty-second president Clinton stands accused of high crimes and misdemeanors including perjury and obstruction of justice. The weighty charges became public knowledge after an orchestrated cover-up through the misuse of his powers of office, and by Mr. Clinton's own misdirected practice of using technical legal language to mislead the American people and the press.
At the onset of the Senate trail Thursday, the charges were read in the name of the "... people of the United States of America," by Henry Hyde(R) who led fellow GOP lawmakers into the Senate chamber to formally present the Articles of Impeachment.
The nation wept as it witnessed television coverage on C-SPAN together with hundreds of visitors who stood outside the Capitol. Some few dozen onlookers grabbed seats in the Senate gallery overlooking the Senate chamber at Thursday's opening of the trial.
Mr. Hyde is said th be reviewing a list of potential witnesses to be called when the evidence is presented to the Senate in the next few days and weeks. Lawmakers may also want to have several current and former White House officials subpoenaed, including John Podesta, the Clinton chief of staff; Harold Ickes, a former aide, and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, among others.
After lunch at about 1:30 p.m., all members of the Senators rose to their feet and faced the massive carved doors at the rear of the Senate chamber. Coming through the portals was justice Rehnquist, striking in his appearance wearing his black judicial robe trimmed at ther arms in gold braid.
The chief justice took his oath from Strom Thurmond(R) the 96-year-old Senate president pro tem, and then Rehnquist administered the oath to each senator who pledged to render justice "... according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God." A chorus senators responded with the obligatory "I do" when the clerk read each name in alphabetical order and each senator rose and faced the nation. With that, they walked to the front of the chamber where they signed their names in an ``oath book'' to record their presence.
One hundred government ball-point momento pens were distributed to senators at the signing. It is certain the senators will keep the pens. By this time next year, one of the pens is likley to be worth $5,000 to collectors.
Some Americans are already taking better than even odds on the strong probability that the senators' oath to render justice "... according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God..." was just a thing they had to say to get those pens.
Internet freedom suspended By Nick Kasoff, Freelance Writer
is freedom of speech denied
Missouri high school student's Web site critical
of school is shut down, court rules speech rights infringed.
By Nick Kasoff, Freelance Writer
SAINT LOUIS - Last Tuesday, the US District Court in St. Louis handed down an important ruling that will have widespread legal effect on preserving Internet freedom of speech in the United States. The case was filed in federal court in August 1998 after a high school junior in southeastern Missouri, sixteen year-old Brandon Beussink, was disciplined for his Internet web site which criticised school administrators and the school's official website.
The site, which was created on his own computer and outside of school time, was posted on a commercial Internet provider paid for by Buessink. There was no official relationship between his web site and the high school which he attended. Because of the school's unexcused absence policy, the ten day suspension resulted in failing grades in all of Beussink's classes. He was also ordered to remove the page from the internet.
The Federal Court of Appeals, in yesterday's decision found that the school district had violated his first amendment rights. But in my interview with Buessink's attorney, provided by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, he has decided not to place his site back on the internet. It seems that, in the face of a hostile government agent, free speech just isn't worth the bother.
The school, in attempting to establish their right to censor the web site, asserted that the web site had caused a disruption in school. But school staff testified that the only disruption caused by the incident was when disciplinary notices were delivered to Buessink during class. In fact, Buessink was never accused of viewing or promoting the web site during school hours. The school was made aware of the site by a friend who became angry at Buessink, and pointed out the site to the school's computer instructor.
The district was not immediately available for comment, but in a letter to Beussink's father, the school district's attorney, Kenneth McManaman, wrote that "... Brandon's conduct undermined the values the school was trying to teach ... In addition to being slanderous, it was profane and obscene and inappropriate for educational purposes ... Instead of continuing to whine, I would suggest that Mr. Beussink suck it up, take his punishment like a man, get back to school, and start behaving like he should in the classroom."
Those who believe public schools are strong advocates of free speech, as evidenced by widely publicised incidents where school libraries refuse to remove offensive books despite widespread parental objection, might be surprised to find that public school censorship of student speech outside of school is nothing new.
Last April, a student who insulted his band teacher on his Web site was awarded $30,000 after suing his Cleveland, Ohio, school district.
Sean O'Brien, a student of Westlake High School, was suspended for the remarks. Last July, in a Palo Alto, California case, the public schools appealed to an Internet Web site host to remove a controversial site posted by a student. In that case, GeoCities cited its terms of service when it unilaterally shut down the Internet web site that rated the looks and sex appeal of students and teachers at a Palo Alto middle school.
A high school senior in Florida was suspended for ten days when he criticized his school and said the assistant principal had the "personality of sour milk" on his private Web site, according to the Student Press Law Center. The punishment was reduced after the ACLU intervened on his behalf. appeal of students and teachers at a Palo Alto middle school.
"Schools have somewhat greater leeway to regulate students' speech within the school, than for example the government has to regulate adult speech," said David Cole, a constitutional law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "But as far as I know, that greater leeway has never been extended to student speech outside the school setting, nor should it."
[Editor's Note: Nick Kasoff is a freelance journalist with the Daily Republican Newspaper and the host of Local Talk on WGNU Radio 920, St. Louis, Missouri.]
Iraq's Sucker Punch for America
By William Heartstone, Staff Writer
Sadam rope-a-doped us. He got himself up
against the ropes and let us beat the hell out him.
By William Heartstone, Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration claimed victory in Iraq last week. So why is he pulling out and running for home? The Pentagon reported that 43 out of 100 Iraqui installations were destroyed or seriously damaged.
Army general Hugh Shelton, chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told viewers on a December 20th Face the Nation, that "...[W]e consider this a very successful attack." But, Col. David Hackworth, a recent critic of the Clinton administration , told reporters, "...Sadam rope-a-doped us. He got himself up against the ropes and let us beat the hell out him, and the whole world says look at that - a superpower beating up on this poor guy who doesn't even swing back."
Saddam Hussein has prevailed. That was the sentiment of Boston University professor, Andrew Bacevich. Despite the Clinton administration's misleading "efforts to portray Desert Fox as a substantial military effort, in truth it was just another pinprick attack, using a large guage pin," he said.
National Security At Risk By Phillip Lange, Staff Writer
American firms implicated in House report on military tech transfer to China.
By Phillip Lange, Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - This week, a Congressional investigation reported it found credible evidence that U.S. technology firms have damaged this nation's security by selling U.S. secrets to the Communist Chinese in Beijing.
Christopher Cox(R), the House panel chair, said after a six-month study of the problem, that alleged breaches of U.S. export guidelines by Hughes Space & Communications of Los Angeles and Loral Space & Communications in 1995 had, in fact, harmed national security.
The incidents highlight hoe U.S. firms have been deeply involved, not only, in covert transfers of technology aiding the Communist Chinese military use of civilian satellite launchings but also ICBMs and other militarily applications.
Cox told reporters on Thursday that the House Panel has gathered credible evidence that Communist China directed a "... serious and sustained campaign to acquire militarily useful U.S. technology" for some time and still "... continues to the present day."
Details of the findings of the House Panel on the Peoples Republic of China Technology Transfers are still under wraps. However, ther panel has announced its intention to publish an unclassified version of its report in the next week or so.
Sources in the Congress indicate there are more than thirty separate issues to be addressed in new legislation for tightening existing restrictions on technology transfer to China.
The problem of critical technology transfer to the Chinese became public when it was found that campaign contributions from Chinese nationals or U.S. satellite makers to the 1996 Clinton-Gore Reelection Campaign had influenced the Clinton administration's handling of the technology transfer.
Cox said matters "... such as how much the technology transfers aided China in upgrading its missiles and other military equipment, would be addressed when the report is made public."
Cox told reporters the panel's investigation of the incidents had showed that "... national security harm did occur." Loral officials issued a statement saying they "... remain convinced that we did not violate the law and did nothing to harm national security." They said any material sent to China "... was from open sources, readily available in standard engineering textbooks."
A spokesman for Hughes said the company had not seen the committee's report but noted that the Hughes' had investigated the charges and determined the firm had followed government regulations.
However, the U.S. Defense Department has concluded that Hughes did provide Communist China with information that is potentially damaging to U.S. national security and that the information transfer "... went well beyond ..." that which was permissible.
The Clinton administration's Justice Department has said it is investigating the allegations.
Cox said the "... decisions on how much of the committee's report could be declassified would be made jointly by the administration."
This Lame Duck Won't Float
Hobbs, Editors' Desk
White House Defense Against Senate Trial Is Not Well Grounded!
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
WASHINGTON - If the Clinton White House defense team is really counting on nullifying Articles of Impeachment voted by the House of Representatives on grounds that the 105th Congress will expire on January 2, 1999, they better not bet the farm on it.
The day follwing the House vote on three Articles of Impeachment against president Clinton, his defense team was engaged in trashing the House action. Then they began a legal assault on the legitimacy of the House Impeachment process. White House lawyes are actually claiming that the lame duck Congress doesnot have the Constitutional authority to impeach and try the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. That became a media blitz that didn't serve America well. It misrepresented basic legal facts to Americans in an effort to stir up negative public opinion. They claimed that the new House of Representatives which convenes on January 3, 1999 must go back and start over with new Articles of Impeachment before a Senate trial could be commenced. Many Americans accepted the Clinton White House claims on their face value.
The president's defense team did the nation a disservice. Mr. Clinton's claims were false. Every Congress has the duty and the power to make laws under its legislative mandate. It's duty and power of impeachment of the president, however does not have the limitations imposed on legislative acts. The time limitations imposed on Congress for passing legislation does not carry over to the impeachment process. Why? The two-year time limit for legislative acts does not apply to the impeachment cycle by the House that leads to a verdict of acquittal or conviction in a Senate trial.
Legal scholars say the lame duck status of some members of the House of Representatives would not call into question the validity of an impeachment vote. Lawrence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard University wrote in his recent analysis of lame duck reasoning used by the White House, that "A constitutional rule making the continuing validity of a bill of impeachment ... turn on a calculation of whether the votes of lame ducks were necessary ... would affect exercise of various Senate powers, such as the power to confirm nominations or to approve treaties as well as various powers of the House."
American legal tradition has always held that an impeachment, once voted by the House, authorizes the Senate to have a trial of the impeached official and, upon conviction, to remove that official from office and, at its discretion, also to disqualify the official from holding any federal office in the future.
The 20th Amendment, often cited by Clinton supporters as authority for a lame duck defense of president Clinton, has no bearing on the time frame in which lame-duck Congresses have to conduct and complete their impeachment duty and power contexts.
Impeachment's continuing power and force extends beyond the terms of any particular representative's tenure in the government. Get used to it! Its the rule of law.
Highest Disrespect for the
Law By William Heartstone, Staff Writer
Janet Reno's common practice of misusing the legal
system's procedures to protect the Clinton White House.
By William Heartstone, Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - Last week, federal judge Royce Lamberth denounced the behavior of a group of president Clinton's Commerce Department officials as hooligans and scofflaws.
Worse still, the judge said the Clinton White House handling of a lawsuit over the late Ron Brown's trade junkets has been so untrustworthy that it was necessary to appoint a Special Magistrate to keep the Justice Department from the destruction of any more evidence in the case.
Judge Lamberth has found evidence that strongly substantiates "... the claim that the agency was deliberately destroying and jettisoning documents, ending in a flurry of document shredding ..." in late Secretary Brown's office after his death in Bosnia in April 1996. He describes the department's four years of legal stone walling as an "egregious ...disregard for the law."
About four years ago, Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, filed a taxpayers' FOI law suit requesting copies of all documents covering late Commerce secretary, Ron Brown's foreign trade missions and their linkage of airplane seats on those trips that were tied to political contributions. This scandal was brought into the light when it was disclosed that Democrat Party fund-raiser John Huang had been hired by Brown, given Top-Secret clearance, and acted as a dual agent of the Communist Chinese and as the Clinton administration's bag man for illegal payoffs to the 1996 Clinton-Gore Reelection Campaign..
Judge Lamberth has openly acknowledged he has tired of attorney general Janet Reno's common practice of misusing the good-faith patience inherent in the legal system's procedures to protect the Clinton White House.
Nolanda Hill, a former business partner of late Commerce secretary Brown, testified this past April that shortly before his death Brown showed her a packet of documents that he said had been retrieved from Commerce files during the search for Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.
Ms. Hill reviewed the top five or six documents and saw they were copies of letters to trade mission participants specifically referencing their donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore Reelection Campaign. The documents have never been seen since, and judge Lamberth notes that Ms. Hill, is now under federal indictment for tax evasion.
Judge Lamberth found "On many occasions, the Department of Commerce appears to have engaged in the illegal withholding of responsive documents, in the removal of such documents from Commerce, and in the destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of the late secretary Brown and elsewhere, as well as a great deal of misconduct during the litigation..."
Internet Freedom Threatened
By Phillip Lange, Staff Writer
Democracies as well as dictatorships are cracking down on Web sites.
By Phillip Lange, Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - Internet information has become an easy source of international economic and political data flowing freely in every corner of th globe.
Everywhere, except in China. The Communist government in Beijing filters out information in Web sites about Tibet and Taiwan. Worse yet, news about democratic movements and dissident groups is blocked, as well.
Saudi Arabia censors Web sites that dare to criticize the royal Saudi family. In Germany, a court recently sentenced a CompuServe manager to two years in prison for allowing access to officially disapproved photography.
In Cuba, the government seized laptop computers from protesters as "subversive instruments."
So, the Internet is a dangerous place to play, not only for children. And, the more information becomes available, the more aggressive governments become in trying to prevent its free flow with filtering technologies and strict limits on the people who are allowed to operate Internet PC systems.
From all over the globe, democracies and dictatorships are cracking down on Internet Web sites that are judged by censors to be controversial.
At last count, nearly 20 nations have imposed restriction on access to Internet sites.
More than a dozen other countries are considering restrictions. The European Union, for example, is weighing proposals to ban child pornography and xenophobic materials. In Germany, freedom-of-speech advocates are outraged by a judge's decision in May to sentence the CompuServe official to jail.
The Clinton administration, too, is trying to restrict the Internet. A 1996 law signed by Mr. Clinton, called the Communications Decency Act, criminalize on line communications that were objectionable or were intended to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.
However, the Supreme Court struck down the Clinton legislation, on grounds that it violated the Constitutionally protected right of Freedom of expression, speech and print.
An authoritarian impulse to restrict free access to the Internet has attracted world wide attention this week in China, where the Communist government is conducting a full scale trial of a dissident Lin Hai, a 30-year-old software engineer. He stands charged with inciting subversion by providing 30,000 Chinese e-mail addresses to a Free China group in Washington.
Lin is facing life in prison if found guilty. Experts on Red Chinese justice say he will probably be convicted.
Sources in Tibet reports the Chinese government has blocked access to its Web site, this week.
Senate Trial Will Happen By Amy Williams, Staff Writer
Democrats' parliamentary maneuvers fail to sidetrack the inevitable.
By Amy Williams, Staff Writer
WASHINGTON- As hopes fade in the Clinton White House for evading the inevitable impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, Senate leader Tom Daschle(D) appearing Sunday on NBC television's Meet the Press told reporters the Senate expects to take up the case in about a week or so.
The impeachment trial seems to be an unstoppable force, as the Republican majority in the Senate are moving on to a full trial. Senator, John Ashcroft(R), told reporters Sunday, the Constitution expressly forbids censure. Amplifying that point, Senator Rick Santorum(R) pointed out "... the Senate must consider the evidence against Mr. Clinton before attempting to resolve the case."
The Republican commitment explains why Democrat attepts to sidetrack the impeachment trial of Mr. Clinton have been nullified. Democrats were so rattled last week they attempted to gather signatures of Senate Democrats on a letter pledging to vote for acquittal for Mr. Clinton, at the expected trial.
Daschle depicted the signature gathering activity by Democrats with, "I don't think a letter is appropriate and I don't think it's warranted." Convicting Clinton would require two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 members.
Saturday December 26, 1998
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
WASHINGTON - The equality of citizens under the law begins with the general agreement in this nation that in a just society the standing of every citizen is of equal worth, that no one is above the law. Above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court we have erected these words, etched in marble, Equal Justice Under The Law.
The meaning of those words, in 1998 is the same as it was in 1787. The definition of this American democratic republic has not changed over time. We define ourselves as a government which derives its powers from the consent of the people, in free and fair elections under conditions of freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech. American democracy is based on the foundation of free and educated citizens, a healthy economy, free associations and memberships, civilian control of the military, and a set of fundamental civic virtues which drive our unique political culture.
We hold to a Constitutional system of government in which the highest law of the land (a constitution) reflects checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers, due process, and protection of individual rights. Our constitutional democracy strictly limits the power of the people who occupy leadership positions in our government.
The U. S. Constitution under Article 1, Section 4 requires that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." And, Article 2, provides that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury."
Impeachment trials are held in the U.S. Senate, where the Supreme Court's chief justice, presides. In the forthcoming Senate impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, Americans will see this scenario played out with the chief justice of the United States, William Hubbs Rehnquist, presiding.
The 74-year-old jurist from Arizona, Rehnquist can be expected to begin his role in a televised Senate trial of Mr. Clinton, set to begin in January, 1999.
His task will be to bring judicial dignity and impartiality to a process that so far has lacked both. And many who know him say he is uniquely suited to the job.
As the presiding judge, Rehnquist will rule on motions, including crucial questions on what evidence can be admitted and whether witnesses will be heard.
His rulings, however, may be overturned by the Senate. An individual senator may challenge any of justice Rehnquist's rulings by calling for a simple majority vote to reverse it.
Justice Rehnquist is strictly formal. In the Supreme Court, lawyers are allotted a scant 30 minutes to make oral arguments. He is known for perfect recall of constitutional issues from briefs filed with the Supreme Court well before his time.
A Nixon appointee to the Court, president Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. He has been somewhat prolific in writing and has published three books, one of which is a new work on civil liberties.
One of his 1993 works, Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson has become a 'best seller' in recent weeks when his publisher, William Morrow, reprinted a 25,000 volumes run of the out of print text.
Its a historical treatment work of history in which he makes the argument that the impeachment power of Congress should not be used to conduct a political trial in the Senate.
Rehnquist cites the Senate acquittals of justice Chase in 1805 and president Andrew Johnson in 1868 as constitutional precedent in U.S. law.
He wrote, "... [T]he framers were particularly concerned about the possibility of over reaching and bullying by the legislative branch ... To that end, they established terms of office of the president and of the judges in the Constitution itself, where they could not be changed by Congress."
Meanwhile, senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), said in a published report, obtained by the Daily Republican Newspaper Sunday, that he may move for censure of Mr. Clinton. Moynihan, is a devoted student of American history and has often been at the forefront in criticizing Mr. Clinton. Moynihan told news reporters that he thinks Clinton's removal from the office "... could degrade the Republic quickly."
However, senator Robert C. Byrd(D), told reporters, "For the good of our nation, there must be no deal ..." with the White House.