Here There Be Tygers

Michael Barone writes about dangerous roads and dangerous logic.

The Washington Post had a thoughtful editorial yesterday entitled "Official Secrets" and subtitled "Be careful what you read." The nub of the Post's argument is in this paragraph.

"The administration is seeking to convert a moribund World War I-era espionage law into an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act. Mr. Gonzales is correct that the law, which bans the transmission of national defense information to anyone not cleared to receive it, would – if read literally – make criminals out of journalists who publish such material. For that matter, it would also permit the jailing of whistle-blowers, academics who write about leaked information, members of Congress who disclose secrets, and, theoretically, even readers of newspapers who discuss the stories. Precisely because of the law's unthinkable scope, the First Amendment has long been understood to limit its application. Government has gone after officials who promise to protect the nation's secrets and then fail to do so – but generally not against citizens who receive those secrets." I've written about this issue before.

It goes on to describe the dangerous logic the Post is trying to apply here by arguing that, in effect, the government shouldn't use the laws that are on the books because they haven't used the laws before this. Except for one problem. The government is using the laws.

The media has put themselves into this position. By the agenda driven irresponsible publication of secret information, they have opened the door to this. Chickens and roosts and all.

"It is a dangerous road." I agree. But of course it was the press, led by the editorialists of the New York Times, that bayed loudly for investigation and prosecution of government officials who disclosed the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, even though it was far from clear that there was any violation of the statute in question, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. The press, or large parts of it, is all for prosecution—even if it leads, as it did, to the jailing of then New York Times reporter Judith Miller—if such a prosecution will hurt the Bush administration. On that one, it was the press that was hurtling down "a dangerous road." The Times and Post reporters and editors who published the stories I referenced above are at the very least in the same legal position as Judith Miller; that is, they are witnesses to acts that are in violation of statute and may be jailed for contempt if they refuse to testify against those who illegally disclosed classified information. At worst, they stand in the same legal position as the two former AIPAC officials, who received the information and passed it along to others—and perhaps are in a worse position, since those two defendants argue, quite possibly plausibly, that they did not know that the information they received was classified, while the Times and Post editors clearly did have such knowledge. There's a strong argument against prosecuting the press on these grounds, that doing so is going down "a dangerous road." But the press, which after all has knowledge of the Franklin and former AIPAC officials' prosecutions and the fact that Congress has not repealed the statutes responsible for them, has been going down "a dangerous road," too.

I think there will be a few unhappy journalist when this is all over. And they have done it to themselves. They crossed over the boundaries of responsible journalism into the uncharted territories where the tygers wait.

Even Worse Than I Thought

Chuck Grassley, who I have always felt was one of the straight-shooters in the Senate, has just published a top ten list of the worst points in the Senate bill on illegal immigration reform.

It's worse than I thought.

1.        $2,000 Fine — Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000.  Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border.  Also, the $2000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation.  This imposes a financial burden on the American taxpayer for health, education, and infrastructure costs that aren’t reimbursed for five or ten years. 

2.         Taxes — Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes.  Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes.  The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people.  The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes.  It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country. 

3.         Security Clearances in 90 days – Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security must perform background checks on illegal aliens in the United States.  It also encourages the federal government to complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days.  This is a national security concern because Homeland Security will be pressured to complete these checks without doing a thorough job. 

4.         Work Requirements – Under the bill, illegal aliens must prove they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years.  It also says they have to work for six years after the date of enactment of the bill.  However, there is no continuous work requirement for amnesty.  They could work for 30 days, take off 30 days, work for 30 days.  The bill also says that illegal aliens have to prove that they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years by showing IRS or Social Security records, or records maintained by federal, state, or local governments, employers, unions or day labor centers.  However, the bill also allows illegal aliens to ask anybody to attest that they have been employed.  This invites fraud, and the government cannot realistically investigate all these cases. 

5.         Confidentiality – Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the application for anything but adjudicating the petition.  For example, if illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information.  In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can only share that information if someone requests it in writing.  This provision severely handicaps national security and criminal investigators. 

Also, if a federal agent does use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty the agent would be fined $10,000.  This is five times more than the alien has to pay to get amnesty. 

6.         Social Security to illegal aliens — Under the bill, illegal aliens are not prohibited from getting credit for the money they’ve put into the Social Security system if they’ve worked in the U.S. illegally.  Illegal immigrants who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security Number did not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social Security benefits.  (The Ensign amendment would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.) 

7.         Employers get a tax pardon for hiring illegal aliens — Under the bill, employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status “shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien.” Businesses that hired illegal workers would now get off scott-free from paying the taxes that they owe the government.  This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the federal government.  In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that they have worked in the U.S.  The employer is not subject to civil and criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the past, or before enactment.

8.         Family Members of H-2C Visa Holder need not be healthy —   Under the bill, spouses and children of H-2C visa holders are exempt from a requirement proving that they meet certain health standards.  The visa holder is required to undergo a medical exam, but their family members are not which potentially puts Americans at risk.

9.         Mandatory Departure isn’t really Mandatory — Under the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security “may grant” Deferred Mandatory Departure to illegal aliens in the 2-5 year category. The Secretary “may” also waive the departure requirement if it would create substantial hardship for the alien to leave. 

10.       No Interview Required. – Under the bill, illegal aliens in the 2nd tier who are required to leave the country can re-enter the United States on a visa.  However, the bill does not require these individuals do not have to be interviewed.  The bill doesn’t give discretion to our consular offices to require an interview.  The 9/11 hijackers weren’t subject to appear in person.  Today, the State Department requires most applicants to submit to interviews, and waives them only for children and the elderly.

There's going to be one heck of a donnybrook over this one in the conference committee. And there should be.

UPDATE: Added WaPo link.

Hillary’s Problem

I avoided writing about the New York Times article on the state of Clinton's marriage that ran on Monday. Frankly, it didn't seem worth writing about. David Broder, in today's Washington Post thought it was however.  

But the buzz in the room was not about her speech — or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit — but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.

The article, by Patrick Healy, was anything but unsympathetic. It touched only lightly on the former president's friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach. It documented that despite their busy separate schedules, the Clintons had managed to spend two-thirds of their weekends together during the past 18 months.

The closing anecdote concerned a December fundraiser where Clinton praised his wife and bestowed a kiss on her forehead, after which she recalled their 30 years together and said, "I'm so grateful to you, Bill."

But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal — if any was needed — that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.

Frankly, I don't think the state of their marriage should be part of the debate, but I also know it will be too juicy a target for a lot of people (like the NYT and the WaPo) to ignore. I think Hillary will have a lot worse things to have to deal with when she formally announces what everyone already knows she is planning. As was plain even at the event Broder is writing about when someone jumped up and started heckling.

The final moment of her speech had been interrupted by a woman shouting antiwar slogans, and the fourth question gave the senator a chance to respond. She said, as she had before, that "I regret the way the president used" the authority to make war in Iraq that she had joined in giving him, and now felt that, with a permanent Iraqi government almost complete, it is the Iraqis' responsibility to curb sectarian violence, end the insurrection and get about rebuilding the country.

Three times in the question-and-answer session, she referred to her husband as "Bill," praising him for seeing that his library in Little Rock incorporated a lot of energy-saving features.

Other than that, the elephant in the room went unmentioned.

I rather suspect the elephant actually did get mentioned. Hillary will be dealing with the extremists in her own party quite a lot.