Congressional Republicans aren't likely to get very far in their attempt to repeal the entire health care law. But there are growing signs that the courts could end up doing the lifting for them. A federal district judge in Virginia has promised to rule on the constitutionality of the bill's requirement that individuals purchase health insurance (the so-called "individual mandate") by the end of the year.The New York Times explains why the Obama administration is so concerned:
Lawyers on both sides expect the issue eventually to be decided by the Supreme Court. But the appellate path to that decision could take two years. In the meantime, any district court judge who rules against the law would have to decide whether to block enforcement of one or more of its provisions, potentially creating bureaucratic chaos.
The administration is already facing enormous hurdles in trying to put the federal health law into effect, receiving pressure from industry lobbyists who want to water down the new regulations and states that don't want to comply. Unfavorable court rulings will only complicate matters. Moreover, there are major parts of the health law that simply won't work unless the individual mandate is enacted. And finally, there's the concern that court rulings against the law—even if they don't ultimately hold up—could add to public animus against federal health reform:
"Any ruling against the act creates another P.R. problem for the Democrats, who need to resell the law to insured Americans," said Jonathan Oberlander, a University of North Carolina political scientist, who wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine last week that such a ruling "could add to health care reform's legitimacy problem."
Most of the biggest changes under the law, including the individual mandate and the insurance exchanges, won't be fully enacted until 2014. But the more obstacles the Democrats face in putting the law into effect, the harder it's going to be to convince the public that the earliest reforms are actually helping ordinary Americans—and that the bigger reforms down the road are worth the investment. Though their GOP antagonists in Congress are more bark than bite, the Affordable Care Act still faces a real threat. The Democratic leadership needs to ramp up its own offensive to sell health reform to the public now if they want to preserve the law's future integrity.
Jen Hogg’s New York Army National Guard unit was called up shortly after 9/11. While straight soldiers kissed loved ones goodbye, she says, “I couldn’t. I could only sneak a quick hug with my partner.” No one asked, Hogg didn’t tell, and in 2005, she received an honorable discharge as a sergeant. Jo Ann Santangelo photographed Hogg (left) and her partner Jackie Scalone for Proud to Serve, a book about gays and lesbians in uniform in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell era.
— Ex-Army National Guard Sergeant Jen Hogg, left, and her partner, Jackie Scalone. Jo Ann Santangelo/Redux
As early as tomorrow, the Department of Defense will publish its recommendations on how to integrate gays and lesbians into the ranks. The Pentagon is expected to say: "Yes, we can." And if Senate Democrats know what's good for them, they'll lift the military's ban post haste.
Probably the most asinine thing about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate is this: All of the conservative right's arguments against gays in the military are falsifiable. That's because the United States already integrated the armed forces once, and not only did it not affect morale and readiness, but it laid the groundwork for a wider civil rights movement that changed America's destiny. Once a minority shares in the burdens of citizenship, it's head to deny them the benefits.
I was reminded of this while bumbling around the website of the US Marine Corps' History Division, which is a treasure trove of militaria, and not the type you might expect. Here's General David M. Shoup—a Medal of Honor-earning Marine commandant who protested the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Vietnam War—telling Congress that Marines are not taught to hate, because hate and fear erode democracy. Here's a chaplain on Iwo Jima giving the usual platitudes about sacrifice in war, with a remarkable caveat: "We shall not foolishly suppose...that victory on the battlefield will automatically guarantee the triumph of democracy at home." Here is grizzled Marine hero John A. LeJeune telling his men that they have one charge above all others: To "be kindly and just."
Small wonder, then, that the site also features President Truman's 1948 executive orderending racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination in the US armed services. I've included it in this post below; if you've never read it in its entirety, do so now. It's the highest expression not only of the service's ideals, but of the nation's. President Obama should take note:
Title:
Desegregation of the Armed Services
Category:
Executive Order No. 9981
Author/Presenter:
President Harry S. Truman
Date:
26 July 1948
WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.
2. There shall be created in the National Military Establishment an advisory committee to be known' as the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which shall be composed of seven members to be designated by the President.
3. The Committee is authorized on behalf of the President to examine into the rules, procedures and practices of the armed services in order to determine in what respect such rules, procedures and practices may be altered or improved with a view to carrying out the policy of this order. The Committee shall confer and advise with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President and to said Secretaries as in the judgment of the Committee will effectuate the policy hereof.
4. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Committee in its work, and to furnish the Committee such information or the services of such persons as the Committee may require in the performance of its duties.
5. When requested by the Committee to do so, persons in the armed services or in any of the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall testify before the Committee and shall make available for the use of the Committee such documents and other information as the Committee may require.
6. The Committee shall continue to exist until such time as the President shall terminate its existence by Executive order.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
JULY 26, 1948
Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' copy editor. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.
Posted by John Berry on November 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM EST
Ed. Note: As part of the It Gets Better Project, President Obama and Vice President Biden recorded video messages. Watch the videos here.
Recently, thousands of Americans have come together to share their messages of hope for American youth who may be experiencing feelings of isolation because they are, or are perceived to be, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). With the It Gets Better Project, people have shared their own stories of how life does get better for those who may feel isolated today.
I wanted to take a moment and share with you my own video for the project. As an openly gay man myself, I know that life does get better for LGBT youth. It dramatically does. Young people should know that no matter how difficult the challenges are that they are facing right now, it does get better. Every individual is precious and our nation's future rests on our ability to engage and inspire this new generation. You can be whatever you want. You can love whomever you want, but only if you first love yourself. Trust me. It's worth it. It gets better.
I encourage you to share your own story of how life gets better for LGBT youth. You can do so at:www.itgetsbetter.org.
If you are a young person who’s been bullied or harassed by your peers, or if you are feeling isolatied for being who you are, there are people who can help. While your family can serve as a valuable resource, I realize that not all LGBT youth have that option. However, here are a few resources that can help:
The Trevor Project The Trevor Project is determined to end suicide among LBGT and questioning youth by providing resources and a nationwide, 24 hour hotline. If you are considering suicide or need help, call: 866-4-U-TREVOR (866-488-7386).
BullyingInfo.org BullyingInfo.org is a project of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP) focused on providing tools and resources for youth, parents, teachers and mental health providers to prevent and address bullying.
It Gets Better Project My video is just one of thousands of videos submitted by people across the country to inspire and encourage LGBT youth who are struggling. You can watch more videos at ItGetsBetterProject.com.
For even more information and resources visit or call:
Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam was chosen Monday as Republican chief deputy whip, the final spot on the roster of House Republican leaders in the next Congress.
Majority Whip-designate Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Roskam, a second-term lawmaker, would help bring "fresh ideas" to the table in the 112th Congress, which begins in January.
"My good friend Peter Roskam is a bold leader whose fresh ideas will continue to help energize the Republican Party as we move forward in the majority," he said in a statement.
Roskam's elevation to deputy whip could put him on a fast-track for higher leadership positions in the future: Both McCarthy and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have held the position.
Roskam could help the GOP better reach out to President Obama: He served with the president when he was an Illinois state senator and is one of the few House Republicans who has a personal relationship with Obama.
The Illinois lawmaker is accompanied by Speaker-designate John Boehner (Ohio), Cantor, McCarthy, conference chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas), vice chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), leadership chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) in the GOP leadership.
Republicans also selected freshmen Kristi Noem (S.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.) to fill two newly created leadership posts for first-term members.
Posted by Jack Lew on November 29, 2010 at 12:13 PM EST
As I wrote last week upon my return to the Office of Management and Budget, the fiscal and economic situation we face today is very different than the projected surpluses we left behind the last time I served as OMB Director in the 1990's. After years of fiscal irresponsibility, President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion projected deficit and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The President and his economic team worked quickly to address the crisis, and we are seeing our economy recover – albeit more slowly than anyone would like. Families and businesses are still hurting, and too many who want to work are not able to find a job. Our top priority must be to do what we can to help boost economic growth and spur private sector job creation.
But to lay the foundation for long-term economic growth and to make our nation competitive for years to come, we must put the United States back on a sustainable fiscal course. And that’s going to require some tough choices.
Today, the President made one of those: proposing a two-year pay freeze for all civilian federal workers. This will save $2 billion over the remainder of this fiscal year, $28 billion in cumulative savings over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. The freeze will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.
We are announcing this move today because tomorrow is the legal deadline to submit to Congress the President’s decision about locality pay, a key component of overall federal worker pay. In addition, we are in the midst of the 2012 budget process, and need to make a decision about pay to develop the 2012 budget. Simply, the time to decide about pay for those two years is now.
Make no mistake: this decision was not made lightly.
Like everyone honored to serve in the White House or the Cabinet, we work with extraordinarily talented public servants every day. Throughout my career in the Congress, at the State department, and here at OMB, I have met federal workers who have sacrificed more lucrative jobs and hours with their families - -and, in some cases, put their lives in harm’s way -- in order to serve their fellow Americans. Indeed, anyone who has flown safely, enjoyed our national parks, received a Pell grant to go to college, or relied on a Social Security check to retire in dignity has benefited from the service of federal workers.
This pay freeze is not a reflection on their fine work. It is a reflection of the fiscal reality that we face: just as families and businesses across the nation have tightened their belts, so must the federal government.
Already, the Administration has taken a number of steps in this regard as part of its Accountable Government Initiative from the President freezing the salaries for all senior White House officials and other top political appointees upon taking office to his efforts to get rid of $8 billion of excess federal real property over the next two years, reduce improper payments by $50 billion by the end of 2012, and freeze non-security spending for three years – which will bring non-security discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in 50 years.
Moving forward, we will need to make many more tough choices to construct a plan to pay down these deficits and put our nation on sound fiscal footing. Later this week, the Fiscal Commission will release its report laying out its approach, and I look forward to working with people from across the spectrum on this challenge in the weeks to come.
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz takes questions about the DREAM Act, legislation that provides a path to legal status for youth who pursue higher education or serve in the Armed Forces. November 29, 2010.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs takes first questions before his press briefing from the online audience on WikiLeaks, Unemployment Benefits and the President's lip injury.
On Monday, The Lede is tracking global reaction to the leak of American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowers’ Web site. (See our previous post for coverage of the reaction on Sunday.)
The New York Times will be publishing articles on the documents and about 100 of the cables this week, as part of a series called State’s Secrets. More articles and highlights from the secret archive are being published by four European news organizations — the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El PaÃs — which, like The Times, had access to the documents before they were made public.
In “A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents,” the editors of The Times explain that the archive contains more than 250,000 American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, which reveal “the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 diplomatic outposts around the world.”
4:29 P.M.New Articles on Cables About North Korea and Guantánamo
Two new articles on the cables have just been published by The Times. My colleague David Sanger reports on the discussion among American diplomats about what might happen in North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il, the country’s ailing leader. My colleagues Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren report that a cache of cables on the work of American officials charged with finding homes for detainees held at Guantánamo disclose “a global bazaar of sorts,” in which they “sweet-talked and haggled with foreign counterparts in efforts to resettle detainees who were cleared for release but could not be repatriated for fear of mistreatment.”
4:14 P.M.Guardian Publishes Cable Reporting Remarks by Prince Andrew
Among the new cables published on Monday by the Guardian is one from an American diplomat who detailed remarks by a member of the British royal family, Prince Andrew, during a brunch meeting in 2008 in Kyrgyzstan. According to the cable from Tatiana Gfoeller, the American ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, the prince, “railed at British anti-corruption investigators,” and journalists from the Guardian, apparently for looking closely at overseas dealings of British companies.
In a comment at the end of the cable, the ambassador wrote:
Prince Andrew reached out to the Ambassador with cordiality and respect, evidently valuing her insights. However, he reacted with almost neuralgic patriotism whenever any comparison between the United States and United Kingdom came up. For example, one British businessman noted that despite the “overwhelming might of the American economy compared to ours” the amount of American and British investment in Kyrgyzstan was similar. Snapped the Duke: “No surprise there. The Americans don’t understand geography. Never have. In the U.K., we have the best geography teachers in the world!”
4:05 P.M.Statement by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
America’s ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, knows something about leaked diplomatic cables. Two of his urgent messages to Washington were leaked last November and published in full by The New York Times, detailing his objections to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was then the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
On Monday, Mr. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general who was once, himself, the top American commander in Afghanistan, posted a statement on his embassy’s Web site decrying the publication of the cables obtained by WikiLeaks. Mr. Eikenberry argued:
Whatever WikiLeaks’ motives are in publishing these documents, releasing them poses real risks to real people. We deeply regret the disclosure of information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it. For our part, the United States Government is committed to maintaining the security of our diplomatic communications and is taking steps to make sure they are kept in confidence. We are moving aggressively to make sure this kind of breach does not happen again….
When it comes to Afghanistan, our policy has been made clear by President Obama in his speech on December 1, 2009 at West Point and again at the NATO Lisbon Summit just a few days ago. The United States is absolutely committed to building and strengthening a long-term partnership with the Afghan people and the Afghan Government. Our shared goals do not change based on the release of purported diplomatic reporting from the past.
Secretary Clinton and I have spoken with President Karzai and we are all committed, along with President Obama, to looking forward and focusing on those issues that are key to the success of the Afghan people and the security of the American people.
3:51 P.M.Wikipedia v. WikiLeaks
One of the co-founders of Wikipedia has made a serious effort to distance himself from WikiLeaks. Writing on Twitter, Larry Sanger directed the following pointed message to the whistle-blowers’ site:
3:27 P.M.Explaining the Decision to Publish
Readers who want to know more about the decision by The Times, and the other four news organizations, to publish articles on these leaked documents might be interested in reading today’s Talk to The Times feature, “Answers to Readers’ Questions About State’s Secrets.”
The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, also fielded questions earlier today, and explained some of his thinking in a Guardian video report published on Sunday.
Javier Moreno of El PaÃs also delivered his argument in a video message to readers posted on the newspaper’s Web site.
Le Monde’s executive editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, spelled out her reasons for publishing some of the documents on Sunday.
3:10 P.M.Al Jazeera Focuses on Europe, Not Middle East
As several commentators, including the Cairo-based blogger Issandr El Amrani, noted on Sunday, records of conversations between American diplomats and Arab leaders in the leaked cables could give readers in the Middle East an unusual glimpse of what their rulers say in private.
In that regard, it is interesting that this report from Al Jazeera’s English-language channel focuses purely on what the American diplomats had to say about European leaders, not Arab leaders:
The report also includes an interview with a former British ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, who told the BBC on Monday that the cables revealed so far would cause, “more embarrassment than damage, although there is damage.”
2:22 P.M.Video of Remarks on the Leaks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Apologies for the slow pace of updates so far today: we were experiencing technical difficulties which I am reliably informed have now come to an end. Earlier this afternoon in Washington, as my colleague David Goodman reports, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference that the United States “deeply regrets” the “alleged leaks” of State Department cables, calling the release of any government information meant to be confidential an attack on both the United States and the entire international community.
Video of Mrs. Clinton’s entire statement was posted online by the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton argued that diplomatic communications do not represent the perspective of the American government, saying, “Our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington.”
In her remarks, she also echoed the thoughts of America’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, who argued in an article published in Pakistani newspapers on Monday, “relations between governments aren’t the only concern. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside the government who offer their own candid insights. These conversations depend on trust and confidence as well. If an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.”
12:07 P.M.Kremlin Silent on ‘Batman and Robin’ Analogy
My colleague Ellen Barry reports from Moscow:
By mid-day on Monday, roughly a dozen Russia-related cables were public, along with several pungent phrases that were quoted repeatedly in the Russian press, like a description of President Dmitri A. Medvedev “playing Robin” to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s “Batman.”
The Kremlin’s response was exceedingly cool. Early on Monday, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, told the Interfax news service that he would respond to the cables only after seeing the original text, analyzing “the translation of certain words and expressions,” and determining whether they actually referred to Mr. Putin.
Natalya Timakova, Mr. Medvedev’s spokeswoman, was even less forthcoming, telling journalists that the Kremlin “has not found anything interesting or deserving of comment in the materials.” Asked about the Batman and Robin analogy, she remarked that “fictional Hollywood characters hardly need to be commented on.”
It was clear, however, that the leaks had reinvigorated arguments against engaging with the West.
Gennadi A. Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, said the Kremlin should “draw far-reaching conclusions from the scandalous leaks.” And hard-liners began to sketch out conspiracies – speculating that hawks in the Pentagon had leaked the documents to discredit President Barack Obama, or that the cables were fakes cooked up to mislead foreign governments.
“Such information can be received first-hand only,” said Mikhail Kapura, a member of the upper house of parliament, told Interfax. “I do not doubt close contacts between WikiLeaks and U.S. security services.”
11:57 A.M.Monday Morning’s Reaction
We have been experiencing some technical problems, but here is a recap of some of the reaction to the release of the diplomatic cables so far on Monday.
• The Reaction From Turkey
The first batch of documents posted online by WikiLeaks included this analysis from the American Embassy in Ankara of Turkey’s changing foreign policy in parts of the Middle East and the Balkans that were part of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. As a chart on the Guardian’s Web siteshowing where the cables were sent from indicates, the largest number of overseas messages in the trove came from the U.S. Embassy in Turkey.
My colleague Sebnem Arsu reports from Turkey:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the leaked documents “suspicious,” but refused to comment on their substance. According to the semi-official Anatolian News Agency, Mr. Erdogan said that Turkey will “wait until WikiLeaks spill all the beans,” before evaluating the seriousness of the revelations, “because the seriousness of Wikipedia is doubtful.”
Cables sent in 2007 described Mr. Erdogan as a reformist leader with autocratic tendencies but no apparent intention of establishing a fundamentalist Islamic government.
Several other cables discussed international business deals involving Mr. Erdogan’s family and friends, including a pipeline project between Turkey and Iran.
The Turkish newspaper Taraf reported that American diplomats wrote that they considered Ahmet Davuoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, to be dangerous because of his desire to avenge Ottoman losses.
The January 2010 cable sent to Washington on Turkey’s evolving foreign policy does mention that the country’s foreign minister has embraced the idea of a “neo-Ottoman” foreign policy. The cable reads:
Rather than deny, Davutoglu has embraced this accusation. Himself the grandson of an Ottoman soldier who fought in Gaza, Davutoglu summed up the [government's] philosophy in an extraordinary speech in Sarajevo in late 2009. His thesis: the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since. (He was too clever to explicitly blame all that on the imperialist western powers, but came close). However, now Turkey is back, ready to lead — or even unite. (Davutoglu: “We will re-establish this (Ottoman) Balkan”).
¶8. (C) While this speech was given in the Balkans, most of its impact is in the Middle East. Davutoglu’s theory is that most of the regimes there are both undemocratic and illegitimate. Turkey, building on the alleged admiration among Middle Eastern populations for its economic success and power, and willing to stand up for the interests of the people, reaches over the regimes to the “Arab street.” Turkey’s excoriating the Israelis over Gaza, culminating in the insulting treatment of President Peres by Erdogan at Davos in 2009, illustrates this trend.
• Ahamdinejad Claims U.S. Released Cables as Part of Plot
Asked about the leaked American cables — some of which frankly reveal the enmity of Arab leaders for Iran — Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters in Tehran, “let me first correct you. The material was not leaked, but rather released in an organized way,” Iran’s state-run Press TV reported.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference on Monday that Iran’s relations with its neighbors would not be damaged by the reports.
“Regional countries are all friends with each other. Such mischief will have no impact on the relations of countries,” he said, according to Reuters.
“Some part of the American government produced these documents,” he said. “We don’t think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.”
According to Press TV, Mr. Ahmadinejad also said the cables, “have no legal value and will not have the political effect they seek. He also called the documents released by WikiLeaks a “game,” adding that they are “not worth commenting upon and that no one would waste their time reviewing them.”
That seems to provide an answer to how Tehran would react to the disclosure of information that the leaders of several Arab countries had encouraged the United States to take action to stop its nuclear program. Speaking of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, for instance, is quoted in the documents urging Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.
• A Threat to Diplomatic Relations, France Says
The French government joined others in condemning the disclosure of diplomatic documents. Paris would stand with the United States and against the publication, which threaten “democratic sovereignty and authority,” François Baroin, a government spokesman, said on Monday and Le Mondereported.
• Leaks Are ‘Unhelpful,’ Iraq Foreign Minister Says
Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, called the leaks “unhelpful and untimely” but told Agence France-Presse that he had not seen specific cables released by Wikileaks.
Mr. Zebari worried on Monday that the revelations would damage the fragile government that is coming together in Iraq. “We are going through a critical time, trying to form the long-awaited government,” he said. “We hope it will not poison the overall atmosphere among Iraqi politicians and Iraqi leaders.”
A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said on Monday that the leaks of diplomatic documents, including those calling Mr. Karzai “extremely weak,” would not damage relations between the United States and Afghanistan, Reuters reported.
“There is not much in the documents to surprise us and we don’t see anything substantive that will strain our relationship, but there is more still to come,” said Waheed Omer.
“It won’t have a noticeable effect on our broader strategic relationship with the U.S.”
• Senator Lieberman Calls on U.S. to Shut WikiLeaks
Joseph Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Sunday condemning WikiLeaks and its decision to release more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables. In his statement, he urged the Obama administration and other governments to use “all legal means” to shut down WikiLeaks.
By disseminating these materials, WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. It is an outrageous, reckless, and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests. Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands. I stand in full support of the Obama Administration’s condemnation of WikiLeaks for these disclosures. I also urge the Obama Administration — both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world — to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables.
WikiLeaks’ deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on our national security.
• Reaction in Pakistan to Disclosures
Monday’s edition of The News, a leading Pakistani newspaper, includes an essay by Cameron Munter, America’s new ambassador to Pakistan, headlined simply “Wikileaks.” Writing on Twitter, Nick Schifrin, an ABC News correspondent, calls Mr. Munter’s opinion piece, “Part attack, part apology.”
The ambassador writes, in part:
Pakistan is an important strategic partner of the United States. Of course, even a solid relationship will have its ups and downs. We have seen that in the past few days, when documents purportedly downloaded from U.S. Defense Department computers became the subject of reports in the media. They appear to contain our diplomats’ assessments of policies, negotiations, and leaders from countries around the world as well as reports on private conversations with people inside and outside other governments.
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of any one of these documents. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it. Diplomats must engage in frank discussions with their colleagues, and they must be assured that these discussions will remain private.
Honest dialogue – within governments and between them – is part of the basic bargain of international relations; we couldn’t maintain peace, security, and international stability without it. I’m sure that Pakistan’s ambassadors to the United States would say the same thing. They too depend on being able to exchange honest opinions with their counterparts in Washington and send home their assessments of America’s leaders, policies, and actions….
But relations between governments aren’t the only concern. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside the government who offer their own candid insights. These conversations depend on trust and confidence as well. If an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.
The owners of the WikiLeaks Web site claim to possess some 250,000 classified documents, many of which have been released to the media. Whatever their motives are in publishing these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to particular people who have dedicated their lives to protecting others. An act intended to provoke the powerful may instead imperil the powerless. We support and are willing to have genuine debates about pressing questions of public policy. But releasing documents carelessly and without regard for the consequences is not the way to start such a debate.
My colleague Salman Masood reports from Islamabad on the reaction in the Pakistani press:
Local television news networks late Sunday night prominently highlighted a cable released by WikiLeaks that mentioned the Saudi King’s damning assessment of Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari.
On Monday morning, leading newspapers ran front-page coverage of the WikiLeaks documents. The News, a center-right newspaper that is critical of the current government, had a lead headline, “Zardari greatest obstacle to Pak progress: King Abdullah.” That was a reference to the King’s assertion that Mr. Zardari was an obstacle to Pakistan’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” the king was quoted as saying, “it affects the whole body.”
The News article said, “The scathing remarks by the Saudi King explain why relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have remained cool and almost frozen during the current rule of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party.”
The News and Jang, the daily in the national Urdu language, carried an opinion article by Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, that seemed aimed at damage control. Ambassador Munter wrote that he condemned the leaks and stressed that diplomats must engage in frank discussions with their colleagues. Terming Pakistan as an “important strategic partner of the United States,” Ambassador Munter stated that “even a solid relationship will have its ups and downs.”
Dawn, considered the country’s leading English daily, had a lead headline “US trying to remove enriched Pak uranium: WikiLeaks.” That was a reaction to the revelation that since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret and unsuccessful effort to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device.
The Express Tribune, a Karachi-based English daily newspaper, headlined its lead article: “WikiLeaks shatters American diplomacy”.
Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, was quoted as saying that a response would be issued after a detailed reading of the leaked dispatches.
