Hewitt Blog

Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput makes the argument that extending statutes of limitations in cases involving the molestation of children may or may not be a good idea, but that it cannot be a good idea when the extension is available only to plaintiffs suing the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems to me that such a narrow statute may in fact violate the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by the 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith and the 1993 decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The llaw is neither neutral in its application, or one of general applicability, so the state will have to defend its act as one of "compelling state interest," which I think is hard to do when victims of public school teachers are not also extended the additional time to file.

Here is the beginning of a recent interview with the Archbishop. I will ask the Smart Guys this week if they share my Smith/Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye concern:

Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., of Denver is leading a fight against efforts by legislators and trial attorneys to roll back the civil statute of limitations for sex-abuse cases in Colorado. In an email interview with Our Sunday Visitor, he spoke about his decision to vigorously fight what he sees as an unfair attack on the Church.

OSV: What motivated you to take such a strong and public stance on the issue of statute of limitations?

Archbishop Chaput: Statutes of limitations exist for very good reasons that have nothing to do with any Church. Memories fade. People die. Evidence gets old or lost. In general, changing statutes of limitation or making them too long is a bad idea, and most law enforcement professionals know that.

Of course, certain crimes are so terrible, like murder, that no statute of limitation is warranted. Some people argue that the sexual abuse of minors is such a crime. Catholics don’t necessarily oppose that approach. Many Catholics are parents. They very rightly sympathize with victims and want to protect their own children. But the Catholic community does insist that all such laws, reporting timeframes and penalties apply equally to everyone and every institution, with no hidden escape clauses.

Unfortunately, most state laws don’t treat public and private entities equally when it comes to claims arising from the sexual abuse of children. In almost every state, public officials use a combination of governmental immunity, very brief reporting timeframes and very low financial damage caps to make it difficult for anyone to sue public institutions – including public schools.

Religious and private institutions enjoy no such lop-sided protections. The evidence now shows that public schools are a major environment for adult sexual misconduct and abuse with minors. But most state laws effectively ignore that.

In Colorado, under current (February 2006) law, a parent whose child is sexually abused in a public school is barred from suing the school because of governmental immunity. Even if a public school waived its immunity, which is unlikely, the child would have only 180 days to provide formal notice of a claim against the school. And even then, the maximum damages the child could recover are only $150,000.

For the identical sexual abuse in a Catholic parish, there is no immunity, no notice requirement, no $150,000 damage cap, and a much longer statute of limitations. This is why the litigation industry – and that’s exactly what it has become; a very lucrative revenue-producing industry – targets private institutions and ignores the public sector. There’s no money in suing public schools.

By the way -- and this is important -- keep in mind that we're really talking about two different law codes, criminal and civil, when discussing statutes of limitations.

Criminal statutes of limitations can't be changed retroactively. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that as unconstitutional. They can be modified or abolished in a go-forward fashion, but that's a much less heated discussion.

In contrast, some courts have ruled that civil statutes of limitations can be abolished or changed retroactively. Civil law also has a much lower threshold for proof. So what's happening is this. The litigation industry, which especially focuses on suing Catholic institutions, is working to change the civil laws across the country and impose massive financial damages on Catholic and other private institutions – retroactively. They claim it's about justice, but it’s very hard to see why it would be “just” for innocent Catholic families today to have their community crippled because of the actions of evil or sick individuals 25 to 60 years ago.

The LAWeekly's Bill Bradley has the scoop, as he has from start-to-finish on the story.

Majority Leader Boehner gets it exactly right. He should be on the cable nets tonigth saying exactly the same thing (provided he doesn't bump me from H&C):

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today on the "security" agenda offered by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

"The Democrats' years of negligence in addressing the real safety and security needs of the American people provide a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats on security issues.

"While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

"While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens, and secure our communities.

"While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws, and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society.

"The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed the Patriot Act, opposed REAL ID legislation, and opposed efforts to strengthen and secure our borders. And they remain unable and unwilling to articulate a cohesive strategy for supporting our troops and winning the War on Terror.

"When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else: no. A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security."

National Review's Jim Geraghty calls attention to the rumors about strikes on Iran --past and present.

Wretchard has a long post on conditions in Baghdad, and concludes with a pessimistic note:

The raids on Moqtada al-Sadr's men and the overt US opposition to Ibrahim al-Jaafari suggests the US is determined to excise what it considers to be hostile political factions by force if necessary, to clear the way for a possible unity government to emerge. Time will soon tell whether it will work or whether Iraq as a unitary nation is hopelessly compromised.

The posts on interview with Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Warecontinue to roll in and I will continue to add links to them to the list here. (Scroll down.)

If you want yours added, please include "Vox Blogoli 2006.1" in the subject line of the e-mail containing the URL. Send it to hugh@hughhewitt.com.)

I hope Tim Blair, Jay Rosen, Howard Kurtz and the gang at CJRDaily get around to reading the interview and commenting upon it. Ware's approach to his job is, well, unique. When big institutions have their people cross big lines --and Ware has crossed them-- the professionals should at least take note.

Baylor denies Francis Beckwith tenure. As Chequer Board's Max Gross puts it:

[F]rom the perspective of a casual observer it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that Beckwith's denial is, well, not quite motivated by academic considerations. You'd think a major Baptist university could find a place at the table for someone of Beckwith's theological and political views, especially given his outstanding calibre and accomplishment.

Gross also points to this comment by Rod Dreher:

Sources at Baylor tell me that the well-known Evangelical scholar Francis Beckwith was denied tenure today by Baylor University. This is major news. Dr. Beckwith, a distinguished philosopher, has what academic insiders tell me is a stellar publication record. He is nationally renown. He is also -- and I suspect this is what did him in at Baylor -- openly conservative. The fact that a Baptist university cannot bring itself to award tenure to a scholar of Dr. Beckwith's stature is scandalous -- and will cause shock waves beyond Waco. Watch.

The deep illness of the university world is on display again.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent backgrounder (subscription required). Key graphs:

The uproar began as a protest against a new law designed to relax a rigid French labor market that makes it difficult to fire anyone. In the process, however, the unrest has crystallized a deeper French anxiety. In better economic times, France maintained an elaborate system of social protections that cushioned citizens from the demands of the free market. The new law, which students call a symbol of "precarite," or precariousness, undermines that idea.

France's most famous period of violent protests in 1968 saw students rioting against what they saw as a rigid and smothering state. Today, it seems, they want the state back. Serge July, director of France's main left-of-center newspaper, Liberation, and a '68 veteran, says his country is gripped by "anguish about the future." It is also suffering from, he says, a "crisis of identity."

The Washington Post has details of yesterday's massive protests.

Powerline points to No Pasaran as a great aggregator of Paris riot coverage.

Radioblogger has posted the transcript of my interview with Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware.

It has already prompted an avalanche of e-mails and a number of blogosphere posts. I will link posts the urls of which are e-mailed to me at hugh@hughhewitt.com. Please type in the subject line: Vox Blogoli on Ware.

Among the more provocative of Ware's comments:

HH: But I do think that that distinction between Islamists and insurgents has been well understood, and for a very long time. And I'd look for you to tell me when were you misled about that. But more importantly, going to the Islamists, about whom...you'll agree with me, they're evil. Won't you, Michael?

MW: Well, I certainly...I mean, one has to be careful that as the Islamic army of Iraq reminded just last week on Al Jazeera, the insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we're within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic. Suffice to say, it's very hard to relate to the goals or tactics that the hard-line Islamists employ.

and

HH: Michael Ware, what is the difference between what you've been doing, especially with the jihadists, though to a certain extent with the insurgents as well, and say a World War II-era reporter making numerous trips to the German side to talk with the Nazis, and then coming back and being ambivalent about reporting on the Nazis, or being candid about the Nazis.

MW: Well, I mean, I think we're talking about very markedly different experiences. I mean, for example, during World War II, there was very clearly delineated front lines that simply were not crossed in a fashion like that. It wasn't a guerilla war. It wasn't an insurgency that's fought amongst the mix of a civilian population. So that simply wasn't able to be done. Plus, there was also a very great understanding about the nature of German expansionism, and German nationalism. Hitler had very much outlined his intentions for a decade before the war. So I don't think there was any great mystery there. There was no great unknown to the extent that there is here, that people just don't know what this war is really about. And getting to the bottom of that is extremely difficult, and requires you sifting through any number of filters that all of these players want to throw at you.

HH: But as you said at the beginning, the jihadis consider this to be one battlefield of a vast war. And the jihadis...

MW: Yeah, as does the West. Exactly.

HH: And the jihadis are very prolific in their statements from Osama through Zawahiri down to Zarqawi. So we really know what they're about. Given that you're arguing geography is the reason you do this, I want to go back to the nature of actually doing it, and whether or not if, in fact, in World War II, someone had been offered in Portugal an assistance from the Abwehr to go back and forth to Germany to visit various Nazi encampments or policies, would that have been acceptable in World War II, Michael Ware?

MW: Well, I think the values would be different back then. But let's think about it. What would be the value of doing that? I mean, imagine, okay, we know what we know about the German regime, or the Nazi party. We are inundated with their propaganda. We're listening to their chatter. We're getting their side of the story. Could you imagine having an objective view, go in and come out, and say this is what is really looks like? this is what it really feels like? This is what people in their quiet moments behind closed doors will actually tell you. Now imagine the value of that.

HH: So you would have encouraged such reporting, had it been possible in World War II?

MW: Well, I don't know. I wasn't around in World War II, so I'm not sure I'm really in a position to determine. All I can talk to about are the circumstances that have presented themselves to me, and the wars I've found myself in.

and

HH: Because we talked about this on CNN. Do you think Iraq is better off today, just...than it was under Saddam? Do you think that...

MW: Well, I was never here under Saddam. My period during Saddam's regime was in the Kurdish North, where with U.S. air cover, they've forged their own autonomous sanctuaries. So I never lived under Saddam, and I can only imagine what the horrors were like, and what the restrictions were like. All I can tell you that life here right now is extraordinarily difficult, and there's a lot of killing going on, and there's a lot of deprivation going on, and to be able to compare that to something I never saw is a bit difficult for me.

HH: Well, do you think the Russian people were better under Krushchev than they were under Stalin? Neither of us saw Kruschev or Stalin, but both of us...

MW: Yeah, I wouldn't have a clue, you know?

HH: You wouldn't have a clue? Really?

MW: No, not really. I mean, Stalin was the beast of all beasts, but you know, I'm not a student of Russian modern history, nor of the Cold War, on where the broad brush strokes...and I certainly don't hold myself out as expert enough to be able to comment on something like that. All I can tell you about is what I see, and what I experience. And what I know is the reality on the grounds here. Now was a vicious dictatorship removed? Absolutely. On a human rights basis, it has to have been a good thing. However, as the result of which, we've let a horrific genie out of the bottle, where 50 or 60 people are showing up dead every morning from an undeclared civil war that even the American ambassador now acknowledges is killing more people than the insurgency. Now that's something that was not here before, yet is here now. So I mean, it's an entirely different problem set that I really don't think can be competently compared like that. It's not that simple.

There's a great deal more, of course, and others find other segments troubling for different reasons.

There is also this exchange which references an important story on Zarqawi's operations in Iraq prior to the invasion, which I cannot find and which none of my listeners seem to be able to find:

HH: My last question. Zarqawi.

MW: Yeah.

HH: He was there before the war began. He had come back and forth to Afghanistan. In your dealings with the insurgents, had they dealt with him prior to the war?

MW: No. I did uncover some documents, however, that referred to his presence, here in some form. Now it seemed to be covert and unofficial, and one can only guess. However, I did receive a document written by one of his right hand men, a man who was killed in 2004 by a U.S. JDAM in his vehicle, who wrote an after action report of the first battle of Fallujah, in the course of which he said well, you know, Abu bil-Bloggs (phonetic spelling) was killed at this point. You know Abu bil-Bloggs. He was the one who saw Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.

HH: Did you publish that?

MW: Yeah.

HH: In Time Magazine.

MW: Yeah.

HH: Oh, that's interesting. I missed that one. I have to go back and find that.

Please let me know if you find this article that Ware assured me appeared in Time.

Now to the symposium questions:

Is Michael Ware doing a good job as a journalist? Is he helping or hurting the effort to pacify Iraq and help it towards stable democracy? Should Time recall him? Should there be a time limit on all journalists in a theater of conflict like Iraq?

There is no doubting the man's courage and his relentless commitment to the stories he pursues, but the interview raises questions at the heart of journalism's crisis.

Commentators:

TheRealUglyAmerican
Democracy Project
One Destination
LGF
ImmodestProposals
AlwaysJason
JustaWoman
OurKitchenTable
Cockalorum
The Asylum
View from a Height

And one e-mail --the exception to the rule of "no e-mails"-- from Hal, who is aiding the program daily:

"THE OLD MEDIA AND IRAQI WAR REPORTAGE -- LOFTY STANDARDS OR AGENDA JOURNALISM? - THEY REPORT -- WE DERIDE"

During the week of Mar 20, 2006, Nationally Syndicated Talk Show Host, Best Selling Author and Conservative Bon Vivant, Hugh Hewitt appeared several times on CNN's "Anderson Cooper" television show, where he had some lively verbal exchanges with other guests on the topic of the Iraqi war coverage.

Perhaps the most pointed and vivacious of these exchanges were with Michael Ware, Time's Baghdad/Iraq Bureau Chief and widely celebrated war correspondent.

Mr. Ware is NOT one of the legions of "razor cut and blow dry" journalists who are, shades of "Desert Storm", bravely reporting the war from the besieged balconies and roofs of 4- or 5-star hotels in Dubai, Kuwait, Amman, etc. -- thereby heroically subjecting themselves to the intemperate dangers of a bad piece of melon in the hotel dining room or even, God Forfend!, an awful slip on a scented soap bar in the hotel's spa whirlpool.

No, Mr.Ware is, as contemporary war correspondents go, the "real deal", he's been down in "the mud and the blood", he's "humped" (soldier's slang for "been along on combat operations") with the full range of The World's Best -- The Barrel Chested Defenders of Freedom and Liberators of the Oppressed; known more commonly as Rangers, Seals, Green Beret, Delta, et al.

On Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - Mr. Hewitt, decided to go "mano a mano" with Mr. Ware on his weekday radio show, broadcast nationally on the Salem Radio Network.

Mr.'s Hewitt and Ware slugged it out for over an hour. It was a wonderfully civil and enlightening exchange by two skilled wordsmiths, at the top of their profession and on their individual games.

The topic essentially was (in my own poor words), "Why does the Mainstream Media's Iraqi war coverage suck so bad?"

Why Indeed?

Well, by way of example, here just two of the exchanges (the "naughty bits" BOLDED by moi) between them, for the rest you absolutely should go www.radioblogger.com -- you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll cancel your subscriptions to Time Magazine and their Fellow Travelers, such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, et al.

Hugh Hewitt: Because we talked about this on CNN. Do you think Iraq is better off today, just...than it was under Saddam? Do you think that...

Michael Ware: Well, I was never here under Saddam. My period during Saddam's regime was in the Kurdish North, where with U.S. air cover, they've forged their own autonomous sanctuaries. So I never lived under Saddam, and I can only imagine what the horrors were like, and what the restrictions were like. All I can tell you that life here right now is extraordinarily difficult, and there's a lot of killing going on, and there's a lot of deprivation going on, and to be able to compare that to something I never saw is a bit difficult for me.

HH: Well, do you think the Russian people were better under Krushchev than they were under Stalin? Neither of us saw Kruschev or Stalin, but both of us...

MW: Yeah, I wouldn't have a clue, you know?

HH: You wouldn't have a clue? Really?

MW: No, not really. I mean, Stalin was the beast of all beasts, but you know, I'm not a student of Russian modern history, nor of the Cold War, on where the broad brush strokes...and I certainly don't hold myself out as expert enough to be able to comment on something like that. All I can tell you about is what I see, and what I experience. And what I know is the reality on the grounds here. Now was a vicious dictatorship removed? Absolutely. On a human rights basis, it has to have been a good thing. However, as the result of which, we've let a horrific genie out of the bottle, where 50 or 60 people are showing up dead every morning from an undeclared civil war that even the American ambassador now acknowledges is killing more people than the insurgency. Now that's something that was not here before, yet is here now. So I mean, it's an entirely different problem set that I really don't think can be competently compared like that. It's not that simple.

If that exchange doesn't give you at least broad hint as to the origins and sources of the suckitude in Iraqi War Coverage, try this exchange.

HH: Michael Ware, what is the difference between what you've been doing, especially with the jihadists, though to a certain extent with the insurgents as well, and say a World War II-era reporter making numerous trips to the German side to talk with the Nazis, and then coming back and being ambivalent about reporting on the Nazis, or being candid about the Nazis.

MW: Well, I mean, I think we're talking about very markedly different experiences. I mean, for example, during World War II, there was very clearly delineated front lines that simply were not crossed in a fashion like that. It wasn't a guerilla war. It wasn't an insurgency that's fought amongst the mix of a civilian population. So that simply wasn't able to be done. Plus, there was also a very great understanding about the nature of German expansionism, and German nationalism. Hitler had very much outlined his intentions for a decade before the war. So I don't think there was any great mystery there. There was no great unknown to the extent that there is here, that people just don't know what this war is really about. And getting to the bottom of that is extremely difficult, and requires you sifting through any number of filters that all of these players want to throw at you.

At this point, I would say that any reasonable and reasonably-educated, average person, has to question either Mr. Ware's candor, or his education.

With the possible exception of the odd, old Soviet Commissar or KGB officer (and precious few of them I suspect), it would be very hard to find any college educated Westerner that ISN'T VERY DAMN CLEAR on the difference between Krushchev and Stalin. Oh, let alone any Russian of the right age or education.

But, should Mr. Ware's education truly be lacking in this respect, a quick phone call, say to some reputable "primary sources" such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin (YES! he's still alive(?)) or Vladimir Putin, or even Mr. Ware's fellow author-journalists, Aleksander Solzenitsyn or Natan Sharansky, should provide him with all the information he needs to fix this curious hole in his education.

Mr. Ware could then follow up that phone call with a reading of award-winning historian (and noted former devout Communist) Robert Conquest's "Stalin: Breaker of Nations" or his "Great Terror: A Reassessment".

ACTION ITEM: Anyone reading this who cares enough, might think to send a copy of these books, to Mr. Michael Ware, Care of Time Magazine, or maybe you can drop them on some other media and political stars, who seem very unclear on the same distinction, such as: Madeleine Albright, David Gregory, Helen Thomas, Edward Wong, John Kerry and Paul Krugman, in order to help their deficient educations.

For me, the 2nd exchange above was the most illuminating, and, I believe, goes directly to the point of why the Iraqi war coverage is so very, very, very bad.

Mr. Ware's weasley refusal to compare his "even handed" coverage of the Baathist terrorist/murders and the Al-Qaeda terrorist/murderers, with the Nazi terrorist/murders or Communist terrorist/murderers, under the brittle and shopworn excuse, "So that simply wasn't able to be done" is poor verbal gruel indeed for a celebrated journalist, who makes a handsome living crafting words.

For a war correspondent, celebrated or not, to be unclear on the differences between the various types of "killing", is like a fisherman being unclear on the types of fish he catches. And it has just as peculiar a smell as two-day old, unidentified fish.

It seems pretty damn simple, probably too simple for someone as well-educated and worldly as Mr. Ware.

However, I humbly offer for the easement of Mr. Ware's personal moral and historical confusion, the following (simple) definitions: "Good Killing" occurs when "Bad People", simply defined as those who; murder, rape, rob, brutalize, victimize and otherwise oppress innocent people, are themselves killed or otherwise stopped from doing those "Bad Things".

"Bad Killing" occurs when "Bad People" do various "Bad Things", to innocent people without let or hindrance.

AHH, you say, "Isn't that culturalist? Aren't we just projecting our cultural values on societies that need to embrace their OWN cultural heritage?"

Well, if their own "cultural heritage" is; murder, rape, robbery, torture and oppression, my suspicion is that the vast majority of the helpless victims would take all the "projection of foreign values" they can get. And as quickly as possible.

Further, Mr. Ware seems to have no problem decrying the various crimes against humanity; such as slavery, murder, torture and oppression, when done by historical figures such as Stalin or Hitler.

But, when the exact same (well-documented -- by people living within a few feet of Mr. Ware's Baghdad residence) acts of horror and brutality are done by a Saddam or Uday or Zarqawi or the nameless legions of Baathist terrorist/murders or Al-Qaeda terrorist/murders...

...Well, to imaginatively reapply Mr. Ware's very own words more directly than he was willing to do, "Yeah, I wouldn't have a clue, you know?

Yeah, we DO know. And MORE of us are finding out every day.

In closing, allow me to further help Mr. Ware and his fellow journalists, who seem so "confused", by further expanding some basic definitions, that most people would expect professional journalists to know by heart.

The "Good Guys" are the ones building and rebuilding; schools, hospitals, mosques, oil pipelines and refineries, and universities...

..and the "Bad Guys" are the ones blowing all that up and murdering innocent civilians.

See how easy that was? Even a college-educated journalist should be able to figure it out.

Yoni Tidi was my guest on the program tonight, and predicted a weak and short lived government in Israel, as well as the sunset of Likud.

John Podhoretz doesn't bury Likud, but agrees with Yoni that a weak and brief government in Israel is the result of the vote:

So the polls are closed, and the story is: Oy. Exit polls say the new party founded by Ariel Sharon did the best, winning around 30 seats. But since last week it was projected to win 40 seats or more, the results have to be a huge disappointment for the party, Kadima, and its head, Ehud Olmert. The left-wing Labor party won somewhere between 20 and 22 seats, and you'll hear that this was a huge triumph, but really, it only represents a gain of one or two seats and doesn't mean a lot. A right-wing party, Yisrael Beitenu, is dominated by Israelis of Russian origin, and it seems to have won more seats than the traditional Right-wing party, Likud.

Likud was humiliated, winning somewhere between 11 and 14 seats. It is headed by Bibi Netanyahu, the Tasmanian Devil of Israeli politics. The horrid irony of this whole election is that if Bibi hadn't decided to challenge Ariel Sharon -- the most popular politician in Israel's history -- last fall for leadership of Likud and almost pull it off, Sharon wouldn't have left Likud to form the new Kadima party. Had Bibi just been patient and less greedy, he would have been in place when Sharon was felled by his stroke. He would have gracefully taken up leadership of Likud due to Sharon's incapacitation, and would have sailed into the prime minister's seat for a second time. Instead, he has been squashed like a bug, brought down by his own hubris. It is highly unlikely Bibi will ever rise to power again.

As for what happens now, Kadima will be asked to form a government. And if Kadima succeeds, it will be a very weak government. And there will probably be another election by the end of 2007.

It appears top me that Hamas controls Israeli politics to a degree greater than any Israeli leader. If violence returns or even if Hamas remains committed to the destruction of Israel and Kadima is other than completely strong in its response, I expect a new force will arise in Israeli politics, as no people will allow weakness to endure at a political level in a time of war.