Diplomacy, debates & delays Tue Aug 7, 12:21 AM ET

Diplomacy, debates & delays Tue Aug 7, 12:21 AM ET



Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be spending this long, hot summer trying to prove the other wrong or inexperienced.

ADVERTISEMENT


In case you missed it, their spat began at last month's CNN/YouTube debate, when Obama said he'd be willing to meet in his first year as president, without preconditions, with America-hating dictators like the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.


Afterward, Clinton called Obama's answer "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." Obama shot back that Clinton's support for the invasion of Iraq was naive and irresponsible.


Perhaps recognizing that his initial response made him look green on foreign policy (in the new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 60% of Democrats think Clinton would do a better job handling unfriendly nations), Obama began talking tough about "taking the fight to the terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, though not with nuclear weapons. Clinton replied that presidents shouldn't make blanket statements about nukes. And so on.


Is all this pointless one-upmanship? Not really.


A presidential summit with any world leader is a crucial foreign-policy tool. With friends, it can keep a dialogue going — as President Bush did the past two days with the president of Afghanistan and the week before with Britain's new prime minister.


With adversaries, the proper approach lies somewhere in between immaturity (I don't talk to people I don't like) and gullibility (I'll meet with anyone, anywhere, anytime). At best, a dialogue with enemies can bring a breakthrough, or clear up misunderstandings. At worst, it can be a propaganda coup for a troublemaker seeking to humiliate the United States and its leader.


Bush's stumble into Iraq is an eloquent reminder that knowledge of the world and foreign-policy experience are cornerstones of the job. So far, at least, Clinton is showing more of that savvy than Obama.

Playing with snowmen.

Will there be a Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate on Sept. 17? A couple of the leading GOP contenders are balking.


Rudy Giuliani likes the debate concept but has a "schedule conflict, a series of fundraisers throughout the day," says campaign spokesperson Maria Comella.


Mitt Romney also has a scheduling conflict — an unspecified event in New York. The former Massachusetts governor also apparently considers the YouTube format to be, well, undignified. "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," he sniffed, referring to the global warming question asked in a falsetto voice by a snowman in the Democrats' debate.


True enough. But for the most part, the videotaped inquisitors were earnest, refreshing, sometimes witty and almost always substantive. One questioner launched the above-mentioned debate about the wisdom of presidents meeting with dictators. Others raised heartfelt issues ranging from gay marriage to the fate of children in Darfur, Sudan.


At last word, the Giuliani and Romney campaigns were negotiating again with CNN to try to make the debate happen. Good. Presidential candidates do a lot of demeaning things, such as calling everyone they've ever met to plead for donations. Raising money shouldn't take precedence over responding to the concerns of inquisitive, ordinary citizens — even ones dressed as snowmen.

Tampering with ballots.

After the 2000 ballot-counting debacle in Florida and evidence of similar problems elsewhere, election officials and politicians across the country solemnly promised to fix a woefully flawed system and restore confidence that in future elections every citizen's vote would get fairly counted.


Fifteen months from the next presidential election, the nation's haphazard approach to voting still is not fixed. Scarcely a week goes by without new evidence of unkept promises, flawed technology and foot-dragging by equipment-makers, state and local officials and Congress.


In California late Friday, the secretary of state decertified the three major electronic voting systems used there — and in many other states — because of fresh concerns over inadequate measures to prevent tampering with the vote. She then reauthorized their use only if they are reconfigured with new, tighter security requirements.


Elsewhere around the USA, reports show, states either haven't spent aid to replace antiquated or malfunctioning equipment, or they haven't adopted adequate security measures for new machines.


Congress, meanwhile, left for its summer vacation without acting on legislation aimed at stiffening ballot-security requirements in federal elections. The latest version would postpone until 2012 the deadline for implementing several needed reforms.

The stampede to new technology after the 2000 recount has unearthed another set of issues that undermine confidence that every vote will be counted honestly. Vendors were more interested in selling machines than in selling tamper-proof machines. The pending legislation in Congress, if it ever passes, would require a paper trail for all electronic votes by next year's presidential election.

That would help. But six-and-a-half years after the Florida fiasco, the nation is ill-equipped to deal with another razor-thin presidential race.

On that, there can be no debate.

Wartime power grabs require beautiful sunsets Tue Aug 7, 12:22 AM ET

Wartime power grabs require beautiful sunsets Tue Aug 7, 12:22 AM ET



Few would argue against giving the government the powers necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Suspects need to be identified and monitored. Proven threats to the nation need to be removed. But surely any sensible person — conservative or liberal — should see that whatever powers are granted to cope with a crisis should be crafted carefully and removed once the crisis ends.

ADVERTISEMENT





If there is any redeeming feature of the excessively invasive eavesdropping law that Congress passed last week and President Bush signed Sunday, it is a "sunset" provision that makes all the bill's controversial provisions expire, unless Congress and the president agree to renew them.


Depending on whether the Bush administration exploits a loophole in the bill, they lapse either in January 2008 or a year later, but one way or the other they do expire — a safeguard that has often been lacking in such measures.


Until that happens, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence will decide without any court review when it's OK to monitor certain phone calls, e-mails, faxes and text messages between foreigners and U.S. residents. Such surveillance can go on for a year. Left on the books long enough, this is not just an invitation to abuse; history suggests it is a guarantee.


In fact, the law itself is evidence of the tendency of those in power to overreach. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress amended, long ago provided means to monitor terrorists. It set up a secret court to grant warrants quickly — even retroactively — for legitimate surveillance, and that system has been widely viewed as effective. Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution — provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants — the new law just short-circuited the process.


The law's sunset provision will at least require that regrettable decision to be reviewed and re-approved, by which time reason may prevail. A similar provision forced Congress to revisit the 2001 USA Patriot Act in 2005 and revise some of the enormous powers it gave the executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism.


Unfortunately, that exercise ended with Congress making permanent 14 of the Patriot Act's main provisions and providing new, four-year sunset requirements for just two. The risk of granting open-ended authority with little supervision became painfully clear when an audit by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI had routinely abused its authority under the Patriot Act to use "national security letters" to get phone, Internet and financial records.


It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers to fight a temporary war, even one that could last as long as the one against Islamic extremism. It's just as dangerous to trust an administration to police itself without court supervision.


A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure.