Newspaper Page Text
4A
OPINION
Sttnes
gainesvilletimes.com
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Shannon Casas Editor in Chief | 770-718-3417 | scasas@gainesvilletimes.com
Submit a letter: letters@gainesvilletimes.com
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Two reasons
why Trump
won’t sanction
Saudi Arabia
BY THOMAS L. KNAPP
Sun Sentinel
“We may never know all of the facts surround
ing the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi,” Presi
dent Donald Trump told the nation Nov. 20, but
“the United States intends to remain a steadfast
partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of
our country, Israel and all other partners in the
region.”
Many find the president’s statement curious
given the seeming consensus among the Turkish
and U.S. intelligence communities that Saudi
Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman ordered
Khashoggi’s killing at the Saudi consulate in
Istanbul. But two simple numbers clarify just how
much importance successive administrations,
including Trump’s, have placed on the U.S.-Saudi
relationship.
The first number is one.
Jamal Khashoggi was one man. He was a Saudi
citizen, and considered an enemy of the state by
“his” government. He was neither a U.S. citizen,
nor was he killed on U.S. soil. He was technically
killed on Saudi soil — consulates have the same
“sovereign” status as embassies. His killing,
while evil and tragic, was really not any more the
business of the U.S. government than the execu
tion of an American in Texas would be Moham
med bin Salman’s concern.
The second number is 2,977.
That’s how many people 19 hijackers (15 of
them Saudis) killed (excluding themselves) at
the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in
Pennsylvania on Sept. 11,2001.
No later than December 2002, and presumably
before that, the U.S. government knew that the
hijackers had received significant funding and
support from Saudi government officials and
members of the Saudi royal family.
That information remained classified until
2016, when 28 previously redacted pages from
Congress’ report were finally released to the
public — and still “friendly” relations between
Washington and Riyadh continued without
interruption.
The U.S. invaded Afghanistan (none of the
hijackers were Afghans) in response to the Sept.
11 attacks.
The U.S. government insinuated a relationship
between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein’s regime
in Iraq as part of its justification for invading
that country in 2003 (none of the hijackers were
Iraqis, and al-Qaida was among Hussein’s most
implacable enemies).
But Saudi Arabia got a free pass, as did the
United Arab Emirates, from which two of the
hijackers came.
Why? Oil, money, and U.S. foreign policy.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE control a great deal
of the world’s oil, and can threaten to disrupt
international oil markets (and international life
in general) any time they don’t get their way.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also the top two
buyers of U.S. weapons.
Finally, Saudi Arabia and the UAE support the
U.S. agenda of isolating Iran and frustrating its
regime’s regional ambitions, and allow the U.S.
military to operate bases on their territory pursu
ant to that agenda.
Next to those considerations, 2,977 killings on
U.S. soil, most of them of Americans, didn’t mat
ter to George W. Bush or to Barack Obama.
Nor do those 2,977 killings, let alone the killing
of one Saudi journalist in a Saudi consulate, mat
ter to Donald Trump.
But they should.
Thomas L Knapp is director and senior news
analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for
Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
Your government officials
U.S. government
President Donald Ihimp, The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500,
202-456-1111,202-456-1414, fax, 202-456-
2461; www.whitehouse.gov
Sen. Johnny Isakson, 131 Russell Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510,202-224-
3643, fax, 202-228-0724; One Overton Park,
3625 Cumberland Blvd., Suite 970, Atlanta
30339, 770-661 -0999, fax, 770-661 -0768;
isakson.senate.gov
Sen. David Perdue, 383 Russell Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510,202-224-
3521, fax 202-228-1031; 3280 Peachtree Road
NE Suite 2640, Atlanta 30303, 404-865-0087,
fax 404-865-0311; perdue.senate.gov.
D.S. Rep. Doug Collins, 1504 Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515,202-
225-9893; 210 Washington St. NW, Suite 202,
Gainesville 30501,770-297-3388; dougcollins.
house.gov
D.S. Rep Rob Woodall, 1725 Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515,202-
225-4272, fax 202-225-4696; 75 Langley Drive,
Lawrenceville 30045, 770-232-3005, fax 770-
232-2909; woodall.house.gov
Georgia state government
Gov. Nathan Deal, 203 State Capitol, Atlanta
30334; 404-656-1776; www.gov.georgia.gov
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta
30334, 404-656-5030; www.ltgov.ga.gov
Secretary of State Brian Kemp, 214 State Capitol,
Atlanta 30334, 404-656-2881, fax 404-656-0513;
www.sos.state.ga.us; Elections Division, 2 MLK,
Jr. Drive SE, Suite 1104, West Tower, Atlanta
30334-1530, 404-656-2871, fax, 404-651 -9531
DeVos’ rules for handling campus
sexual assault provide balance
When Brett Kavanaugh
became the latest victim of
the unhinged #MeToo move
ment, the nation got a look
at what happens when some
one is accused of a crime,
denies the charges and is not
believed.
Being a respected jurist on
the brink of a Supreme Court
confirmation did not spare
him from an onslaught of
defamatory claims and sub
versive suggestions. Kavana-
ugh’s treatment highlighted
what the #MeToo movement, designed
to empower women, had truly become
— a witch hunt without due process.
Betsy DeVos figured it out before the
rest of us.
Earlier this year, the secretary of
education announced plans to modify
the rules governing sexual assault on
campus to balance the rights of both
victims and those accused of commit
ting assault. Last week, the final pro
posal was presented — and there was
plenty of backlash.
“I am dismayed with the Trump
administration’s cruel proposal that
will have the effect of putting power
in the hands of abusers and dissuading
survivors from coming forward,” John
B. King Jr., who was education secretary
in the Obama administration, said on
Twitter.
Others suggested that the new rules
would make it much less likely that
victims would seek help. Former Vice
President Joe Biden, someone who
has long been a champion of victims
of violence and who spearheaded the
Violence Against Women Act, said
“(the) proposed rollback
would return us to the days
when schools swept rape and
assault under the rug and
survivors were shamed into
silence.”
As someone who spends a
good part of her days help
ing victims of abuse in the
immigration context, I thank
Biden for his admirable
advocacy. I also agree with
DeVos that “every survivor
of sexual violence must be
taken seriously.”
But after seeing what happened to a
Supreme Court nominee with access to
the best lawyers and resources, I am
thrilled that the Trump administration
decided that all college students are
also entitled to protection. If accusa
tions could nearly take down a man
as respected as Kavanaugh, what hap
pens to someone who doesn’t have that
level of clout and legal prowess? Due
process exists because not every person
accused of a crime has actually com
mitted it.
Or, as DeVos said, “Every student
accused of sexual misconduct must
know that guilt is not predetermined.”
The changes to the Obama-era rules
create a balance for both victims and
the accused.
First, they revise the definition of
sexual harassment. Before, harassment
was defined as “unwelcome conduct
of a sexual nature.” That was so overly
broad that a wolf whistle and sustained
ogling would qualify as harassment.
Now, the conduct has to be “so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that
it denies a person access to the school’s
education program or activity.”
I’m glad they used the phrase “objec
tively offensive” because #MeToo has
raised the sensitivities of some women
into legal causes of action.
As the great Camille Paglia noted 20
years before women started march
ing in their pink hats: “A male student
makes a vulgar remark about your
breasts? Don’t slink off to whimper
and simper with the campus shrinking
violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say,
‘Shut up you jerk! And crawl back to the
barnyard where you belong.’”
Second, colleges are no longer
required to use the relatively lax “pre
ponderance of the evidence” standard
of proof and can now require that an
accuser prove a case with “clear and
convincing evidence.”
Third, colleges are now obligated to
investigate incidents that occurred only
on campus or at sanctioned events.
The fourth and most important
change is that the accused now has the
right to confront his accuser through
cross-examination. While he (or, in the
rare case, she) does not have the right
to directly confront the person making
the claims, a lawyer can be hired to
represent the accused.
The right to confront your accuser is
the single most fundamental principle
of our criminal justice system.
Colleges used to act like lawless Star
Chambers and err too heavily on the
side of helping victims while sometimes
ignoring the damage done to young
people too easily tarred as “rapists”
without any substantive proof.
Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer and
columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News.
CHRISTINE M.
FLOWERS
cflowers1961@
gmail.com
9HENEMAN TRBUNEC0NTENTASENCY
WE WERE JU5T
TRYING TO MONETIZE
YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
PROFITTING FROM THE
UNDERMINING OF
DEMOCRACY WAS JUST
A BONUS.
FACEBOOK MAKES ITS CASE AGAINST REGULATION
DREW SHENEMAN I Tribune News Service
Another good idea from Finland
we’ll probably ignore: No spanking
Last week President Don
ald Trump annoyed some of
the victims of the California
wildfires when he suggested
that the disaster might have
been avoided if Californians
had taken lessons in forest
management from Finland.
The Finns, Trump said,
“spend a lot of time on raking
and cleaning and doing things
and they don’t have any
problem.”
But if Trump believes that Finland is
ahead of us in forest management, what
other good ideas might we find there?
Publicly funded higher education for
all students? It works well in Finland.
Universal health care? The Finns have
figured out how to do it.
And here’s another idea that we
should think about: In 1983 the Finns
passed legislation prohibiting striking a
child under any circumstances, includ
ing spanking your own child in your own
home.
This is a drastic notion for Americans,
a majority of whom believe that spank
ing is an appropriate tool for disciplining
children. In fact, we use spanking gener
ously, despite considerable evidence that
it not only is ineffective, but it actually
does harm.
This has been the opinion of the
American Academy of Pediatrics for two
decades. In 1998, when more than 90 per
cent of American families admitted to
using spanking, the academy, represent
ing 64,000 doctors, strongly discouraged
its use even in its most benign forms.
Parents who spank, the academy said,
are also more likely to use
more abusive forms of pun
ishment. And the more chil
dren are spanked, the more
anger they report as adults.
Further, children who were
spanked are more likely to
spank their own children and
to approve of hitting a spouse.
The academy’s report is
clear and emphatic: “Spank
ing has been associated with
higher rates of physical
aggression, more substance abuse, and
increased risk of crime and violence.”
In the 20 years since the Academy’s
“Guidance for Effective Discipline” was
issued, the evidence against spanking
has become stronger and clearer. Last
week the New York Times reported that
in the December issue of the journal
Pediatrics the Academy will update its
guidance on spanking based on research
that was not available in 1998.
Recent research confirms that chil
dren do not benefit from spanking and,
in fact, ordinary spanking, as practiced
in many American homes, is associated
with increased aggression and defiance
at levels comparable to those of children
who have suffered more extreme forms
of abuse.
Thus the science on spanking is solid,
and the doctors who know most about
children agree: Do not spank your chil
dren, under any circumstances.
Our use of spanking has diminished. In
2013 a Harris poll indicated that 67 per
cent of American families use spanking,
compared with 90 percent in 1998.
And in 2014 another poll reported that
70 percent of American adults still agree
that a “good, hard spanking is sometimes
necessary to discipline a child.” Nine
teen states allow corporal punishment in
public schools.
So despite what experts say about the
harm that a “good, hard spanking” can
cause, our national mood doesn’t seem
particularly open to meaningful reform
on corporal punishment. Our president
publicly embraces violence. Here’s
one example, representative of many:
Trump said of a protester at a rally: “I’d
like to punch him in the face.”
And as Trump demonstrated last
week, he is more likely to reject the
moral principles of Finland in favor of
those of Saudi Arabia, a country that
still uses brutal corporal punishment
on adults. In 2014 Raif Badawi, a Saudi
writer and dissident, escaped the fate of
Jamal Khashoggi but was sentenced to
1,000 lashes.
So the outlook isn’t promising for
American children, who, despite the evi
dence against it, are regularly subjected
to corporal punishment that often scares,
humiliates and hurts them.
It’s odd: In general, we have stringent
rules against hitting each other. I can’t
hit you; you can’t hit me. For the most
part we’ve made hitting against the law.
Just about the only group of Ameri
cans that we hit with impunity is made
up of people who can’t defend them
selves and who are the most likely to suf
fer harm from it: children.
John M. Crisp lives in Georgetown, Texas,
and can be reached at jcrispcolumns@
gmail.com.
JOHN M. CRISP
jcrispcolumns@
gmail.com
She Stines
EDITORIAL BOARD
Founded Jan. 26,1947
345 Green St., Gainesville, GA 30501
gainesvilletimes.com
General Manager
Norman Baggs
Editor in Chief
Shannon Casas
Community member
Brent Hoffman
