Target Centermass

Day: December 6, 2004

  • Ukraine Rivals OK Vote Reforms for Rematch

    Time for an update on the circus that has become the Ukrainian presidential election: it’s a do-over.

    Ukraine’s political rivals agreed early Tuesday on legislation to ensure a fair vote during the rerun later this month of the fraud-ridden presidential runoff but remained divided on constitutional amendments trimming presidential powers.

    In addition to supporting changes in election laws, outgoing President Leonid Kuchma agreed to change the Central Election Commission, which was accused of covering up rampant fraud during the Nov. 21 runoff.

    On Monday, Kuchma and Russian President Vladimir Putin had said they would abide by the results of the new election, removing major question marks surrounding the Dec. 26 rematch. The vote was ordered by the Supreme Court, which last week struck down the election commission decision that Kremlin-backed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych won the runoff.

    “Of course we will … accept the will of any nation in the former Soviet space, and will work with any elected leader,” Putin said during a state visit to Turkey.

    Yanukovych emerged from seclusion and declared he was confident of victory. Kuchma had supported Yanukovych in the runoff against Western-leaning opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko but has distanced himself from the prime minister over the past two weeks as protesters swarmed the capital.

    Tuesday’s agreement on electoral law changes was reached during six-hour talks involving Kuchma and the two candidates and brokered by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski.

    Kuchma emerged from the talks after midnight and said the parties had failed to reach agreement on his initiative to push through constitutional reform to transfer some powers from the presidency to parliament.

    Yushchenko had opposed the constitutional changes, saying that Kuchma and his allies want to weaken the presidency, fearing his victory in the election rematch with Yanukovych.

    However, just before the talks, Yushchenko’s allies in parliament reached a tentative agreement with pro-government lawmakers to approve changes in the electoral laws and the constitutional amendments on presidential powers simultaneously Tuesday.

    Should this fail, I would suggest best-of-seven Rock, Paper, Scissors.

  • US Against Moves to Alter Taiwan’s Name

    The ludicrousness of this story is exemplified in the above headline, taken from Yahoo! News. Taiwan isn’t moving to alter its name — it simply wants to call itself Taiwan.

    The United States said it is against moves by Taiwan to drop any references to China in its official name, warning it would disrupt the status quo in delicate cross strait relations.

    “Our view on that is that, frankly, we’re not supportive of them,” State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.

    Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian pledged at the weekend to push for increased use of “Taiwan,” rather than the island’s official designation of Republic of China (ROC).

    His move to alter the names of Taiwan’s missions abroad and state-run enterprises is sure to rile Beijing.

    China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, even though the two sides have been governed separately since the defeated nationalists fled to the island in 1949 after losing a civil war with the communists on the mainland.

    “These changes of terminology for government-controlled enterprises or economic and cultural offices abroad, in our view, would appear to unilaterally change Taiwan’s status and for that reason we’re not supportive of them,” Ereli said.

    China has vowed to reunify with Taiwan, by force if necessary, and opposes its entry to any world body as a country. Taiwan is forced to use the name “Chinese Taipei” in most international organisations and sports meetings.

    Ereli said the United States wanted to maintain stability in China-Taiwan relations.

    “That’s what we want to see,” he said. “And we are, therefore, opposed to any unilateral steps that would change the status quo.”

    And just what is that status quo that is so honky-dory that it must be maintained? Just this little mental exercise we’ve wrestled with for decades:

    The United States recognises China’s position that Taiwan is part of China but is bound by law to offer democratic Taiwan the means of self-defence if its security is threatened.

    Washington remains the leading arms supplier to Taiwan even though it moved diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

    Look, we all know that the two Chinas have long since become two different countries. Sure, they may be reunited someday, just like Hall and Oates may get back together and start churning out new hits. However, we should face the current reality. We’ve realized two separate nations with North and South Korea. We understood the distinction between East and West Germany. We’ve even put up with that crap from the Carolinas, Dakotas and Virginias.

    Taiwan, by every definition short of recognition, is already its own country. It’s time we stop saying “I Can’t Go for That (No Can Do)” to one of our strongest allies in the region.

  • Supreme Court: No Protection For Officer’s Sex Video

    My shock at this is that the damned thing ever reached the highest echelon of our legal system.

    The Supreme Court is backing a decision to fire a San Diego police officer who sold sexually explicit videotapes of himself, in and out of uniform.

    The unanimous opinion reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of the officer, who claimed his free speech rights had been violated.

    The officer was fired three years ago after a supervisor discovered the sex videos on eBay. The tapes showed the uniformed officer stripping off his clothes and performing a sex act.

    The supervisor charged the officer with violating department policies on unbecoming conduct and ordered a halt to the video sales.

    The officer complied but was fired after police officials found that his Internet profile on eBay still mentioned the striptease videos.

    The officer argued that the sex videos were made while he was off-duty and that they made no mention of his employment.

    Not even the libertarian side of me can find any support for this jackhole. As a silver lining for this idiot, he can now get back into the home entertainment business.

  • Eight Sue to Stop Stop-Loss

    A group of soldiers currently on active duty have filed suit to end or prevent extensions of their enlistment period.

    Eight U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the U.S. military’s “stop loss” policy, which forces them to serve beyond their enlistment contracts.

    Lawyers for the active duty soldiers sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other senior military officials and asked to be immediately released from military service, saying they had served out their contracts.

    The U.S. Army has implemented a “stop loss” policy that prevents tens of thousands of soldiers designated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment is over.

    Spec. David Qualls said he enlisted with the Arkansas National Guard on July 7, 2003, under a program that allows a veteran to serve for one year before committing to full enlistment, but when he wanted to quit a year later, he was told he could not return home from Iraq to his wife and daughter in Arkansas.

    “What it boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness,” Qualls, 35, told a news conference to announce the suit filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington. “I feel it’s time to let me go back to my wife.”

    ….

    Qualls, who said he supported the war in Iraq, took an 80 percent wage cut to serve his country and said he was falling behind on his car and house mortgage payments.

    “I spent the last nine months in that combat zone (in Iraq). I don’t think I am being unpatriotic. I believe I have fulfilled my duties,” he said of his wish to quit.

    I have sympathy for SPC Qualls and all those unwillingly extended. I have pity for their plights and various difficulties and am grateful for their service to date.

    That said, these eight now need to suck it up, square themselves away and do their duty.

    Lawyers representing Qualls and the others said the military’s decision to force people to stay longer than they had signed up for amounted to a back-door draft, a claim the military has strongly rejected.

    ….

    “When we ask a young person to risk his or her life in harms way, we owe it to that young person to fully explain the circumstances they may confront so far as the length of service,” said [lawyer Staughton] Lynd. “That was not done here.”

    Lawyer Jules Lobel, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he would try to prove the soldiers were fraudulently induced to join the military in what he said was a classic “bait and switch” operation.

    I enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard on April 10, 1990. On that date, I was well aware that I could be activated and forced to leave my civilian life behind. On that date, I certainly knew that my enlistment could be extended at the military’s discretion. I knew this because it was made clear in the paperwork I signed that day before I raised my right hand.

    The print wasn’t that damned fine.