Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

Jan. 17

The Wall Street Journal on President Obama's decision to commute the 35-year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning:

President Obama's decision Tuesday to commute the 35-year prison sentence of Pfc. Chelsea, née Bradley,Manning will be celebrated on the left as a vindication of a well-intentioned whistleblower whose imprisonment at Ft. Leavenworth as a transgender woman was a travesty of justice. The real travesty is the show of leniency for a progressive cause célèbre whose actions put hundreds of lives at risk.

For those who need reminding, Manning was stationed in Iraq as a low-level intelligence analyst when he gained access to troves of classified material. Starting in 2010 he leaked nearly 750,000 documents to Julian Assange's WikiLeaks. Included in the material were thousands of secret State Department cables and masses of military information on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange worked with reporters from several news organizations to publish the material, to much self-congratulation about the virtues of transparency.

U.S. diplomats and military officers took a less charitable view, with good reason. While many of the State Department cables contained little more than diplomatic party gossip, others disclosed sensitive conversations between U.S. diplomats and opposition leaders in repressive regimes. After the disclosure, Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai was investigated by the regime of Robert Mugabe for "treasonous collusion between local Zimbabweans and the aggressive international world," as the country's attorney general put it.

Even more dangerous were leaks of operational secrets, including the names of Afghan informants working with U.S. coalition forces against the Taliban. A Navy SEAL who participated in the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan testified that Manning's leaks were found on the terrorist's computer.

Little wonder that at the time Mr. Obama criticized "the deplorable action by WikiLeaks." Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the document dump "puts people's lives in danger" and was "an attack on America's foreign policy," its partnerships and alliances. Prosecutors initially sought a life sentence against Manning, who was eventually convicted of 17 of 22 charges, including espionage and theft.

Within 24 hours of sentencing in 2013, Manning said he wanted to begin hormone therapy and be known as Chelsea. Last year the Army agreed to finance her medical treatment for gender dysphoria. In December the ACLU and numerous LGBT groups wrote to Mr. Obama urging that he grant clemency to Manning, in part on grounds that she has been held in solitary confinement after suicide attempts.

The commutation sends a dreadful message to others in the military who might have grievances or other problems but haven't stolen national secrets. The lesson is that if you can claim gender dysphoria or some other politically correct condition, you can betray your country and get off lightly.

On Tuesday Mr. Obama also commuted the sentence of Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar López Rivera, who was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" against the U.S. government. He belonged to the FALN, which was responsible for more than 70 bombings in the U.S. between 1974 and 1983, killing five and injuring dozens. Rivera, who has been in prison since 1981, had become the political project of "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, who is a pal of President Obama. No word from the White House on whether the President alerted the families of the FALN's victims.

http://www.wsj.com/

___

Jan. 17

The New York Times on Donald Trump, Russia and NATO:

Many people in the United States and abroad have consoled themselves by assuming that Donald Trump's outrageous statements were just politically driven, and he'd temper them once he became president. That thinking seems more wishful than ever when the man chosen to lead the world's most powerful country keeps saying that two pillars of postwar security and prosperity - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union - are obsolete.

Mr. Trump's latest salvo against stalwart American allies came in a joint interview over the weekend with The Times of London and Bild, a German newspaper. His published remarks have angered and shaken America's closest allies in Europe.

Mr. Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had failed to resist terrorism, and he repeated earlier charges that some of its members were not paying their fair share. He described the European Union as "basically a vehicle for Germany" and predicted that other European nations would probably follow Britain's lead by leaving it.

Then came potshots at Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, a strong leader who is facing a tough re-election. He called her brave decision to open Germany's borders to migrants and refugees a "very catastrophic mistake." He also suggested that he saw no difference between Ms. Merkel and Vladimir Putin, saying he would, at least initially, trust them equally, even though it was the Russian president who meddled with the American election, bombed civilians in Syria, crushed dissent in his own c

It is puzzling indeed for a president-elect to publicly denigrate leaders of his country's closest allies as well as an alliance that for 70 years has stood firm against Russian expansion. And Mr. Trump's criticism of NATO's response to terrorism showed no awareness of the alliance's contributions to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Mr. Trump did say during the interview that "NATO is very important to me," but in the context of his other remarks, this was hardly enough to blunt the impression that he placed little value on NATO's historic role as a defender of democracy and its continued usefulness today. Nor did Mr. Trump's remarks ease concerns that his choices for cabinet members, some of whom seem to have a much firmer grasp of foreign policy than he does, will have little if any influence on administration policy. During their recent confirmation hearings, Rex Tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state, said he saw value in durable alliances; retired Gen. James Mattis, the defense secretary designate, went even further, asserting that "if we did not have NATO today, we would need to create it."

Mr. Trump's comments on the European Union almost took the breath away: "I don't think it matters much for the United States." The union has its problems, as Britain's vote to leave it has shown, but to cavalierly dismiss as unimportant the idea of European integration and the second-largest market in the world is to ignore history and reject the future. Mr. Trump seems eager to help unravel the rules-based international order.

The big winner in all this is Mr. Putin, who has been working assiduously not just to delegitimize American democracy by interfering with the election but to destabilize Europe and weaken if not destroy NATO, which he blames for the Soviet Union's collapse. Mr. Putin will almost certainly try to persuade Mr. Trump to withdraw American support for NATO's plans to reinforce its defenses against a newly assertive Russia. As part of that effort, an American convoy crossed into Poland last week; on Monday, the deployment of 330 American Marines to Norway began. Reversing course any time soon would be a huge mistake.

European leaders put on a brave face after the Trump interview. "The best response is European unity," Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault of France said. A worthy response, but incomplete. The Europeans also need America as a partner. America needs Europe as well.

Online:

https://www.nytimes.com

___

Jan. 13

The SunSentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Florida on Obama's approach to Cuba:

There's no solution to the half-century old Cuba problem that will satisfy everyone, but we strongly believe President Obama made the right decision to end the troubled "wet foot, dry foot" policy.

For years, the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board has called for an end to a well-meaning but dangerous and unfair policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

Next, we urge Donald Trump not to reverse Obama's decision when he takes office next week. Trump is eager to undo many of Obama's executive actions, but this is one that falls in line with Trump's stance on immigration - even though he will undoubtedly receive pushback from hardliners in his own party.

We feel for Cubans who want to make a better life for themselves in the United States. We also feel for Haitians, Venezuelans and other immigrants from impoverished countries who desperately want to escape to our country.

But it made no sense to have a policy that encouraged citizens of one country to take life-threatening trips to our shores.

Cuban immigration to the United States has skyrocketed in the last few years with anticipation that Obama could end a policy that gave Cubans a special right to remain in our country if they reached our land.

In 2016, 54,000 Cubans migrated to the U.S., according to the Obama administration. That's an increase from 40,000 in 2015. In 2011, only 7,759 entered the U.S.

For years, you've seen images of Cubans arriving on flimsy rafts. Many didn't make it.

But you probably haven't seen the thousands of Cubans who are taking dangerous treks through Latin America and Mexico, with the hopes of eventually making it to the United States. Some have fallen prey to human traffickers. It's counterproductive to encourage them to make these deadly escapes.

We made a special status for Cubans two decades ago so they could escape political persecution in Communist Cuba. In reality, most of the Cubans who have made it to the U.S. in recent years are seeking to improve their economic standing, including medical professionals. Obama also announced the end of the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, which gave temporary legal status to those people but threatened depleting Cuba of doctors.

We're disappointed the Cuban government continues to imprison dissidents and restrict personal freedoms to their people. But it doesn't mean we have any less sympathy for citizens of other Central and South American countries with corrupt governments in disarray.

The next challenge for the Cuban people is fighting for change from within. Fidel Castro is dead and Raul Castro won't be around forever. Obama was right to open up new relations with Cuba - we can help the Cuban people by showing up to their country and spreading democracy, even if the money in the immediate future lands in the pocket of their unjust government. The worst policy is keeping the island isolated.

Now, the decision is in the hands of Trump, who has positions on the Cuban government and immigration that could contradict each other. Trump has threatened a hardline stance on the Cuban regime and their treatment of dissidents. But if he stays true to his campaign promises on immigration, he won't reverse Obama's decision to end the wet foot, dry foot policy.

Trump won the GOP nomination partially on immigration. It's hard to imagine Trump believes Cubans should be given a free pass to enter the United States without going through the same channels as other immigrants.

That is exactly what he said a year ago, when the Tampa Bay Times pressed him on the wet foot, dry foot policy and he replied: "I don't think that's fair," noting that other people wait years to immigrate here.

Trump's in a tricky spot. If he reverses Obama's decision, he reneges on his own campaign promises and contradicts his own beliefs on immigration. If he sticks with Obama's decision, he angers politicians like Sen. Marco Rubio, who blasted Obama's decision after it was announced Thursday.

Rubio acknowledged the wet foot, dry foot policy has "led to growing abuses" because of welfare aid. He called for an end to the policy last year. But on Thursday he blasted Obama's decision because it would return all Cubans, including those politically persecuted, back to the island.

Trump's national security adviser K.T. McFarland is a hard-liner on foreign policy and transition official Mauricio Claver-Cuoron is a top pro-embargo activist, according to Politico.

There are supporters and opponents of Obama's decision on both sides of political aisle.

Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, told Politico that ending the wet foot, dry foot policy "is in our national interest." Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, disagrees and said in a statement that "we should never deny a Cuban refugee fleeing a brutal regime entry into the United States."

We also shouldn't encourage Cubans to flee their country and face a much worse fate on the deadly voyage. Obama made the right call and Trump should wisely let it stand.

Online:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/

___

Jan. 16

China Daily on Trump's Taiwan game:

When it comes to tolerance, it is our tradition to display a big heart. That is why one can normally get away with making the same mistake twice, as one will be given the benefit of the doubt.

But one will seldom be given the benefit of the doubt twice, because doing the same wrong for a third time shows intent.

When United States president-elect Donald Trump broke his country's longstanding diplomatic protocol and answered a "congratulatory call" from Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen, the Chinese foreign minister merely responded by calling it a "petty trick" by Taipei.

When, just nine days later, Trump told Fox News Sunday the US would not "be bound by the one-China policy", Beijing simply reiterated that acknowledgment of one China is fundamental, and non-negotiable, for healthy ties.

To many, that was a mistake Trump made twice.

Yet when Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday "Everything is under negotiation including one China," reinforcing the impression that he intends to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip, Beijing did not go beyond what it had already said.

Such a measured response can only come from a genuine, sincere wish that the less-than-desirable, yet by-and-large manageable, big picture of China-US relations will not be derailed before Trump even enters office.

It would be a blessing for both parties, and indeed for the world, if such goodwill could be appreciated and reciprocated. But that seems unlikely.

It seems wishful thinking to assume Trump and his team's remarks on Taiwan have been based on bluster or miscalculation. On the contrary, it appears the next administration is intending to use the one-China policy as its trump card.

Taiwan has been off limits in China-US diplomacy thanks to the understanding that it is a Pandora's box of lethal potential, and that opening it may upend the hard-earned, firmly held fundamentals governing the relationship.

If Trump is determined to use this gambit on taking office, a period of fierce, damaging interactions will be unavoidable, as Beijing will have no choice but to take off the gloves.

It would be good if after his inauguration Trump can demonstrate more statesmanship. But Beijing should not count on his raising the stakes being a pre-inauguration bluff, and instead be prepared for him to continue backing this bet.

It may be costly. But it will prove a worthy price to pay to make the next US president aware of the special sensitivity, and serious consequences of his Taiwan game.

Online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/

___

Jan. 17

The Boston Herald on freedom of speech and social media:

Social media has inarguably become the Wild, Wild West of communications.

But the solution suggested yesterday by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice in letters to the heads of Facebook and Twitter is a slippery slope indeed.

"In order to effectively stem the tide of hate speech and bullying" on the social media sites, the group urged that they "take aggressive and proactive steps to combat this conduct. If not, courts and regulators will step into that void and mandate reforms."

The letter, sent by the organization's director of litigation, is, of course, aimed at intimidating both social media giants into some form of voluntary compliance. And the companies do have policies against hate speech, which they attempt to enforce - albeit imperfectly.

Frankly hate speech is the least of their worries right now. In recent weeks there was that vicious attack on a white mentally impaired teen by four young African-Americans broadcast live to Facebook as they shouted racial slurs. Or the teen accused of livestreaming her friend's rape over Twitter's Periscope. Chicago gangs have taken to using social media to boast of their crimes.

So is there a problem - especially with the video components of social media? You bet there is. But somehow we think that's not exactly what the Lawyers' Committee had in mind with its pleas against "hate speech" - a phrase now so abused by every "snowflake" on college campuses that it is virtually meaningless.

"The failure to take more aggressive action - and to protect minority users - is tantamount to facilitating discrimination and raises the specter of liability under federal and state law," the letter states.

So only minorities can be victims of hate speech? (Guess women need not apply.)

It is high time to recall the advice of Justice Louis Brandeis on the issue of hate speech - that "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Online: http://www.bostonherald.com/

___

Jan. 18

The Dallas Morning News on President Obama leaving the White House:

President Barack Obama leaves office Friday after eight years as the most consequential Democrat to occupy the White House since Lyndon Johnson. And unlike that Texan, whose presidency was born in tragedy and ended in failure, Obama will not have the ghost of the Vietnam War haunting his days and eating his conscience as LBJ did all the remaining days of his life.

And yet, the legacy of the nation's 44th president is, like Johnson's, a mixed one.

His first, and perhaps greatest, legacy was written in the many joyful tears shed across the nation on that morning almost eight years ago when African-Americans woke up to an America where one of their own had his hand on the Bible and the Secret Service at his back.

His ability to speak about race - and embody it, too - in a way that sought to get past stereotypes and old angers, without ignoring them, was a central and lasting hallmark of his presidency. Though he was often disrespected by his political opponents, he retained always his composure and dignity.

In that, he was a welcome departure from the example of the nation's last Democratic president and from its next Republican one, too.

But it's also true that Obama has left his successor vastly expanded executive powers, ranging from a global campaign of targeted assassinations run straight from the White House to a history of testing limits of executive orders on issues from guns to immigration. How those powers will look in the hands of his successor was something that Obama and his supporters paid far too little attention to.

He promised an unusually open and transparent Washington bureaucracy but did not deliver. History will credit him for providing health insurance for 20 million or more Americans who'd been without it, but it will note its high initial costs and uncertain future savings, as well as his busted promise that Americans who already had insurance could keep their doctors and their plans.

Obama inherited an economy that was at the brink of historic disaster, and today it has largely recovered. He gets too little credit for that, given how close we came to a second depression. But it's also true that his party lost its hold on the White House and the Senate over the course of the last two elections because so many Americans feel locked out of America's prosperity.

On foreign affairs, the president modeled a kind of wait-and-see leadership that America hasn't seen since before World War II. He kept his promise to start no new America wars, and to end the war in Iraq. But he also presided over a dimming of American influence, the full consequences of which are not yet known.

He leaves his successor a world without Osama bin Laden, and one in which climate change is now accepted as an urgent danger in capitals around the globe. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been checked, for now.

But many old threats remain. And news ones have been given life.

Obama will go down as one of the most decent men ever to serve as president. He accomplished much, but failures cloud his tenure, too. How they will look in four or eight years as the Donald Trump presidency ends is hard to say. That story still must be written, and Trump, rather than Obama, will write it.

Online: http://www.dallasnews.com/