RMN, RIP: What a loss

E. W. Scripps has announced that Friday will be the last day of publication for the Rocky Mountain News. This is a sad day for Denver and Colorado, and given the state's pivotal position in nationalpolitics, it's not too good for the country, either.

The Rocky always had longer articles, better coverage, and sharper commentary than its surviving rival, the Denver Post. But a tabloid format and a series of poor marketing and business decisions left it unable to compete in the shrinking market for dead-tree-based news.

The Rocky was also one of the main reasons that the more liberal Post didn't become the utterly irresponsible caricature of a newspaper that the Star-Tribune and the Los Angeles Times have turned into. With the Rocky now gone, there will be less pressure on the Post to be a responsible outlet, rather than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party and its affiliates.

In past times, the Post would have picked up the important features and much of the news staff of the Rocky. However, the Post, is facing financial problems of its own, laying off some editorial and management staff, and it's unclear how long it will continue to function, even without direct competition.

It's tempting to say that bloggers and other alternative media can step into the breach, and it may well be that a number of the reporters from the Rocky will try to develop their own sites for a living. And indeed, I'm sure we'll be able to pick up some of the slack.

But there's nothing like being on payroll to have the time to write and develop sources and stories. The Denver Press Club still has a bias against those who don't have major media organizations behind them, which limits credentialing and access to information and newsmakers. There's no question this is a serious loss for the area.

Paranoid liberals at Metro State

Tonight on Backbone Radio, campus editor Sean Doherty related the hilarious, but also deeply paranoid, fears of a Metro State staffer who voiced the following chain of spontaneous word associations in regard to a then-proposed (and since launched) campus newspaper called The Constitutional Reporter. "Constitutional... Klan... Republican... hateful... illegal... Nazi... swastika"

Yes, those are direct quotes. This really happened. Doherty's full notes of the phone conversations are given below.

STATEMENT BY SEAN DOHERTY Senior Political Science Major Metropolitan State College of Denver

Here are the minutes from my phone conversation with a representative of Metro State's administration.

Setting: I had previously asked for permission to put my paper on campus. They agreed. When I asked for written permission, the "gatekeeper" said he would get the permission slip to the right people and contact me. So, on the morning of 2/4/09 at 10:23am, I got the following call (I wrote down the following notes immediately after the conversation)

The gentleman on the phone had spoken with the appropriate people in admin who had him tell me the following:

"This is not a reflection on you as an individual but..." (an important distinction. What he is saying is that they don't know who I am but what concerns them is what they do know: the title of my newspaper: The Constitutional Reporter. They have no knowledge of anything except for the title of the paper)

He then goes on to say that the title Constitutional is concerning since the word is sometimes associated with radicals. He goes into rambling mode and lists a few other concerns such as "how do we know you're not part of the Klan?" He asked specifically if this was a Republican newspaper.

I responded that it was nonpartisan.

He then said that they don't want anything that could be considered hateful or illegal on the campus.

Then, he tried to justify their refusal to sign with this number: "we are for freedom of speech, freedom of speech..." and he explained that they understood this was a state institution and state property but that they wanted to "see an outline of the paper, you know, a business plan, to know what its about because they have to be careful before they give approval for something to be placed on campus.

I objected and said they did not need and could not request a business plan- I'm not even associated with the school other than being a student!

He said that was right but they would still need an outline of some sort.

I knew he wasn't the guy responsible for these concerns; he was just speaking for some administrators behind closed doors. I asked if I could meet with these people and address their concerns specifically so they may see that I am a good guy and certainly not a radical Klan member!

He said that they're busy folks (to which I responded that I am too) and he said they're always in meetings. So I asked him, "what about today at 3:30pm? Are they busy today at that time?" He could not give me an answer one way or the other and brushed off the question. He just told me to bring in an outline and we'd go from there. According to him, if I brought in an outline, then he could schedule a meeting with the administrators who could meet me and sign off giving our paper documented approval.

A day later 2/5/09 and around 11:30am, we have another phone conversation:

He reaffirmed that they were concerned and instead of just a Klan reference, he used the whole term in question: Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he added a new one to the list of concerns: that they did not want a Nazi paper on campus. "they did not want to pick up our paper and see a swastika on the cover."

I questioned him about what could be radical about the term Constitutional. To his credit, he said that the Constitutional Convention and other key events and figures in history were not radical (although, technically, in a way they were radical for that time) but he did not state any specific concerns or examples for what could be radical about the word Constitutional in a modern day context.

I asked him to submit his request to me in writing before I submit any outline in writing to them. I said something to the effect of "if the admin sees fit to request a written outline from me, I want a written outline of what their concerns are"

Nothing. He just told me to do an outline. I then said, basically, "well what if I did a news story about this? Would you want to put it in writing so nothing is mis-quoted?" He answered, "Absolutely not."

www.theconstitutionalreporter.com

To contact Sean Doherty 303.263.2281 kairoshappens@gmail.com

Hillman: No 2010 candidacy

Republican National Committeeman Mark Hillman will not seek any elected office next year, he announced in a mass email to friends on Sunday afternoon. The former Senate Majority Leader and acting State Treasurer had been mentioned as a possible candidate for the GOP nomination as US Senator, Governor, or 4th District Congressman. He lost narrowly to Democrat Cary Kennedy for State Treasurer in 2006.

Mark is a close personal friend, a regular contributor to this blog and our radio show, and an outstanding conservative leader. We can hope to see him back in political combat, and ultimately in public office, one day soon. Here is the text of his announcement:

I have decided not to seek elected office in 2010. Much has changed since I last ran in 2006 - my wife and I have "settled down" in my hometown of Burlington and a six-month-old boy has drastically changed our priorities. Campaigning for statewide or federal office is very demanding and our party deserves candidates who are willing to make that campaign a top priority. At this time, that simply isn't a commitment I am willing to make.

I am truly grateful for your support over the years and if, in a few years, it turns out that another campaign is right for me, for my family, and for Colorado, I would be honored to again have your support.

In the meantime, I intend to work hard as your friend, as a conservative committed to limited government and constitutional freedom, and as your Republican National Committeeman to do all I can to help our candidates and our party succeed by returning to our roots and unifying around our core conservative principles.

Yours for freedom, Mark Hillman

Other states envy TABOR

(Denver Post, Feb. 15) How dumb do they think we are? The state is in a $600 million hole because Gov. Bill Ritter and Democratic legislators ignored advice from Republicans – and even some fellow Democrats – to restrain spending and save for a rainy day. Now those same spendthrifts want us to remove constitutional guardrails so they can rev the budget again when good times return. Family budgets are breathing easier, after Ritter and former Speaker Andrew Romanoff got spanked by voters on three tax increases last November – Amendments 51, 58, and 59. But we’re taken for suckers on this too. Dem leader Paul Weissmann already talks of “floating an issue back to the voters” that would goose revenues and gut the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Meanwhile, a judge has red-flagged the governor for raising property taxes $120 million without taxpayer approval as constitutionally required. The state Supreme Court hasn’t yet ruled on this money grab, but the spending lobby must expect to win. They’re now brazenly planning another evasion of TABOR without citizens’ permission – this time to bust the 6% general fund growth limit. Sue them if you dare.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, part of the Colorado constitution since 1992, states that “its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.” That means we the people get the benefit of the doubt. Gov. Ritter, Sen. John Morse and other Democrats, Rep. Don Marostica and other Republicans, are all sworn to support the constitution. Have they forgotten?

They give off an air of casualness toward that oath of office, impatience if not scorn for TABOR and its limitations, and ill-concealed disdain for the millions of Coloradans who don’t know what’s good for us in terms of rosy scenarios, free-wheeling fiscal policy, and a “trust me” approach to government. Their track record forfeits our trust.

“Trust me” became California’s fiscal motto back in the ‘80s, after their voter-approved tax and spending limit was undone by education mandates. (Sound familiar?) The state is now $42 billion in the red and Gov. Schwarzenegger has ordered furloughs. He has wished aloud for something like TABOR to stop the madness.

Taxpayers in many other states share Arnold’s wish, as I recently confirmed with an hour of phoning. Budget analysts from Tempe to Kennebunkport, unless they’ve drunk the big-government Koolaid, endorse the wisdom of a population-plus-inflation growth formula, tempered with flexibility and recession reserves. They say people here should realize how fortunate we are.

“Watch out, Colorado. Without TABOR you could end up like Ohio,” warns David Hansen of the Buckeye Institute in Columbus. He describes a “generation-long spending spree” that has turned their low-tax, high-growth state into one with high taxes and no growth, “totally uncompetitive in the 21st century.”

Reports are similar from neighboring Pennsylvania and distant Arizona. Spending grew twice as fast as population plus inflation in both states since 2002, leaving them today with deficits far worse than Colorado’s. Absent fiscal guardrails, politicians “rode the revenue roller coaster sky-high, then crashed with it,” citizen lobbyist Tom Jenney told me from Phoenix.

TABOR may pass this year in Maine, polls suggest, after Democrats spent recklessly following defeat of a 2006 proposal. Oklahoma fiscal reformers have similar complaints and hopes. Ken Braun of the Mackinac Center observes that spending limits and rainy-day provisions after 1995 would have spared poor Michigan its budget agonies since 2002.

How irresponsible for Colorado’s philosopher kings to propose trading our prudent discipline for these nightmares. Delivered from temptation, a character in Bunyan exclaims: “Then it came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said, and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave.” Nothing personal, but we should likewise hotly distrust the TABOR-busters.

No jihadists to Supermax, continued

Seems I hit a nerve with my post about Gov. Ritter's collision with international law if Gitmo prisoners are moved to Colorado SuperMax. Indignant comments by Bill Menezes on this site and at PoliticsWest.com claimed I'm all wet. But his objections shatter on the clear text of the Geneva Conventions and relevant case law. His attempt to obfuscate salient facts with irrelevant minutiae fails the test of common sense, as well as established national and international legal precedent.

As mentioned in my original post, the salient fact is the prohibition on internment of combatant detainees (both actual prisoners of war and “unlawful combatants” – more on that later) in civilian penitentiaries.

In the operative provision, Menezes puts undue weight on the qualifying language before the comma: "Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries."

Common sense will inform the reader that the “particular cases” exception to the general rule is applied to individual detainees who are, for whatever reason (generally certain medical conditions, threats from fellow prisoners, or conviction of a civil crime in addition to their combatant detention status) better served or cared for in a civilian facility. Note that this exception is expressly in the interest of the prisoners themselves, not for the convenience or political benefit of the detaining power.

However, since common sense appears to be in general short supply, there is also an established body of case law and the commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that applies:

“Internment of prisoners of war in [p.183] penitentiaries is in principle prohibited because of the painful psychological impressions which such places might create for prisoners of war.” Citation here.

So in summary: The facts of international law and treaty (Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) and our obligations under those laws (and U.S. statute) are clear: persons falling under military jurisdiction as prisoners (irrespective of their combatant status) are NOT to be detained in civilian penitentiaries as a matter of policy.

Some exceptions MAY be made on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of the prisoners themselves, but in practice and precedent this is applied VERY restrictively. Ergo, Governor Ritter’s proposal to bring detainees from Guantanamo en masse to Colorado’s civilian SuperMax prison would in fact violate international law and our treaty obligations.

PS - The non-functioning link correctly pointed out by Bill in the original post has now been corrected. We apologize for the typo. The link goes to the Yale University Law Library’s “Avalon Project” – a superb resource and reference for documents on international law.