President Barack Obama moved swiftly on Wednesday to impose new rules on government transparency and ethics, using his first full day in office to freeze the salaries of his senior aides, mandate new limits on lobbyists and demand that the government disclose more information.
Obama called the moves, which overturned two policies of his predecessor, “a clean break from business as usual.” Coupled with Tuesday’s Inaugural Address, which repudiated the Bush administration’s decisions on everything from science policy to fighting terrorism, the actions were another sign of the new president’s effort to emphasize an across-the-board shift in priorities, values and tone.
“For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for senior officials at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. He added, “Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
How long will it be before people begin filing information requests on the Clinton administration, which the 2001 Bush ruling blocked? I realize the target here may be Bush himself, but unintended consequences may come. This could be interesting.
So one of the first things that our new “transparent” president does is to repeat the Oath of Office, unannounced to even the White House Press Corps who did not even know that the Chief Justice was in the house. Not a good omen for his much vaunted “openness” Let’s hope he learns from this one. Even the WH Press Corps is up in arms, and they have been some of the most ardent supporters of BHO. Veddy interesting.
C’mon. We’re really clutching at straws here. A strictly “pro forma” (probably not even necessary) act which was publically revealed to everyone, was a re-enactment of something done in front of millions of people the previous day, but which the press corps didn’t get to photograph demonstrates a lack of transparency? If all government acts were this transparent it would be phenomonal.
Good day for the country. halting salaries is a good, symbolic act (although I’m sure many of them were taking cuts), and the ethics reform is probably good for those who go from the military into defense contracting or lobbying. Remember Cheney’s refusal to release documents?
This “transparency” business of his is so very naive, which was my greatest fear in BHO’s becoming President. He will regret and fall on his own sword on this one. And, yes, as #1 says, the unintended consequences will come from the Clinton years and may very well seal Hillary’s doom in her quest for the Presidency in 2016. And freezing pay and limiting lobbying opportunities for his staff will hoist him on his own petard, also, as he will have trouble bringing the brightest and best into his administration, once reality sets in. This is not showing his pragmatic side; rather it shows his idealogue side, in the face of his speeches to the contrary on Tuesday. As Bill Clinton did when he first took office, speak one way and act another and try to get things done before anyone realizes that you are doing the exact opposite of what you said you were going to do. Good luck, Mr. President. You are already off to a rocky start; you just don’t know it yet.
Obama also set a new tone by ordering the prosecutions of our enemies held at Guantanamo, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who, you know, only masterminded the September 11 attacks, suspended. We wouldn’t want to offend the poor darlings, after all.
i think he is indeed setting a new tone and it is badly needed, especially on this issue. i say let it all come out and the cards fall where they may for whomever. i loved clinton but if that includes him, then it does.
i want to know what sweet deals cheney made with the energy companies. if no one from this past administration is going to prison, their evil deeds (if indeed there were any) should see the light of day at least.
Guantanomo and its methods were justified on the grounds that it supposedly held “the worst of the worst.” In fact, it did hold the worst but also the bad, the not-quite-so-bad, and the outright innocent. Just last week a prisoner who has maintained from the beginning that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban was quietly cleared and sent home. This after years of being held without charges, incommunicado, with no way to clear himself, in conditions which not infrequently violated the conditions of the Geneva convention or the Constitution (take your pick which apply, but don’t tell me neither do.) When prisoners began to commit suicide, the head of Guantamo then responded that this was just another example of a bunch of terrorists trying to “manipulate” public opinion. A hundred years from now, this will still be a stain on our country.
Yeah, some of the Islamic militants committed suicide… how completely against their M.O. At least at Guantanomo they didn’t carry anyone else with them.
Catholic Mom,
Neither apply.
Well, that’s a relief. I mean — we all think it’s a great idea for the military to scoop up anybody it wishes anywhere in the world, on any (or no) evidence whatsoever (like being turned in by a neighbor you’ve had an argument with or to whom you owe money) “disappear” the person into a non-accountable black hole in which even the person’s very existence will not be confirmed, bring no charges against the person, allow no mechanism whatsoever by which they can be exonerated, hold them indefinitely, torture them (according to the definition of the Geneva Convention), continue this for years and years with absolutely no known end, and, of course, mock them when they’re driven insane and commit suicide. Or wait…that was Stalin who did that, right?
Personally, I would say that whenever you start looking around to find a place outside of the jurisdiction of the United States so that you can conduct your dirty business outside of the rule of American law, you probably should stop and consider whether we need enemies to destroy us or whether we’re not perfectly capable of the job ourselves.
Keep in mind, CM, that 61 of those released from Gitmo have been proven to have already returned to terrorism against the US, and these are the guys the Pentagon thought were harmless.
C-M, #11, your points are well-taken in some areas. But remember, except for a few persons, these men were not scooped up “anywhere in the world” without “any evidence whatsoever.” Yes, there may have been some men who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and one may have just been sent home. But no war was declared, so Geneva Convention does not apply. And the crimes of which they are accused are, also, not crimes against U.S. laws, for which Constitutional rights are guaranteed. There is no category for people who decide they are going to be terrorists in the world and simply go around blowing innocent people up. So what do you do with them? The first thing you do is put them where they can’t blow anything up. Next you try to find out from them what others that they know are planning to blow up. Obviously, water-boarding is now called torture by a new administration (and others, including Sen. McCain prior to this time). Since it did not caused any real physical injury, a legal opinion was written by government attorneys that it was not torture. (Having been through some of it in training, I can tell you that it was quite frightening the first time, less so the second time, but no physical damage occurred to me, other than swallowing water and not being able to get my breath for awhile, but not as bad as having the breath knocked out of me.) Otherwise, I know of no other valid reports of alleged “torture.” Once you’ve gotten all the intelligence information from them, what do you do with them? They are not entitled to trials within the U.S. justice system, according to federal courts’ opinions. So military tribunals were set up to try their cases. I believe the Bush administration should have started the military tribunals sooner and determined what to do with these men before the last year or two. Some of the delay was in trying to keep intelligence secret and continuing to get valuable information from these men that helped keep our country safe and helped safeguard our military overseas. We don’t know everything, nor should we, since, otherwise, intelligence operations are useless. Instead of allowing the military tribunals to continue to handle the process, the Democrats and BHO have made a political issue out of it and have backed themselves into a corner. They have no more idea what to do with these guys at Gitmo than anyone else. But if you have a suggestion, I’m sure they would like to hear it, and so would I. And please remember in making your suggestion, that these are not poor mistreated people. These are not good people who are just misunderstood. These are terrorist, who would blow you and your family up, if they are given the chance, just because you are an American or European and are a Christian, not a member of Islam, and for no other reasons. Now, please provide me with your solution.
And Obama is already granting an exemption waiver from his lobbying ban – Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn III, who Obama wants to be his Deputy Defense Secretary. I personally don’t see anything wrong with hiring lobbyists – sometimes they do have the most knowledge in an area. I do like the idea that after leaving government, there is a time period that they cannot come back and lobby those they worked with.
Catholic Mom, ditto to #12 and #13.
Additionally, I would say that the “torture†aspect of this is a whole discussion by itself; what I mean to address is the detention in and of itself of enemy combatants who, by their own behavior, have disqualified themselves from protection under any of the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory.
One question I would ask you is: what do you think happened to somebody (doubtless there were some) innocently captured among irregular/non-uniformed/partisan fighters during WWII? I suppose the Red Cross would have had knowledge that these people existed and were in a POW camp somewhere (as they do at Guantanamo), but do you think they should or did have access to the U.S. courts as a means of forcing their release?
Guantanamo is not a “non-accountable black hole.†Those held there have access to more recourse than any other legitimate prisoner of war, never mind irregular ones dedicated to violating the laws of war, has had in the history of our nation.
“Luke 6: 27-36 But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.”
Billy, the Geneva convention did not envision warfare between countries and groups like Hamas or el Quida. But it seems to me that the rules for treatment of combatants that are laid out in the Geneva Convention ought to apply – if for no other reason than I don’t want other countries following our example and deciding for themselves when or when not to apply it. I think it is better for all of us (from even a purely pragmatic view) to apply the Geneva Convention so that others cannot claim our example as an excuse for their own non-compliance. There are pragmatic benefits to being on the moral high ground.
I also heard a sobering report from one of the defense attorneys who was assigned to defend some of those detainees, including a 13 year old boy. The lawyer, who is a military officer, a lawyer, and who voted for Bush in both elections, is claiming publicly that those hearings are a sham. He was saying that they are not following any standard of law that he is familiar with, that they are not following recognizable evidentiary rules (particularly if the evidence is exculpatory), and that judges are playing to the press. This guy was no granola-eating, long haired liberal, and he is still a lawyer for a number of the accused down there. I found that report to be downright disturbing.
I’m a lawyer and a fairly conservative one at that. But I have a very hard time justifying anything that resembles torture with a sense of Christian morality. I’m with Catholic Mom on this. We have values -both moral and legal values that set us apart and make us an example to the world. With Gitmo and its “courts” in my opinion we are betraying those values, and also saying that our values won’t hold us when the going gets rough. They are only good in peace time, but we must sacrifice them in times of adversity. I think those values that are in our legal system, those values that we signed on to in the Geneva Convention, and the values that we have as followers of Christ MUST be held on to even more closely when adversity strikes, when bad people do evil things to us. If not, there is nothing that distinguishes us from them.
That may mean that we have to make hard choices. That we have to try these people according to either our law or the military code of justice. That maybe we have to let some of these bad guys go or send them to other countries, where if we find them plotting against us we fight them again. But we can’t lessen who we are and what we represent as Americans. I think that is what has gotten us in trouble with the rest of the world – not so much that we are fighting the bad guys, but that we are seen to have lowered ourselves down to their level.
Gretta, I think we all struggle with this versus the standards we want to hold as Christians. I would just point out that your statement, “maybe we have to let some of these bad guys go or send them to other countries, where if we find them plotting against us we fight them again” [emphasis mine] – which I presume would be one of the acceptable courses of action for you – is itself inconsistent with the words of Christ you gave us.
You have actually no idea whatsoever that these are “enemy combatants” or guilty of anything whatsoever, other than the unsupported statement by certain U.S. officials that they are.
You don’t actually even know who is there and what exactly they’re charged with. They might each and every one be as culpable as Bin Laden or they might have once sold a pair of shoes to Bin Laden. You have zero information to tell the difference.
You have no way to know anything whatsoever because all of this has been conducted through a veil of secrecy worthy of the Gulag at its best. Apparently we were able to defeat the two greatest military powers in the world in WWII without resorting to fascist/communist tactics, but we can’t defeat a bunch of two-bit terrorists in the Middle East without destroying our principals and our Constitution.
Anybody remember the son of a well known Arab-American businessman about two years ago who got stopped in a cab in Iraq? It turns out the cabby had what the military considered suspicious documents in his trunk. The guy was in Iraq taking photographs for a magazine and was headed for the airport. The cab was stopped and searched at a checkpoint. He got arrested, but nobody had any idea what happened to him. He disappeared, like in Argentina. His family was frantic and couldn’t find any trace of him. Meanwhile he was being beaten and urged to “confess.” No doubt he would have been on his way to Gitmo had he been a typical nobody. However, as it happens, his family was extremely well connected in the U.S. They prevailed on their senator to prevail on someone in the military to prevail on somebody else and lo and behold he managed to be found. His interrogators basically dusted him off (“no hard feelings there, right buddy?”) and drove him to the airport.
Couldn’t happen in America, right? Well…so far it couldn’t. But even if you’re a U.S. citizen, don’t think it couldn’t happen to you when you set foot out of the United States.
Yes, some of those released from Gitmo have returned to terrorist activities — because they were terrorists to begin with. So, in fact, Gitmo has not even served the purpose which is supposed to have justified its existence.
BTW, I have an excellent idea what to do with the remaining prisoners in Gitmo. Bring them to the United States, accuse them of crimes in open court, bring witnesses and evidence, and let a judge or jury decide their guilt or innocence. It’s called “the rule of law.”
Catholic Mom, perhaps you can inform us all of how many trials of German POWs there were in WWII, since we obviously avoided the gulag and fascistic approach we now take.
And remember, these were troops that wore uniforms, had insignia, carried weapons openly and generally obeyed the rules of war as laid out by the Geneva Conventions. The Gitmo crowd does not.
Well, I’m presuming that if we simply let some of these detainees go, then they have not done anything yet that violates our law or international law. If they then go and do something that violates the law or harms innocents, then we have a moral/legal leg to stand on in punishing them for their actions. As it stands (and as CM points out) we don’t know what if anything these folks have done -and apparently some of them have not violated any laws.
And lest I sounded smug with that bible quote, it is not intended. In fact, it was because I struggle with wanting to be safe on the one hand, but feeling like we have not been living up to either the letter or the spirit of those words on the other. I don’t know how best to balance that teaching with the realities we face – but I can say with certainty that when something like holding people without trial and without recourse at Gitmo, or when we torture people (do we really think that splitting hairs about whether waterboarding is torture or just making someone THINK that they are going to drown somehow reflects Christian values) or engage in behavior which violates both our legal principles as well as our moral ones, then it is just wrong – even if it is expedient.
I don’t have the answers, just the struggles. But I do believe as Christians we should be looking at those verses every time we are making legal/moral decisions about how we are treating our enemies. Those words should be making us squirm, and should be holding us accountable when we start choosing expedience over principle.
We agree the terrorists (or those arrested on suspicion of terrorist activites) are not soliders, thus are not treated like soliders. (Soldiers are not “tried” or “punished” for their military activites, except as these constitute war crimes.)
Since we are using a legal model, holding “tribunals,” referring to them as “prisoners,” etc. we are clearly treating them as criminals. Except, apparently, they have violated no laws so can’t be brought to the U.S for trial?? Would anyone care to explain why the U.S. is incapable of dealing with this legal gap? We can kidnap people and set up a whole extra-legal Gulag to defend ourselves against their actions, but we can’t create clear statutes that define what is illegal about their behavior? The whole thing sounds like Alice-in-Wonderland. Or maybe Kafka is the better fit.
CM, I have no idea about a lot of stuff that is asserted merely by “unsupported statement[s] by certain U.S. officials.” For example, I don’t know – independently – that Bin Laden was even responsible for 9/11. I know he said, after the fact, that he was, but these kinds of claims are made all the time by terrorist groups, whether true or not, since it’s a big propaganda game for them. As far as a case for it, I have what the government told me, and nothing else. Most economic data comes only from the government, too (and is then used by independent firms to produce their analyses, which have the appearance of independence, but are not – they are not, largely, based on independently collected data). Should we assume, tinfoil hat-like, that it’s wrong and cooked up for the government’s own purposes?
I don’t disagree with you that abuses occur, but abuses occur even in the court system which you see as a model of transparency. That’s a function of our fallen humanity, not Gitmo versus not-Gitmo.
I am willing to go out on a limb and make a prediction. If the US sends some of these terrorist to a US prison, we will have
Al Quaeda operating there within a year. Then watch out! Jack Murtha needs to take them to his state, and all of those who think these are just poor misguided souls, but cold blooded heartless terrorists. They kill for glory and sport. I am sure Catholic Mom is a sweet soul who wants us all to be ok, but until we recognize the force of real evil in this world, we are fooling ourselves. One of the things that concerns me about BHO is that he declared the other day that he wasnt too sure about this “sin” business. He is going to get a savage lesson soon, I am sure. Pray for us all.
#16, Gretta, thanks for you comments … I found them inciteful and helpful. I have a civilian friend, liberal Democrat, who has helped defend in the military tribunals at Gitmo. He doesn’t have a particular problem with the trials but the lack of expedition of them. As an attorney, you know that arguments can be made on either side of the waterboarding issue – two of Obama’s top appointments have differed in front of Congress the last two days on the question. Aside from that question, however, it is my understanding that these prisoners have been given more than is required by the Geneva Convention. Yes, we can turn the other cheek as our Lord calls us to do, but if we have the power to stop innocents from being killed in other countries, and even in our own, simply by detention of these dangerous people, should we not do that?
#18, C-M, you are correct that I don’t know for sure who is at Gitmo, but neither do you. All I have is the reports given out by our government, and the spin put on those reports by our news media, same as you. You seem more willing to believe the detainees are mistreated and deserve a trial under U.S. law, for some reason, “the rule of law,” as you put it (which even in our country is only sacrosanct until a jury decides to nullify evidence for political or racial reasons or Congress requires lenders to unilaterally change lending contracts, made in good faith, for political reasons). Like Gretta, I am an attorney. It is my memory that the D.C. Federal court has ruled that these detainees do not have the right of a trial (jury or otherwise) in the U.S. system of justice, but for some reason, you believe they have that right. I don’t. Since no war was declared, they, also, have no rights under the Geneva Convention, nor would they had war been declared, since they were not wearing uniforms and were not a part of an identifiable military force for a signatory to the Convention. They are in a limbo that the Bush Administration tried to find a way for them with military tribunals. Perhaps those are not working well, as Gretta indicates from her source. My source does not say that. Just because our mainstream media says that “the world” is against us because of Gitmo does not make it true. Those countries that need our support and protection are not against us because of Gitmos – Israel, Taiwan, India, most of Eastern Europe. If Russia makes another move into Eastern Europe, like it did into Georgia a few months ago, Western European countries will not be on different wave lengths than ours – in fact, they really aren’t now. Who is against us because of Gitmo – France? they are always against us, but share intelligence. Germany, they now ally with France for the sake of the EU, but share intelligence. Italy is not against us. Spain was with us until the terrorists bombed their train and a socialist was elected. England – they are still with us. Australia- with us as never before. Russia – never with us to begin with, but sometimes shared intelligence. China – never with us at anytime. Japan, South Korea – still with us. Let’s face it: Gitmo was made a political issue during the campaign and now that issue has to be dealt with. But BHO and his staff don’t know what to do and are in disagreement about it, as is most of the country, including you and me.
#19 – I think Jefferson is right. In WWII we had a much higher standard than we do now. Hitler’s minions, after all, got trials for the world to see.
The fundamental difference between a “terrorist” and a soldier is that a terrorist doesn’t work for any state. A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy. They may be instructed to kill civilians. States bomb places of symbolic, rather than military, value.
I think there is real evil in the world, but by becoming evil ourselves, we increase it more. Are good guys finally much better? Remember the Stanford Experiment…..
I’m willing to take “unsupported statements” (or rather “unproven in a court of law statements”) as being probably true for statistical, historical and analytic purposes. But I’m not going to deny someone life or liberty on that basis.
If Bin Laden were actually arrested, he would not be imprisoned or executed on the basis that “everybody knows” (or “the U.S. believes”) that he was responsible for 911. Just like Saddam Hussein wasn’t executed on the basis that the State Department believed him guilty of the massacre of the Kurds. In fact a trial, with evidence, and with a judge, was held. That is the ONLY basis on which Americans dispense justice. Otherwise it isn’t justice.
I don’t think the world is full of nice people. In fact, I think the world is full of terrible people. And we seem to have dealt effectively with lots and lots of them before Gitmo and I have every confidence that we will after Gitmo as well. I just don’t want my own government to be among them.
Wow!—most of these comments suggest that some Christians have a real yearning to beat plowshares into swords.
I just want to clarify, particularly given ember’s comment – I struggle with this also and how it is consistent with Christ’s teachings. My judgment is different than others, but I understand what CM, Gretta and others are saying. May God have mercy on me, and all of us.
[blockquote]#19 – I think Jefferson is right. In WWII we had a much higher standard than we do now. Hitler’s minions, after all, got trials for the world to see. [/blockquote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about John, quite frankly. Which of “Hitler’s minions” saw the inside of a US courtroom? Which had the right of habeous corpus? Which had the right of appeal? I’ll save you the trouble of blowing more smoke at us: None.
And, exactly, how many of the thousands of German POWs that were interned here, on US soil, saw the inside of a US courtroom? Again: Zero.
The standard put forth by the Bush administration was far beyond anything ever considered at Nuremburg. The men at Gitmo, in WWII, would have been summarily executed as spies in WWII.
Pardon me, but that is “habeas.” Good grief.
#27, ember, your comment seems inaccurate to me – I see no one wanting to make swords. What I see above is all of us struggling with the issues so elegantly raised by Gretta. I certainly don’t advocate killing and warfare. I view those our government considers to be dangerous terrorists like I view predators in our own society – they are to be detained and kept from society so that they don’t hurt innocents (I am against the death penalty on moral grounds). Unfortunately, when that detention occurs, some innocents may also be detained. As long as the detention is “humane” – and I realize that word has relative meaning – then I simply am willing to sacrifice those few innocents in detention for the safety of the innocents in the outside world. But such detention creates an internal struggle as to whether that is Christ’s will or not. (Of course, I would proselytize the detainees for Christianity, while I had them in detention at Gitmo, but politically that is incorrect and not allowed.)
The Nuremburg defendants were charged with specific crimes, assigned lawyers, allowed to hear the evidence against them, and to present evidence in their own defense. How many people remember that 3 of the 24 accused (almost 15%) were actually acquited and released? Yes, even when everybody “knows” you’re guilty, sometimes you’re not. Others were sentence from as little as 10 years all the way to death.
Nobody knows who is guilty at Gitmo and who isn’t. Who committed petty crimes and who capital crimes. We can’t know because everything is done in the dark.
The thing is, CM, Bush did set up a military tribunal system that you claim you want, but, unlike Nuremburg, the convicted would have recourse to appeal with the Court of Military Commission Review, then to a federal civilian appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) and, ultimately, to seek review in the Supreme Court. No enemy combatant has ever had such recourse, ever.
If this is “fascistic,” then FDR made Hitler look like Barney the Dinosaur.
The irony is that the Supreme Court’s decisions, and now Obama’s executive orders, on the matter have had the effect of delaying precisely the process you claim to want because the tribunals – replete with defense lawyers – are now scuttled.
And more on Obama’s first actions. From here:
So we, the taxpayers, are now providing monies for organizations promoting abortion overseas. And there are those that think he won’t do the same thing here if he gets the chance. Any comment, Irenaeus?
So the new ‘tone’ is sour, flat and off key, and of a dissonant nature.
How many more atrocities contrary to the will of the people is he going to support and demand we support as well?
After scanning the comments above I just have a quick question about “rules of law” and burden of proof in criminal case. How are soldeirs in combat supposed to collect evidence, establish chain of custody of evidence, and follow perscribed arrest processes on a battle field? Defense Lawyer”Do you have any evidence Ahmed was building bombs?” Sgt
Smith,”No sir, we did a hit and run raid and blew up the house he was using to build bombs. He did have fuse material on him” Lawyer “Did you request to search him and establish a chain of custody Sgt?” Sgt,”Well no we were afraid he might blow us up if he got a chance” This is to nuts. Enemy combatanats come into Allied hands in many ways and the evidence can be hear say because soldeirs on the battle field are not trained criminal investigators and the story of how the individual was detained is passed down by word of mouth before being recored.
It’s a brave, new, port-side world, Dave. In their zeal to scorch the evil Chimpy Katrinaburton, they have singed the nation by turning our soldiers into combination police/social workers and our courts into field commanders. May God help us, because these meddling fools certainly will not.
[i] Off topic comment deleted. This article is about President Obama. [/i]
[i] Please return to a discussion of the 1st day. [/i]
Aren’t we discussing Obama and his decision to close Gitmo?
[i] Correct- except when references to President Bush overwhelm the comment. [/i]
Elf — the question arose — why is Obama issuing an order that will have the effect of suspending the tribunals if trials are precisely what the critics of Gitmo were asking for? My comment was an answer to that question. It cannot be answered without reference to the government’s actions so far. I have used the word “Bush” as short hand for “the government” since these actions were taken directly in fulfillment of his stated directives. As in “Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam” “Nixon opened diplomatic relations with China.” These are simple statements of fact as opposed to something along the lines of “Johnson was a war mongerer” or “Nixon was soft on Communism.” Not sure why they should be deleted.