Jed End

By Jason Satek - Columnist

   In a move that should not be seem as all that surprising, NBC cooked the lame-duck Bartlett administration, canceling “The West Wing” after this season and ending any hopes of a mid-stream horse change.
First launched in 1999, the series has followed the fictional Democrat President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen of “Apocalypse Now” and “Wall Street” fame, as well as the support staff and governmental appointees that make up the insider circle of the Chief Executive.
   Touted for its pacing and detail, “West Wing” roared out of the gate, winning a record nine Emmy Awards in 2000, and captured Outstanding Drama Series for the first four years of its existence, tying another record. 
   The series creator Aaron Sorkin had previously established a fast-paced dialogue style with the short lived show “Sports Night,” following the day-to-day operations of an ESPN-like cable network, when he took remaining material left over from his feature film “The American President,” starring Michael Douglas as a widowed Chief Executive fighting for a second term while dating a lobbyist (Sheen played his loyal chief of staff), and spun it into the television series.
   Originally set to be more of a cabinet level show revolving around speechwriter Sam Seaborn (played by Rob Lowe, who shared co-billing with Sheen), Sorkin increasingly found himself writing for the big chair and magnitude of calamity available for fodder. With screen time decreasing and rifts growing in their relationship, Lowe departed after the fourth season, cementing the show’s format.
   From its inception, “The West Wing” had featured a frenetic dialogue that had driven the plot, with almost every episode written by Sorkin himself. This had lead to delays and overruns, as well as criticism for a perceived liberal slant that seemed to be recasting the Clinton presidency after the fact as a second Camelot run by the noblest of beings.
   To wit, Bartlet has a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, has won a Nobel Prize, is a Latin-speaking Catholic who smokes a humanizing two cigarettes a day, while being married to a First Lady who is a surgeon. Whew. Seeing such a resume on paper might lead to a disconnect from the show, but the cast of then largely unknowns, aside from Sheen and Lowe, carried it off. Five different actors won a supporting Emmy amidst many nominations. “The West Wing” found a niche.
   Perhaps it was this early success that sowed the seeds for its decline. Sorkin’s writing style, coupled with an arrest for drug possession ushered him from the show soon after Lowe, from whom Sorkin had grown estranged.
Under new management, writers seemed to rely on crisis to bridge gaps, all the while refraining from turning the cast over, as is done in most administrations. Understandably, actors on a hit show are loath to leave voluntarily, but this consistency diminished the realism that has been both lauded by insiders like presidents Carter and Clinton, while criticized for leaving off myriad undramatic details to create melodrama.
   Recently as last season, “West Wing” had begun planning for a second act, following the presidential race between Jimmy Smits as a democratic congressman and Alan Alda as a moderate republican senator, drawing critical praise, but diminishing viewers.
Perhaps in the NBC tradition of holding on too long (see “Friends,” “E.R.,” “Will and Grace”), the show is too long in the tooth.  It had already suffered the dreaded time-slot change, and this ambitious storyline was not enough to reverse course. I have been a fan since the beginning and will miss it when departed, but even I have to admit it’s probably time to go.

What don't we know about Bush's wiretap program

By Ron Felten - Columnist

In theory, I understand the motivation behind President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program. According to the government, there are immediate threats to our safety out there, some of which are supposedly originating on U.S. soil. In these cases, Bush has authorized the FBI and other federal agencies to essentially spy on Americans and foreigners alike who are suspected of engaging in terrorist activities in the US. That’s the part that makes sense to me.
As we’ve all heard through recent news reports, the President (in conjunction with the Justice Department and the National Security Agency) authorized the aforementioned program, which allows the government to approve wiretaps without a warrant, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
What’s somewhat troubling (not to mention confusing) about this program, though, is that it seems to unabashedly circumvent established law. You see, something known as the FISA court was created under 1978’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and this court was specifically designed to be both private and speedy so the government would not have to waste precious time drudging through the viscous public court system while terrorists went along planning their next attack.
According to ABC News, the FBI must demonstrate “probable cause to believe the target of the surveillance is a foreign agent or suspected terrorist” before it can obtain a warrant. And while there are admittedly a few other steps to the process, internal Justice Department documents suggest that requests can be approved by the FISA court in as little time as a couple of hours after they are made.
Additionally, the law allows the government up to 72 hours after first tapping someone’s phone (or email account, etc.) to then go obtain a warrant through the FISA court. This, it would seem, addresses any concern that whatever time the court does take to process requests is too much.
There are two major problems with the government’s current plan. First, they are not demonstrating “probable cause” to anyone before or while monitoring U.S. citizens. Some legal experts have identified this is as a clear violation of our fourth amendment rights.
If the Feds have a reason to suspect someone of engaging in terrorist activity, why can’t they provide the evidence to a court as congressional law and the Constitution require? One must ask: Is the evidence there in the first place?
The second aspect of this plan that raises questions is the fact that President Bush blatantly lied about its existence in public at least once before. Now, of course he’s not going to reveal details about a secret program, but one must question why the program had to be a secret in the first place. Isn’t it common knowledge that the authorities may monitor someone if there’s “probable cause” that the person is engaged in unlawful activities? This again seems to indicate that perhaps the government doesn’t have “cause” enough and, further, may be abusing their powers.
According to the transcript of remarks made by Bush in Buffalo, New York in April of 2004 (a copy of which can be found on the White House’s official web site), no government wiretaps are authorized without a warrant.
“Now, by the way,” Bush said, “any time you hear the United States government talking about [a] wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
These comments were made several years after Bush authorized the warrant-less wiretaps, and he has since admitted to and defended his doing so.
A firestorm of sorts has erupted since news of the program was first leaked and, according to Republican Arlen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold hearings on the issue early this month. Further, Republican Senator John McCain has been quoted by The Sydney Morning Herald and other papers as saying the wiretaps were and are “probably illegal.”
No one I know of has questioned the President’s assertion that those suspected of terrorist activities need to be monitored; what’s concerning, though, is that Bush is presuming himself to be above the law and insists on monitoring U.S. citizens without first demonstrating “probable cause.” As David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor remarked during a recent panel discussion, “[Bush] is free to go and ask Congress to change the law. He is not free, as he did here, to order executive branch officials to violate that law.”

Peace desperately needed in Darfur

By Ashley Rook - General Assignment Reporter

As the situation in Darfur worsens, escalating violence in western Sudan is causing political and humanitarian leaders to push for a greater international response.  Now in its fourth year, the Darfur conflict has already claimed thousands of lives and left around two million homeless, and the efforts of the peacekeeping community are doing little to alleviate the situation.
After a brief period of peace in mid-2004 due to the presence of African Union monitors, violence resumed in late 2005, making it difficult to administer aid.  According to U.N. spokeswoman Radhia Achouri, “fighting continues with heavy weapons,” and is mainly concentrated in Sharia, in southern Darfur, and the western Darfur town of Golo. 
The violence makes it difficult for aid agencies to operate and puts relief workers at risk, as evidenced by when a Sudanese aid worker was killed last week when a U.N. helicopter crashed in an attempt to rescue aid workers from fighting near Golo.
Although African Union troops initially succeeded at enforcing peace, they were underpopulated and underfinanced and were not able to maintain a cease-fire.  The Sudanese government-backed militia continues to terrorize Darfur civilians, robbing families and raping women, even those taking refuge at camps. 
Increased military involvement is necessary to protect the people of Darfur, but debates continue about whether military protection should remain under the mandate of the African Union or become a United Nations mission.
While the African Union may be ill-equipped to maintain peace in the area, the United Nations may not act in time to improve the situation. U.N. special adviser on the prevention of genocide Juan Mendez said, “We are always moving slowly and in cumbersome ways, and doing as little as possible. The main problem is that we have a bottleneck in the Security Council because of the difficulty of getting consensus.” 
United Nations Security General Kofi Annan has urged more western countries to be involved in humanitarian efforts and involve themselves in the conflict, but the Security Council itself remains divided.
Due to the unwillingness of permanent members Russia and China to support any intervention by non-African countries, a consensus is difficult to reach.  UN experts have also asked the Security Council to place sanctions on a secret list of people in Sudan accused of being impediments to the peace process, which would freeze their assets and travel, but the resolution is unlikely to pass. 
The peace talks in Abjua, Nigeria have been unrewarding to date, but relations between the two main rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army, have been improving and are anticipated to result in an agreement within the next few weeks. 
Six rounds of negotiations have taken place since the talks begin, and while agreements have been made on humanitarian access, but the two sides have been unable to agree on the issues of the distribution of power and wealth.  If a framework deal is agreed upon in March, chief negotiators hope to bring it to other rebel groups for approval and use it to initiative a cease fire and protective measures in the region. 
In the meantime, political leaders hold onto hopes that the casualties and violence in Darfur will elicit a greater response from the international community.  

Phoning it in

So Ron it's Right

Peace desperately needed in Darfur