Ron Paul Earns a Curtain Call

by Steve Kornacki
New York Observer

An invitation to appear on one of the Sunday morning talk shows is a privilege that every presidential candidate—even Duncan Hunter—is afforded at some point.

The no-shot curiosities—like Mr. Hunter or Mike Gravel—usually show up early in the campaign for their perfunctory segment or two in a nationally-televised hot seat. Ron Paul was supposed to among this class of candidates, and for a while it seemed that his Sunday morning exposure would be limited to being told by George Stephanopoulos over the summer that he had zero chance of winning the presidency.

But now, less than two months before the first primary and caucus votes will be cast, the networks want an unexpected second serving of the 72-year-old Texas congressman, thanks to the stunning fund-raising success he’s enjoyed—capped, for now at least, with the $4 million he took in over the internet in one day last week.

Dr. Paul sat down with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, and this time was treated by the host much more as a serious presidential candidate—albeit one with some ideas that don’t often get aired in big-time American politics—than some freaky side-show at a circus.

In addition to revealing that he didn’t own a computer until 1997, Dr. Paul advanced his usual arguments in favor of the gold standard (paper money, he believes, is the main source of inflation, “an invisible tax on the poor”) and against an interventionist foreign policy. (“We defended Seoul, Korea, better on 9/11 than we did Washington, DC,” he said.)

He also fielded the obligatory can-you-really-win question by pointing out the strides his campaign has made in the last year, none of which anyone in politics thought were remotely possible.

“I also know what the odds are,” he said. “But I'll tell you what: Don't try and tell my supporters that there's not a chance, because they believe it…My name is out there. I may well win.”

Determining where precisely Dr. Paul fits in the G.O.P. mix is a perplexing task. Judged by his standing in the polls, he has barely distinguished himself from the likes of Tom Tancredo and Mr. Hunter, although lately he’s begun to edge into mid-to-high single digits in some surveys. But if you judge him by the money he’s raised, and the number of donors he’s attracted, Dr. Paul is a giant.

No matter how he ultimately fares, though, Dr. Paul has made a contribution to the G.O.P. race and to the national political dialogue in a way that the other long-shot Republicans haven’t and can’t—simply because he’s the only Republican candidate willing to defy the foreign policy orthodoxy that has emerged within his party during the Bush years.

While the other Republican candidates refuse to break with the Bush administration on Iraq or any other weighty foreign policy questions, Dr. Paul proudly trumpets his outrage and tells his fellow Republicans that they are following their President off a cliff. A strong Paul showing in the primaries will make a powerful statement about how a significant chunk of the party’s grass-roots really feel about the cheerleading for the White House they’ve been asked to do for the last seven years.

On “Face the Nation,” Dr. Paul once again played the role of refreshing contrarian, this time on Iran. With President Bush and the architects of the Iraq war now training their sights on the Islamic republic, the jockeying has been intense among Republican candidates to strike the most muscular posture against Iran.

But Dr. Paul questioned the two very basic premises behind all of the drum-beating now going on: the assumptions that Iran has to be our enemy and that a nuclear-armed Iran would somehow represent an unprecedented threat to regional and global stability.

“I think our policy towards Iran is a threat,” Dr. Paul said. “That's what I fear. You know, I fear that tomorrow we might bomb Iran. That really scares me.”

Mr. Schieffer asked whether we should simply allow Iran to build the bomb.

“We have a more sensible policy,” Dr. Paul replied. “We talk to them. And we trade with them. We remove the sanctions. I mean, the Soviets had 40,000 [nuclear warheads].” The U.S., he pointed out, continued to talk with the U.S.S.R. throughout the Cold War.

In raw political terms, Dr. Paul is obviously on the wrong side of the Iran issue within the Republican Party. But he’s got all of that contrarian terrain to himself—and Iran is hardly the only issue where this is the case. And that goes a long way to explaining why Ron Paul is getting second and third invitations to Sunday morning news shows, while the other Republicans who began as asterisks in the polls have already exhausted their 15 minutes.

Guard kills unarmed Iraqi taxi driver

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press

BAGHDAD - A private security guard fatally shot an Iraqi taxi driver, Iraqi officials said Monday, in the latest incident involving what Iraqis believe are unprovoked killings by contractors hired to protect Americans.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said DynCorp International, a Falls Church, Va.-based company, reported a "security incident" Saturday involving one of its teams and that the embassy's regional security office was "following this closely."

But Reeker could not confirm any details of the incident, including whether anyone was killed or wounded.

"These are very upsetting incidents for everyone involved," Reeker told reporters.

DynCorp International is among three firms — along with Blackwater Worldwide and Triple Canopy — under contract to protect American diplomats and other officials in Iraq.

Iraqi officials said the shooting took place Saturday at 12:45 p.m. across from a children's playground in Baghdad's Atafiyah neighborhood, when a taxi driver pulled up close to a convoy of seven U.S. vehicles driving through the area.

Security personnel signaled for the taxi to pull away, and then one of the guards opened fire on the car, they said.

The driver was shot in the chest and head, but was still alive when local shopkeepers and police rushed to help him, witnesses and police said. He died in a police car on the way to the hospital, said Ahmed Adel, a barber who watched the events unfold outside his shop.

"The convoy stopped at an intersection where there was little traffic jam. ... Suddenly, guards from the last SUV opened fire on the taxi while it was totally motionless and no threat whatsoever to the convoy," Adel said. "We rushed to the car and helped the police pull him out."

He added that the taxi's gearshift was in neutral when they pulled the driver out, suggesting that his car was not moving when he was shot.

Afterward, police searched the taxi and found no weapons or other signs of threatening activity, police and the Interior Ministry said. The convoy did not stop for the investigation, an officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release information.

Another witness said that after the shooting, a guard stepped out of the last vehicle in the convoy — from which the shots were fired — and walked over to the taxi to see what had happened, but then turned back quickly.

"They simply did not care about the shot taxi driver, and the convoy sped away," the man said, refusing to give his name because of the situation's sensitivity.

The shooting occurred on an exit ramp next to a bridge spanning the Tigris River. Atafiyah is a mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhood that has not seen as much violence as other Baghdad enclaves. Piles of soft drink cans and other groceries line sidewalks outside dozens of retail shops.

It was the latest shooting by private security contractors perceived by many here as operating above the law. The U.S. government has offered some guards limited immunity under deals that have slowed prosecution of other shooting cases and angered Iraqis.

In September, another shooting left 17 Iraqis dead and prompted the Iraqi government to call for the expulsion of the firm involved, Blackwater Worldwide. The company has said its convoy was under attack before it opened fire, but initial investigations by Iraqi and U.S. authorities have concluded otherwise.

Iraq's Interior Ministry immediately opened an investigation into Saturday's shooting, said spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf.

The incident came just two days before the arrival of two top U.S. officials sent from Washington to investigate the role of private security companies in Iraq.

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered new measures to improve government oversight of bodyguards, including tighter rules of engagement and a board to investigate any future killings.

The steps would also require contractors to undergo training intended to make them more sensitive to Iraqi culture and language.

The changes to rules of engagement would bring the State Department closer to military rules, although the moves will not have much visible effect on the way private guards operate in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

Gregory Starr, acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and P. Jackson Bell, deputy under secretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness, arrived in Baghdad on Monday to help implement the new rules, Reeker said.

Meanwhile, violence continued Monday, but at drastically reduced levels from several months ago. At least 13 people were killed or found dead across Iraq, including five bodies found in Baghdad, police and morgue officials said.

The U.S. military issued tallies of mortar and rocket attacks across the country, saying October's total marked a 21-month low.

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks — the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

(This version CORRECTS that Embassy spokesman Reeker did not specify that a DynCorp guard was involved in a fatal shooting.)

Intel official: Expect less privacy

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping suits are pending.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit, claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.

The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant immunity from suits such as this one.

Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls without court oversight.

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their data."

He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.

Millions of people in this country — particularly young people — already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws and American history.

"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."

Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service.

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy."

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.

___

On the Net:

Kerr's speech: http://tinyurl.com/23dycq