A day for follow-ups and clarification

I am still trying to plow through a great many emails, and so I hope folks will be forgiving if they do not hear back from me – as much as I do try to respond to each email, I’m not always able to.

Two emails today provide some helpful, or at least thought-provoking follow-up to previous posts. The first concerns Judge Cashman and his seemingly light sentence of a repeat pedophile. I – as had many others, responded with some outrage at this story which detailed that the Vermont judge had sentenced the perv to a mere 60 days in prison. (Site seems to be down but Michelle Malkin has excerpts)

Reader Michelle as since emailed this piece which enlightens a little on the sentence.

In his order upholding Hulett’s sentence, Cashman laid out in detail the actual facts in the case and the only options before him — items overlooked so far in press accounts.

In cases such as Hulett’s, wrote Cashman, the court is presented with a “sentencing dilemma.” It’s a choice “between two less-than-ideal options. One option enhances the long-term risk to public safety, due to the future release of a hardened, untreated sex offender. This person would endanger our children and grandchildren. In order to avoid that risk, the other option would be to impose a low-minimum on a lengthy incarcerate sentence.”

The fact is, Cashman sentenced Hulett to up to 10 years on the first count, three years to life on the second count and two to five years on the third count. He will be on probation and under state supervision until the day he dies! If he screws up or refuses treatment, he’ll be behind bars for a long, long time. Hulett’s release conditions prohibit him from any alcohol or drug use, or even living in an apartment complex that has children. He cannot have friends who have kids, go to a bar or possess or view pornography, among other restrictions. One violation would put him back in the slammer.

Calling this “a 60-day sentence for raping a child,” as O’Reilly and Wilton have done, is a gross distortion of what happened.

Alright. That’s interesting and a bit of a relief to read.

The author of the piece, Peter Freyne, seems to have a particular animus toward those of us who reacted negatively to the initial news report, reserving sneers for Bill O’ Reilly and “Fox News” and (seemingly) conservatives and Republicans in general. I don’t watch O’Reilly or Fox news, and they certainly have the resources by which they could have dug more deeply into this story and learned these details, but I must say in defense of both the right-winged blogs and those dastardly Republicans who objected to the sentence – we were responding to a news report out of Burlington, Vermont’s Channel 3 news, WCAXTV, so if he has a bone to pick, he might start with them and their coverage.

It is a truth that broadcast news reports, due to time constraints, are often inadequate to the task of coverage – I have written elsewhere that the precious few minutes alloted to story coverage allows TV newsfolk to be “as penetrating as a prop-knife.” Perhaps the greater truth is that almost nothing we read these days can be considered the “whole and full story,” anymore.

I’d also point out that in my case, aside from taking umbrage at what I believed to be a light sentence, I was also incensed at the judge’s remarks, that “anger” over this case would be corruptive. Perhaps he meant well in advising so, but I still maintain that it is not anger, but hate, that corrupts.

In any case, I’m happy to revisit this story and add the details.

A day or two ago, I wondered about a headline which omitted the word RENDITION when it seemed it should certainly belong there. Reader K (one of my favorite names), a liberal who has done some serious research on the issue sent a very civil email taking me gently to task for my kneejerk “oh yeah? Well whuddabout Clinton,” tone and wrote:

Am I “less offended” by renditions under Clinton? I am a little less offended, but it is not because he was a Democrat. It’s because we dropped the evidentiary standard for renditions dramatically after 9.11. There have been 2-3 times as many after 9/11 as before by most estimates–although we now have several other ways of detaining people indefinitely without chage (sic). Further, most of the renditions during the Clinton years involved suspects who really, really seem to have been guilty & to have been relatively high level members of al Qaida. Since 9.11, we have tended to send the important guys to “black sites” instead & an increasing # of those rendered are either scrubs or people who are completely innocent.

I think torturing the innocent is worse than torturing the guilty. I also think torture is torture and is wrong, and rendition is illegal regardless of who the suspect is. So I think these are differences only in degree, not in kind. Human Rights Watch etc. certainly agree. The real difference in coverage is, they found out Bush rendering prisoners when Bush was still in office and still rendering prisoners. With Clinton they found out years too late.

I can understand and respect her views on torture – and to some extent I agree with K. It goes without saying that innocent people should not be tortured and in a perfect world such a thing would never happen. Torture should not be used as a routine matter. But I draw a line when there is a chance that torture may be the only means by which information may be gleaned which could save the lives of hundreds, or even thousands.

Things are about – ultimately, I think – degrees and balance. Offhand one immediately says “unwarranted wiretapping is not the ideal…” and that is absolutely true. Then one reads about terrorists who are actively plotting a move against the US being arrested thanks to the wiretaps and one understands that getting warrants for such taps could conceivably tip our hand, thus one says…”if there is oversight by congress and the courts (which there is) and if these taps are judicious and selective, yes there is a place for them.”

Just so with torture, at least to me. It is not an ideal. It is not something I wish to see used on every prisoner. But there are times when it very well might be necessary. Those comparing renditions under Clinton vs under Bush – like K – mention 9/11 but only as a reference date by which changes might be measured – but let’s not forget to take into account that, like it or not, 9/11 changed things, particularly how we have to think about “war” and how some “wars” must be fought.

There is much that is unprecedented since 9/11 – and yes, sheer numbers, taken out of context, can make things seem exaggerated – but we are in a situation unlike any we have ever faced before, with an enemy that, had it been able to, would have been happy to see not 3,000 dead on 9/11, but 30,000. And frankly, had the planes the WTC hit a half hour later, they may well have killed that many. If evidentiary standards have “dropped” since 9/11, I would submit that the loosening of standards might fairly be construed as necessary rather than nefarious.

Anyway, not to plead utter superficiality and obsession with the press or to seem dismissive of K’s thoughts – I am, I think, by posting them, demonstrably NOT dismissing them – I am slightly embarrassed to admit that the main thrust of the initial, dashed-off post was about the headline more than the piece itself, but I am happy to look at it again, and to pass along another point of view.