BC-NA-GEN--Editorial Roundup, 1st Add,1446

UNDATED: ordinary Iraqis.The Morning Call, Allentown, Pennsylvania, on the Supreme Court's assisted-suicide ruling:The decision Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Oregon's assisted-suicide law will have a cascading effect in other states and, possibly, Congress. The 6-3 ruling also was significant in that justices who more often have ruled on the side of states' rights weighed in on the side of the Bush administration. Meanwhile, those who usually lean toward a stronger role by the federal government decided that doctors should be able to do their jobs without governmental interference.

The Oregon law was passed by initiative in 1994 and affirmed by a larger majority of the state's voters in 1997. The narrowly written law covers only people with incurable diseases who are of sound mind. At least two doctors must agree that the ill person has six months or less to live before the law can be used.

About 200 people, primarily cancer patients, have taken a lethal prescription from the time the law took effect in 1998 through 2004. And, it's particularly interesting that about a third of the 325 people who actually requested lethal drugs have never used them.

Gonzales v. Oregon was initiated by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and subsequently overseen by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Bush administration tried to use the 1970 Controlled Substances Act to invalidate Oregon's law. Oregon doctors who help terminally ill patients die were threatened with punishment from the federal government.

The court majority, however, said the drug law clearly was written only to stop "illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood." The barbiturates used in assisted suicide were legally sold for a highly regulated use. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative who might take the role of swing voter Sandra Day O'Connor who is retiring. Justice Kennedy was joined in the majority by Justices O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The dissenting opinion was by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and new Chief Justice John Roberts. One vote isn't enough to know his future direction, but he is a conservative. It will be interesting to watch, along with the impact of nominee Samuel Alito who is expected to be confirmed soon by the Senate to replace Justice O'Connor.

The assisted-suicide decision was closely watched by other states and Congress, which could opt to consider federal legislation. At least six states have proposed similar laws, with bills considered most seriously by the legislatures of California and Vermont; polls show broad support. Three states have rejected assisted-suicide laws.

The tug of war between states' rights and federal control can be counted on to endure. But at the end of the day, end-of-life decisions should remain in the hands of patients, their families and physicians.

On the Net:

http://www.mcall.com

The Dallas Morning News, on the Patriot Act:

The clock is ticking toward a Feb. 3 deadline for Congress to renew the Patriot Act.

If this sounds familiar, it should. The same clock ticked a month ago toward a Dec. 31 deadline before Congress punted the decision. And lawmakers may very well punt again, contending that there are too many other priorities including the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court for them to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.

Folks, wise up. Put aside the political posturing. It doesn't take much to fix the Patriot Act just the willingness to make simple changes.

Take, for instance, the current Patriot Act provision that allows the government to conduct sneak-and-peek searches of homes and businesses without ever giving notice of the search. The differences in the House and Senate legislation are minuscule, and neither gives advance warning. The House leadership and the president would delay notification to within 30 days of the search. The Senate would delay notification not more than seven days unless the government can provide a legitimate law-enforcement reason for a longer delay. So if all sides agree, as we do, that eventual notification is necessary, then why can't they compromise on the time limit?

Now let's take another contentious point, the provision that permits the government to use a secret court order to obtain copies of private medical, financial, educational and other records without connecting a person to terrorism. From our perspective, it is not too much to require the government to show how a person is tied to terrorism. And the same standard should apply to National Security Letters, which have turned into an all-too-easy way for the government to skirt the checks and balances that going to a court provides. And finally, lawmakers must jettison provisions that have little to do with terrorism, such as new anti-drug policies and other changes to death penalty law, that are stuffed in the House-passed proposal.

Civil liberties aren't absolute, either in peace or war. Nor are government powers. Read our detailed blueprint for the Patriot Act.

On the Net:

http://www.dallasnews.com/

Los Angeles Times, on Africa:

As progress is measured in Africa, the selection Tuesday of the president of the Republic of Congo to head the African Union represents an important step forward. At the same time, choosing Denis Sassou-Nguesso over President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir of Sudan is sort of like passing up Idi Amin in favor of Moammar Kadafi.

Actually, Amin, the notorious Ugandan dictator thought to have slaughtered about half a million of his own people, was selected to head the African Union's predecessor organization in 1975 despite the fact that he was among the world's most bloodthirsty tyrants. That's how things were done at the Organization of African Unity, which was supposed to join African nations in the struggle against colonialism but mostly functioned as an enabler for corrupt dictatorships.

The African Union was launched in 2002 to change that. Structured much like the European Union, it is intended to promote democracy and economic growth among African regimes and to present a better diplomatic face to the Western world. It has already proved to be far more effective than its predecessor, playing an important role in continental peacekeeping operations and sanctioning two of its members for failing to hold fair elections.

The chairmanship of the union rotates annually to give each of Africa's five regions equal time in the seat. This year it was thought to be East Africa's turn, and the only official candidate for the post was Sudan's Bashir. Yet Sudan is home to some of the worst human rights abuses in Africa. Despite its protestations to the contrary, Bashir's government has supported or aided Arab militias in genocidal attacks on black villagers in Darfur. The union has sent peacekeepers to Darfur and is working hard to negotiate an end to the ongoing violence, so it would be more than a little ironic to appoint Sudan's leader to the chairmanship.

Not that the alternative is anything to celebrate. Sassou-Nguesso was "elected" in 2002 after his only serious opponent withdrew. Before that he had been an on-and-off military dictator since 1979. He is considered one of Africa's more corrupt leaders, thought to have siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars from the Republic of Congo's state oil company.

His country is one of the biggest oil exporters on the continent, but the oil wealth has not trickled down to its 3 million people, most of whom are desperately poor. That has fed near-constant rebellion.

Bashir withdrew his candidacy after it prompted an uproar, both within the union and internationally. He may well be back: The deal reached by a special union committee calls for him to assume the chairmanship in 2007. The delay is welcome, though, and his elevation can be made conditional on human-rights improvements in Sudan.

Had Bashir been selected, it would have destroyed the fledgling union's credibility among Western nations. And Sassou-Nguesso isn't all bad; he is a strong arbitrator who is respected as a peacemaker. But if the union is serious about fighting corruption, it will have to focus harder on finding leaders who aren't themselves corrupt.

On the Net:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials