4A
OPINION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2015 | WEST HAWAII TODAY
W
ASHING-
TON — If
you won-
dered why President
Barack Obama gave
such a passionate
and, yes, partisan
speech on behalf of
the Iran nuclear deal
Wednesday, all you had
to do was tune in to the
Republican presidential
debate the next night.
Anyone who still
thinks the president
has any chance of turn-
ing the opposition party
his way after watching
the candidates (or lis-
tening to Republicans
in Congress) no doubt
also believes fervent-
ly in Santa Claus.
In fact, the case for
Santa — made so
powerfully in “Miracle
on 34th Street” — is
more plausible.
The candidates gath-
ered together by Fox
News in Cleveland sug-
gested that the hardest
decision the next presi-
dent will face is wheth-
er killing Obamacare
or voiding the Iran
deal ought to be the
first order of business.
All who spoke on
foreign policy sought
to paint the “Obama-
Clinton” international
strategy as “failed”
and “dangerous.”
Obama does not need
any private briefings on
how Republicans are
thinking. He realizes,
as everyone else should,
that there’s only one
way to save the Iran
accord. Republicans
will have the votes to
pass a measure dis-
approving it, and he
needs to keep enough
Democrats onside
to sustain his veto.
He also knows that
he is in an ongoing bat-
tle for public opinion
over a very big issue.
In broad terms, this
is an argument over
whether the foreign
policy of George W.
Bush, with its procliv-
ity toward unilateral
military action, or
his own approach,
which stresses allianc-
es and diplomacy, is
more likely to defend
the United States’
long-term interest.
The president was
not wrong when he said
that “many of the same
people who argued
for the war in Iraq are
now making the case
against the Iran nuclear
deal.” And in light of
the language used by
Cleveland’s Cavaliers
of Unilateralism, it was
useful that he reminded
Americans of the run-
up to the Iraq invasion,
when “those calling for
war labeled themselves
strong and decisive,
while dismissing those
who disagreed as weak
— even appeasers of a
malevolent adversary.”
Lest we forget, in
September 2002, short-
ly before the midterm
elections, Bush dis-
missed Democrats who
called for U.N. support
before American mili-
tary action in Iraq. “If I
were running for office,”
Bush said, “I’m not sure
how I’d explain to the
American people — say,
‘Vote for me, and, oh,
by the way, on a matter
of national security,
I’m going to wait for
somebody else to act.’”
Now
that’s
partisan.
In foreign policy,
the past isn’t even
past because we
have not resolved the
debate over how to
use American power
that opened after the
attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. In the most
recent Gallup survey
this June, Americans
were as split as ever on
whether the war in Iraq
itself was a mistake: 51
percent said it was, 46
percent said it wasn’t.
Among Democrats,
68 percent said it was
mistaken; only 31 per-
cent of Republicans
did. Independents
split much like the
country as a whole.
Those who counsel
Obama to be more
conciliatory toward
Republicans in defend-
ing an agreement that
could block Iranian
nuclear ambitions
for at least a decade
(and probably more)
are nostalgic for a
time when many
Republicans supported
negotiated settlements,
saw containment poli-
cies as preferable to the
aggressive rollback of
adversaries, and were
committed to building
international alliances.
Such Republicans
still exist, but there are
not many of them left
in Congress. And we
should have enough
respect for the party’s
presidential candidates
to believe that they
mean what they are
saying when, for exam-
ple, one of them (Scott
Walker) insists that
“Iran is not a place we
should be doing busi-
ness with,” while anoth-
er (Jeb Bush) declares
that “we need to stop
the Iran agreement,
for sure, because the
Iranian mullahs have …
blood on their hands.”
Obama is defending
a long bipartisan tra-
dition of negotiating
even with adversaries
we deeply and rightly
mistrust, the prime
example being the
old Soviet Union. For
now, the consensus
across party lines in
favor of such diploma-
cy is broken. Many of
us would like to see
it restored, but the
evidence of Obama’s
time in office is unam-
biguous: Friendly
gestures won’t win
over those determined
to block his policies.
In the short run,
Obama simply has to
win enough votes for
his Iran deal. For the
long run, he has to per-
suade Americans that
his measured approach
to the world is the saf-
est path for the country.
Defending this view
aggressively is no vice.
E.J. Dionne’s email address
is
.
Twitter: EJDionne.
Disrespect for
law officers insulting
The letter in the Aug. 17
edition from Taky Tzimeas
regarding the Thirty Meter
Telescope protests and law
enforcement was just about the
most insulting letter I’ve seen.
The letters exhibits so much
ignorance and disrespect for law
enforcement people doing their
job and is just mind boggling —
there is no doubt at all that the
protesters were breaking the law.
It’s common knowledge our
governor has no spine and hides
behind the courts and is letting
these criminals get away with
their blatant disregard for the
law. The police should have
dragged the protestors away
kicking and screaming and
charged them all with resisting
arrest on top of anything else.
They (police) have no reason to
apologize for doing what they
are paid to do — if anything the
protesters should apologize to
them for putting them in the
situation in the first place.
The leaders of this protest
were short on respect for the law.
Frank Dickinson
Kailua-Kona
Mahalo for change of
policy on feeding feral cats
This letter is a response to my
letter of Aug. 4 concerning the
feeding of the eight feral cats
at the Fairmont Orchid hotel
at the Mauna Lani Resort.
First, I want to thank West
Hawaii Today for its quick action
and for publishing my letter.
Since then we have had a chance
to meet face to face with the
general manager of the Fairmont
Orchid and I applaud him
for his interest and proactive
effort in helping to resolve this
situation. Our sincere thanks
for your time and effort and
for working with AdvoCATS
in the past to stabilize and
hopefully reduce the number
of feral cats. We hope the
relationship will continue well
into the future. I would also
like to thank everyone who
wrote responses, as well as the
KARES organization for its help.
Knowing these eight healthy
cats will be continued to be fed
and cared for on a daily basis
is a tribute to the management
of the Fairmont Orchid.
My wife and I over the past
20 years have been guests at the
Orchid and still visit the Orchid
for dinners and coffee in the
morning. We look forward to
this continued activity, which we
will enjoy even more knowing
that our adopted colony of
ferals will be safe and fed.
Richard and Pamela Rogers
Waikoloa
A patent case could erect borders on the Internet
Obama vs. the Cavaliers of Unilateralism
E.J. DIONNE |
THE WASHINGTON POST
EDITORIAL |
THE NEWYORK TIMES
O
ne of the great
things about the
Internet is that
it does not have national
borders. When a company
in Tokyo sends a digital
file to a company in New
York, the data does not
have to clear customs.
But the outcome of a
federal appeals court case
could hinder that free
flow of information.
The case involves
digital files containing
information on dental
aligners, used to straight-
en teeth, sent over the
Internet by a company
in Pakistan to a business
in Texas. Last year, the
U.S. International Trade
Commission, a relatively
obscure federal agen-
cy, ruled that the Texas
company, ClearCorrect,
could not import those
files because they violated
patents owned by Align
Technology. ClearCorrect
has appealed the deci-
sion to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal
Circuit in Washington
D.C., which is scheduled to
hear the case on Tuesday.
The ITC has long
had the power to forbid
companies from import-
ing physical goods like
electronics, books and
mechanical equipment
that violate the patents,
copyrights and trade-
marks of American
businesses. It does so by
ordering customs officials
to seize items at the bor-
der or by issuing cease and
desist orders to importers.
The commission’s order
to ClearCorrect was the
first time it had sought
to bar the transfer of dig-
ital information. If the
appeals court upholds
this decision, it could
set a precedent that
would allow businesses
to seek to block all kinds
of data transmissions.
Of course, businesses
should be able to pro-
tect their patents and
copyrights. But there
are far better ways to
do so. In this case, for
example, Align could
sue ClearCorrect and
seek damages for patent
infringement. Or the com-
pany could ask a judge to
order ClearCorrect to stop
selling products made
using the information
contained in the files.
It is not even clear
that the commission has
the authority to restrict
international data trans-
fers. Congress has given
it authority to block the
import of “articles,” which
for decades has been
understood to mean phys-
ical goods. In last year’s
ruling, a five-member
majority of the commis-
sion ruled that the word
“article” includes data.
Groups like the Motion
Picture Association
of America and the
Recording Industry
Association of America
are supporting the com-
mission’s view. They argue
that, as trade increasingly
becomes digital, the defi-
nition of “article” should
include data. The Internet
Association, which rep-
resents companies like
Facebook, Google and
Twitter, is asking the court
to reverse the decision.
At some point, Congress
may have to step in.
Because it defines the
limits of the commis-
sion’s authority, Congress
should decide whether the
changing nature of inter-
national trade requires
the government to apply
the same rules to data that
it does to physical goods.
History suggests that it
might not be sympathet-
ic to the commission’s
position. In response to
opposition from Internet
users, Wikipedia, Google
and others, Congress did
not approve proposals that
would have allowed movie
studios and record labels
to block foreign websites
that were alleged to have
violated copyrights.
The appeals court
should strike down
the commission’s rul-
ing, which is bound to
hamper the exchange
of ideas and informa-
tion on the Internet.
LETTERS
| YOUR VOICE
