eisely

I agree that I do not see a "crisis of epic proportions." Membership has risen and declined in the past. This is not to say that there are not things that we should be thinking about and acting upon. Scouting has a great program and a great story to tell. The story is not being told effectively. Scouting has trouble competing with sports at the younger age levels. We must find a way to compete more effectively. Camps are expensive to operate. Many councils are struggling with their summer camp issues. Maybe it is partly poor marketing. Maybe the programs offered at summer camp just aren't as interesting to boys as they are to adults. Maybe nobody has taken the time to try to understand what is driving the costs of camp operation to see what can be done more intelligently. Maybe it is all of the above. I predict that there will be fewer summer camps operating in the future, and I also predict that this by itself will not kill scouting. To me, the longer range challenge is making the program more appealing to more different ethnic groups, particularly the rapidly growing Spanish speaking population of the United States. There ought to be ways to do this without changing our values. In fact, I think the values of scouting have broad appeal, but scouting still comes across as a white suburban thing to much of this other population. Having said all that, this is far from being a crisis.

A late happy birthday wish to the Man of Steele. Scouting is fortunate to have you.

I think that very few of the detainees at Guantanamo are guilty of acts of terrorism. Most of them were captured fighting in Afghanistan. Certainly if the US government believes that some of these people are guilty of specific crimes then the government has, at some point, a duty to charge them with those crimes. Merely being on the wrong side per se in a combat situation is not a crime. But being captured in combat does not entitle one to much of anything, particularly access to the legal system of the US. In the phrase of one author, surrendering in combat entitles one to a "benignn internment" for the duration of the conflict but not much else. I don't know the circumstances of capture of most of these people and the mix of detainees captured in combat versus those captured under non combat circumstances may be shifting. Frankly I doubt that very few of those who are there are confused as to why they are being held. Some of them may be perfectly innocent of anything. We don't know. In this regard it is useful to point out that several tens of them have been released and transported back to Afghanistan or their home countries. It is not clear to me what rights under the Geneva conventions, if any, are being denied to the detainees at Guantanamo. One set of rights that POWS, clearly understood to be POWS, have that apparently is being denied to these people is the right to have some communication with the outside world through correspondence with loved ones at home, etc. I think it is prudent to deny this right given the overall situation. We don't want their colleagues still at large to know who we have and who we don't have. By taking up arms on behalf of an ideology, not a competing government, or even a rebel regime, these folks have placed themselves in an awkward situation. The Geneva conventions and similar agreements are difficult to apply in good faith when there is no government or even a rebel group trying to gain power some where on the other side of the fight. As far as trying to be better morally than those we fight is concerned, I think the record of the US over the last two years is exemplary. While we need to be concerned about how the rest of the world is looking at us, this to me is a lesser concern right now. I want our political and military leaderhsip to defend our interests, not pander to the French.

gsmom, Trail Pounder is absolutely correct about the people being held at Guantanamo. These are prisoners taken in armed combat, not merely terror suspects. We are being very generous to them. They are not being tortured. They are receiving better food and medical care than many american citizens. They are getting an all expenses paid vacation on a Caribbean Island. Sorry, no beach access...but I digress again. There is a qualitative difference between prisoners captured in active fighting and those arrested by the civil authorities that people would do well to understand. Prisoners captured in active fighting are held for the duration of the fighting. At a minimum, as long as there is fighting going on in Afghanistan, we are entitled to hold them without charges and without access to attorneys. We never provided the few fighters we managed to capture in my war (Viet Nam) with attorneys, because those people were never charged with a crime. How absurd is the idea that these people are entitled to anything more than they are getting right now. If some of them are eventually charged with specific crimes we may try them with appropriate procedures or return them to be tried by the congnizant civil authorities who exercise jurisdiction. The reports that some of them feel suicidal suggests that maybe we ought to make this opportunity available to them. Many of their colleagues around the world commit suicide on a daily basis attacking various military and non military targets in Turkey, Iraq, Bali, and Israel to name a few places. I am reminded of an order issued by Field Marshal Viscount William Slim, the commander of the ultimately victorious British commonwealth forces in Burma in 1945, when the mechanisms of surrender of the Japanese forces were being considered. Slim was advised by his experts that "(1) The Japanese officer's honor was so bound up with his Samurai sword that, rather than surrender it, he would go on fighting, (2) Alternatively...if he did surrender it before his men, he would never again be able to exercise command over them, and (3) he would in fact, rather than be so publicly shamed, commit suicide." Slim's response was "(1) If the Japanese liked to go on fighting, I was ready for them, (2) If the officers lost their soldiers' respect I could not care less as I intended to separate them from their men in any case, and (3) If the officers committed suicide I had already prepared for this by broadcasting that any Japanese officer wishing to commit suicide would be given every facility." Slim sounds harsh, but one has to remember the nature of the war in which he and his forces had just prevailed. Also the Japanese have gotten over it very nicely and we now count them as among our firmest allies. My sympathy for the detainees in Guantanamo rises about to the level of Slim's sympathies for the Japanese military machine he had just defeated.

I never said that I saw no dangers in any of this. The congress did authorize the president to take all necessary measures after 9/11, but they did not declare a state of war existed between the US and any other government. How do you fit a terrorist organization into the mold of conventional ware between states and apply the rules to that state of war when the other party is not a state and clearly doesn't accept any rules? There are many troublesome issues raised by the current situation. At this point I am personally comfortable with most of what the administration has done. In some areas I don't think they've gone far enough. We shall see. I just think the ninth circus has gotten out of hand, again, in its recent ruling and will shortly be slapped around, again, by the Supremes.

The paramount responsibility of the President of the United States is to see to the safety of the republic. In times of war civil liberties are compromised. Let us remember that we were attacked on our own soil and over 3,000 people died. The guys who organized and financed that would love to do the same thing again. So far I think the Bush administration has struck a good balance between defending the US and respecting the rights of citizens and legal residents and visitors. As another commentator has written, the most unfortunate thing about the Patriot Act passed after 9/11 is its name. This law really did not grant a whole lot of new powers to the executive branch, but cleared up some confusion. Among other things it authorized wire taps on individuals, not just specific telephone numbers. Given the ease with which people get cell phone accounts, I think that is a good thing. Probably the one group in the US that has gotten the most hysterical about all this is the association of professional librarians. Government agencies at all levels have always had the power to investigate records of all kinds, including medical records (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) and library records, if there was probable cause to do so. Many librarians have seen this idea as a major invasion of the privacy of their patrons. Maybe so. How many times has the Dept. of Justice sought such records since 9/11? Care to guess? Zero. I wish the librarians were as concerned about the use of library computers by underage youth to surf the internet for pornography. I wish they were as concerned about Castro's recent treatment of the independent library movement in Cuba. But I digress....

acco40 Like most folks, most of what I know I get through various news sources. I try to listen and sort out the information and assign credibility to the various reports. I always understood that all the initial arrests after 9/11 were as "material witnesses". Very few people have been designated "enemy combatants" who were arrested in the United States proper. The few of whom I am aware who have been convicted of anything at all were all convicted in civil courts through plea bargains. It is also my understanding that very few, if any, of the original detainees within the US are still being held with the likely exception of violators of immigration laws. Does anybody have any better hard current information? Concerning the ninth circus, I will continue to refer to that particular court in that manner. It is disrespectful, but then if I were charged with contempt of that particular court, I would just have to plead guilty. It is the most frequently overturned appeals court in the US.

The problem with the Padilla case is that it opens the door to the government to declare anybody, including US citizens arrested in the US, an "enemy combatant" and deprive such persons of due process and hold them indefinitely. True enemy combatants captured on the field of battle, such as those in Guantanamo, can be held until the end of hostilities. In a case such as WWII or even Viet Nam, there was a clear end to hostilities, at least for the US. Anybody care to predict whent the "war on terrorism" will end? We haven't seen any attacks on US soil in over two years, but there is still plenty going on elsewhere. It seems to me that Mr. Padilla is entitled to some sort of resolution that the people in Guantanamo are not entitled to. The ninth circus is way out of line in asserting jurisdiction over the detainees held at Guantanmo, much less claiming that they are entitled to attorneys and all the rights and processes of the US legal system.

I was not sufficiently clear in my original comment. I too find the administration's actions in the Padilla case troubling. It is the ruling by the ninth circus about the detainees at Guantanamo that I think is stupid and dangerous. There are two separate cases discussed in the article.

Entrants into the Cub Scout program were down in our council and the entire Western Region. This is a critical concern. Competing youth activities such as sports are probably the biggest single factor.

This story addresses the two rulings that came down from Federal District Appeals Courts on Thursday. The Padilla case is troubling and deserves serious scrutiny, but the ruling by the Ninth Circus that the detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to lawyers is both stupid and dangerous. This is a ruling only the ACLU could love, as is indicated in the story. ______________ Court Rulings Slam Bush's Terror Strategy Fri Dec 19,10:00 AM ET By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer SAN FRANCISCO - Two federal courts ruled that the U.S. military cannot deny prisoners access to lawyers or the American courts by detaining them indefinitely, dealing twin setbacks to the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror. One of Thursday's rulings favored the 660 "enemy combatants" held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The other involved American citizen Jose Padilla, who was seized in Chicago in an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" and declared as an enemy combatant. In Padilla's case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the former gang member released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts. The White House said the government would appeal and seek a stay of the decision. In the other case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base should have access to lawyers and the American court system. The White House said the ruling was inconsistent with the president's constitutional authority as well as with other court rulings. "The president's most solemn obligation is protecting the American people," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday. "We believe the 2nd Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed." An order by President Bush in November 2001 allows captives to be detained as "enemy combatants" if they are members of al-Qaida, engaged in or aided terrorism, or harbored terrorists. The designation may also be applied if it is "the interest of the United States" to hold an individual during hostilities. The Justice Department this week said such a classification allows detainees to be held without access to lawyers until U.S. authorities believe they have disclosed everything they know about terrorist operations. But Padilla's detention as an enemy combatant, the New York court ruled 2-1, was not authorized by Congress and Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without such approval. Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland School of Law professor and former Clinton administration Justice Department official, said the government "is being painted into a corner that is not very favorable. How bad of a corner will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court." The court, Greenberger said, did not address the broader question of whether constitutional rights would be violated if Bush had congressional authority to designate somebody as an enemy combatant. Padilla, a convert to Islam, was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport as he returned from Pakistan. Within days, he was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. The government said he had proposed the bomb plot to Abu Zubaydah, then al-Qaida's top terrorism coordinator, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. In ordering his release from military custody, the court said the government was free to transfer Padilla to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges. If appropriate, Padilla also can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, the court said. Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, did not immediately return a telephone message for comment. Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "historic." "It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism," Dunn said. Thursday's 2-1 decision out of San Francisco was the first federal appellate ruling to rebuke the Bush administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees who have been without charges, some for nearly two years. The administration maintains that because the 660 men confined there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial. The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, who were nabbed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system. "Even in times of national emergency indeed, particularly in such times it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority. Stephen Yagman, the Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of Libyan detainee Faren Cherebi, said if the decision survives, the government "has to put up some evidence that there is a reason to hold these people and charge them, or give them up." Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the government's position is that "U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens being held in military control abroad." The Defense Department announced Thursday that the Pentagon had appointed a military defense lawyer for a terrorism suspect held at Guantanamo. Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen becomes the second Guantanamo prisoner to be given a lawyer. Australian David Hicks got a lawyer earlier this month and recently met with an Australian legal adviser. Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this story.

We don't really know what the two parties felt towards each other, if anything. I am willing to assume that this was a classic case of sexual exploitation by the one in the superior position. Just like Bill Clinton. Not that that excuses anything done by either Thurmond or Clinton. In any event, the unwillingness of white southern males of that era to remove the bars to full participation in society by blacks, was never a barrier to sexual relations with black females, willing or otherwise.

I'm impressed OGE. Did you come up with this by yourself?

Pack checks for everybody are always a good idea before a major event such as this. The adults and experienced scouts should also set the example by making their packs available. The pack check provides a teaching opportunity and will help avoid serious mistakes. For backpacking in particular, a kid who brings too much stuff is also burdening the rest of the group. So a pack check serves multiple purposes.

Do your homework. Don't drive while intoxicated or under the influence of anything. Don't do all nighters. Even a few hours of sleep will make more difference. Buy Microsoft. If it sounds too good to be true...it is.

I felt that the common sense thing to do was to take the scout home. BW's suggestion about assuring two adults present until you are sure that all scouts have in fact departed the area is even better. I wonder how many units have thought of that? I hadn't. I have never confronted this particular situation, but I did encouter a somewhat similar situation involving a child not picked up after soccer practice many years ago.

Here is a hypothetical question... Your troop meeting has broken up. The meeting place is locked up and you do not have a key. It is raining cats and dogs. There is no space under cover outside. You are alone. You see a scout standing in the rain with no raingear on waiting for a parent who is late. Nobody has a telephone. You and your car and the scout are the only people around. To make things even dicier, the scout is starting to exhibit signs of hypothermia. What do you do?

Independent economics, tax, and valuation consultant, working from a home office.

The responsibilities of the chair will vary with respect to the type of unit you are talking about, Pat5208. This is why BW asked his question. The reason for this is that the responsibilities of the committee as a whole vary with the type of unit. At the cub scout level, the committee essentially runs the programs working with the cubmaster and den leaders. At boy scout troops and other types of units for older youth, the youth themselves take on more responsibility for planning and executing the program, and the roles of the unit leaders and the committees shift accordingly.

It seems to me that I saw somewhere that Iowa had the highest literacy rate among the states in the union. That may have been true once, and I don't know about today. Anybody got any ideas?

In 1998 we had a scout in our troop here in California make Eagle who used a hearing aid. I don't know how much hearing loss he had. In the 50's in Missouri there was a scout troop at the state run school for the deaf at Fulton, Missouri. They came to our summer camp one year when I was on staff. I don't know if that troop is still in business or if any of those boys made eagle, but they sure had plenty of scout spirit. They taught us a lot that week.

Just wait. They will.

Critic of Boy Scouts wants fliers banned By TOM BELL, Portland Press Herald Writer Copyright 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. After his 6-year-old son started attending school in Portland this fall, David Hilton discovered that being a parent these days means sorting through all the papers that get stuffed into children's backpacks at school. For Hilton, though, the problem is not the quantity but the content. Some of the papers come from the Boy Scouts of America, a group that prohibits openly gay men from participating. Hilton said the practice gives the impression that the school department endorses a discriminatory organization, and he is lobbying the School Committee to stop it. The committee will take up the issue tonight. School Committee Chairman Jonathan Radtke said the fliers pose a dilemma. If school officials ban Boy Scout notices, he said, they will be legally required to ban notices from all other groups. That means Girl Scouts, Little League, soccer clubs, 4-H clubs, hockey clubs, Boys and Girls Clubs. All of those groups would lose a cheap and easy way to communicate with the city's children and their parents, he said. "We have to have a policy that says everything goes out or nothing goes out," he said. Most Maine schools allow Boy Scout notices to be sent home, said Duane Havard, assistant scout executive of the Pine Tree Council Boy Scouts of America. Kittery and Gorham are exceptions. They don't allow any groups to send fliers home if the groups aren't connected with the schools. Kittery instituted the policy this fall without much controversy. Gorham's policy has nothing to do with Boy Scouts. Gorham officials believe that fliers from too many groups dilute the impact of notices from the schools, and that the extra notices were consuming too much staff time. Hilton said it's a moral issue. "Young gay and lesbian persons growing up in America . . . have a high rate of depression," he said. "To start in elementary school hearing this unwritten message that it's not OK to be gay, well, that's really upsetting." City Councilor Peter O'Donnell supports Hilton's efforts. He said the fliers contradict the gay-rights ordinance that Portland voters approved in 1992. The issue is similar to a controversy that occurred two years ago when some wanted to bar the Boy Scouts from using school facilities. The School Committee voted to let the Scouts keep using facilities because members believed that banning just one group would be discriminatory. The committee's lawyers cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that said the Boy Scouts is a private organization that has a legal right to exclude homosexuals. If the committee wanted to ban the Scouts, it would have to ban all other groups, the lawyers said. At the same time the committee voted to let the Boy Scouts keep using school facilities, it decided to post notices stating that groups using the buildings do not represent the views of Portland public schools or their employees. It appears the School Committee is moving toward the same legal solution for fliers. Two weeks ago, committee member Kim Matthews, who heads the policy committee, proposed allowing fliers from youth and civic groups as long as the notices have a disclaimer saying the groups' views are not necessarily the views of the school system. Hilton said the proposed disclaimer does not address his concerns. If a group discriminated against other groups, such as Jews, the School Committee would not let the group put fliers in children's backpacks, he said. School Committee member James DiMillo, who said he agrees with everything the Boy Scouts do, said committee members want to add a disclaimer just to make themselves feel better. He opposes it. "My problem with the whole thing is, why change it when we only have one complaint?" he said.

I love this headline. Actually the school may have committed a minor indiscretion, but I would be more concerned about reading and math scores if I were a parent in this school district. ______________________ ACLU Asks Kansas School District To Investigate Santa POSTED: 10:57 a.m. CST December 3, 2003 UPDATED: 11:02 a.m. CST December 3, 2003 BALDWIN CITY, Kan. -- After allegedly allowing a minister dressed as Santa Claus to discuss the meaning of Christmas with elementary school students, the Baldwin City School District is being criticized for violating the separation of church and state. So the Douglas County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in. The ACLU has urged the eastern Kansas school district to investigate whether Baldwin City elementary schools allowed a Santa Claus impersonator to discuss Christmas with students. The red-suited visitor also reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. Superintendent Jim White said he's asked for more details about the complaints addressed in the ACLU letter sent last week. White does not believe the district is violating the law. But he says Santa may not visit again.

Having done some quick research, I have to concur with OutdoorThinker. FOG resides on the fifth circle of Dante's Inferno.