• The arrest of National Guardsman Ryan Anderson, accused of offering to help Al Qaeda by providing information about US weapons and military tactics.
  
  
• The conviction of several of the so-called "Portland Seven," Muslims who tried to get to Afghanistan, where they wanted to help fight Americans.
  
  
• The investigation of members of the Muslim community associated with the University of Idaho and Washington State University, where Mr. Anderson had been a student and converted to Islam.
  
  
• The sentencing of Earnest James Ujaama, a Seattle man charged with conspiring to aid the Taliban, including plans to set up a remote terrorist training camp in the desert of Oregon.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on our country, the families of those who perished on that day became forever linked through our shared anguish and grief. But "the 9/11 families" are not a monolithic group that speaks in one voice, and nothing has made that more clear than the controversy over the Bush campaign ads.

It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of "The Families of Sept. 11." They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.

The images of Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville have been plastered over coffee mugs, T-shirts, placemats, book covers and postage stamps, all without a peep from many of these family members. I suspect that the real outrage over the ads has more to do with context than content. It’s not the pictures that disturb them so much as the person who is using them. This is demonstrated in their affiliation with Moveon.org, a rabidly anti-Bush group that sponsored a rally they held last Friday calling for the president to pull his ads off the air. But by disingenuously declaring themselves "non-partisan" and insisting that it is a matter of "taste," they retain a powerful weapon that they have learned to exploit to their advantage. They are "9/11 family members" and therefore enjoy the cloak of deference that has been graciously conferred upon them by the public, politicians and, most significantly, the media.

The leader of a lobbying group advised individuals at a 9/11 family meeting shortly after the attacks: "Make no mistake, you have a lot of power. Politicians are more afraid of you than you know." They know. As "relatives of 9/11 victims," they are virtually immune to challenge on the issue of who should have the loudest voice regarding the legacy of this national tragedy.
But this was a tragedy that was experienced and felt not just by us, but by all Americans. The American people responded to the horrors of that day with unflinching courage and an outpouring of love, support and empathy, the memory of which fills me with a gratitude that I can never repay. We families received cards, letters, homemade quilts bearing the names and likenesses of our lost loved ones, hand-lettered drawings from whole classrooms of children, and an unprecedented amount of charitable funds that sustained and continue to sustain those in need more than two years later.

These Americans, most of whom I will never have the privilege of meeting, also gave us something even more precious. When the planes hit the buildings and the towers fell, some of their sons and daughters balled up their fists and determined then and there that they wanted to "do something" about it. Those who donned the uniforms of our Armed Forces in order to fight the war on terrorism are not offended by the images of Ground Zero. On the contrary, they are moved and inspired by them.

Whatever these 9/11 families may think of the president’s foreign policy or the war in Iraq, I ask them to reconsider the language and tone of their statements. We should not tolerate or condone remarks such as those of the 9/11 relative who, so offended by the campaign ads, said that he "would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush." The insult was picked up and posted on Al-Jazeera’s Web site. In view of the sacrifice our troops have made on our behalf, this insensitivity to them and their families suggests a level of self-indulgence and ingratitude that shocks the conscience.

George W. Bush says that his presidency is inspired by an enduring obligation to those who lost their lives on that brutal September morning. The images of that day stand as an everlasting example of our country’s darkest day and finest hour. They are a vivid reminder of the strength and resilience of our great country. They belong to us all--including this president. Let the candidates make their own choices. I trust the American people.

(2004-03-08) -- Just hours after the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council approved that nation’s new interim constitution, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it on the grounds that it provides "excessive power to the ignorant masses."

"Democracy cannot be entrusted to millions of people who have never been to law school," an unnamed judge wrote for the panel. "Ultimately power must rest in the hands of those who know what’s best for others. That’s the American model, and that is what we should export to the world."

The Ninth Circuit panel said it might reconsider its ruling if the Iraqi Governing Council were to allow the establishment of branch campuses of Harvard and Yale Universities in Baghdad.

"It’s possible that within 10 to 12 years," the panel concluded, "that judges could be prepared to rule equitably in Iraq as they do here in the United States. Only then could Iraq return to the relative stability it has enjoyed for the past three decades."

The Transitional Administrative Law will be the Supreme Law of Iraq, during the transitional period. It will expire once a government is elected under a permanent constitution and take office. This will happen no later than December 31, 2005. The transitional period will consist of two phases:

Phase I: On 30 June 2004, an Iraqi Interim Government will be vested with full sovereignty, and the Coalition Provisional Authority will dissolve. This Iraqi government will be formed through a process of widespread consultation with the Iraqi people and will govern according to the Transitional Administrative Law and an annex to be issued before the beginning of the transitional period.

Phase II: The Iraqi Transitional Government will take office after elections for the National Assembly. These elections will take place as soon as possible, but no later than 31 January 2005.

The Fundamental Principles of the Law include the following:

The system of government in Iraq will be republican, federal, democratic, and pluralistic. Federalism will be based on geography, history, and the separation of powers and not on ethnicity or sect.

The Iraqi Armed Forces will fall under the control of Iraq’s civilian political leadership.

Islam will be the official religion of the State and will be considered a source of legislation. The Law will respect the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantee the freedom of religious belief and practice.

Arabic and Kurdish will be the official languages of Iraq.

The people of Iraq are sovereign and free. All Iraqis are equal in their rights and without regard to gender, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin and they are equal before the law. Those unjustly deprived of their citizenship by previous Iraqi regimes will have the right to reclaim their citizenship. The government will respect the rights of the people, including the rights:

To freedom of thought, conscience, and expression;

To assemble peaceably and to associate and organize freely;

To justice; to a fair, speedy, and open trial and to the presumption of innocence;

To vote, according to law, in free, fair, competitive and periodic elections;

To file grievances against officials when these rights have been violated.