It's Time Clinton Lived Up to His Pro-kid Rhetoric

Monday, February 14, 1994

By GREGORY J. RUMMO

       ALMOST one year ago on Feb. 11, 1993, the nomination of Janet Reno for attorney general was announced at a White House news conference. On that day, Reno promised, "I would like to use the laws of this land to do everything I possibly can to protect America's children from abuse and violence. "
    Seventeen days later, four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or ATF, were gunned down in Waco, Texas, by Branch Davidian members as they attempted to serve a warrant on the compound. This triggered a 51-day standoff, ending tragically in the April 19 inferno that killed more than 80 Branch Davidians -- many of them children -- and the cult's leader, David Koresh.
    When the smoke cleared, Clinton went off in a corner somewhere to hide while his attorney general, who had supervised the ATF operation, took the heat. If this was to be an indication of Reno's promise to "protect America's children from . . . violence," she wasn't off to a good start.
    Unfortunately, her record for "protecting America's children from abuse," is not much better. In a brief submitted by Solicitor General Drew Days to the Supreme Court in Knox vs. United States on Sept. 17, 1993, the Justice Department has attempted to reinterpret the nation's child pornography laws, greatly weakening the existing legislation.
    Steven Knox was convicted of possessing video tapes of minors that were deemed to be sexually explicit under the current child pornography statutes. Such titles as "Lollipops," "Ripe and Tender," and "Sweet Young Things" were among the filth confiscated.
    Currently, the law is both stringent and comprehensive in defining child pornography. It focuses on the intent of the pornographer, not on the minor child, who is always the victim. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding Knox's conviction wrote, " . . . focusing on a minor child's clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles [constitutes pornography]. "
    Neither nudity nor lascivious behavior on the part of the child is necessary. Since passage of the three child protection acts of the Eighties, federal prosecutors under former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush were successful in winning convictions based on the existing tough legislation.
    On Nov. 1, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Third Circuit Court, where the Justice Department is now seeking to have the child pornography convictions of Knox thrown out, intending to retry him under its new and weakened interpretation of the law. Such a strategy would avoid the real issue raised by a lack of nudity in the videotapes resulting in the original conviction of Knox.
    Reno has argued for what amounts to unprecedented and unconscionable interpretations of the exiting child pornography laws in order to prevent the Supreme Court from declaring such laws unconstitutional. This is a smokescreen to conceal the real agenda -- the legalization of child pornography under a warped and depraved interpretation of the First Amendment.
    The response from Congress has been an iron-handed rebuke to Reno. In an amendment to the Grassley bill passed last year on Nov. 4, the Senate in an overwhelming show of solidarity voted 100-0 against the Justice Department's reinterpretation of child pornography. In the House, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., has sponsored similar legislation -- House Resolution 281 -- urging the Justice Department to abandon the route it has taken, which is inconsistent with the law as written. To date, the resolution had 253 signatures as of Feb. 10.
    Marge Roukema, R-Ridgewood, a co-author of the resolution, told me, "I will do everything possible to prevent this from happening. We'll just have to tie [Reno's] hands. "
    All the other House Republicans have signed onto the resolution. To date, Torricelli and Robert Andrews are the only two Democrats in New Jersey co-sponsoring the resolution. But conspicuous by their absence are the signatures of Rep. Herbert C. Klein, D-Clifton, and Robert Menendez, D-Union City. One wonders what it will take for the cessation of partisan politics. Apparently the abuse of our children is not sufficient grounds.
    In a further show of legislative branch outrage, an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" brief is being circulated in Congress. This will allow its members the right to argue in court how the law should be interpreted. Most of New Jersey's legislators have not signed on to the amicus curiae, citing "conflict of separation of powers. " But Reno herself is guilty of an egregious breach of "separation of powers. "
    Reps. Smith, Robert G. Franks, Jim Saxton, and Richard A. Zimmer (all New Jersey Republicans) along with 209 other Senate and House members have signed on.
    Where has Bill Clinton been in all of this? In a weakly worded letter on Nov. 10. 1993, he recommended that the Justice Department "prepare and submit any necessary legislation to ensure that federal law reaches all forms of child pornography. " But the law already does "reach all forms of child pornography. "
    In typical Clinton fashion, rich in symbolism yet lacking in substance, he allows yet another festering sore to continue oozing, a sure sign that this entire administration has a raging infection.
    Half-a-million children are victims of sex crimes each year. More than 80 percent of convicted child molesters admit to being users of pornography. Our children are a heritage from the Lord. It is time this administration live up to its "pro-kid" rhetoric and exhibit some real leadership.

You may e-mail the author at GregoryJRummo@aol.com