Editorials
Thursday, December 17, 1998

Raids reveal Clinton’s
loss of credibility

PRESIDENT Clinton's decision to attack Iraq was amply justified by Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations' orders to open all facilities to U.N. weapons inspectors, in contradiction of his own repeated pledges of compliance. As the president said, to ignore Saddam Hussein's violations would have destroyed the credibility of the United States' vows to enforce the U.N. mandates against Iraq and left the dictator free to resume his buildup of nuclear and chemical weapons.

This time, the bombing should be heavy enough to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N.'s orders. A mere slap on the wrist such has been applied in previous attacks would be unacceptable. The world has learned that isn't enough.

But the damage to Clinton's own credibility was evident in the suspicious, even cynical responses of many Americans, some in high places, to the president's order, coming as it did on the eve of the scheduled vote in the House of Representatives on his impeachment.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott took the virtually unprecedented step of refusing to support Clinton's decision. House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston was openly skeptical, saying he would leave a judgment on the timing of the attack to the American people. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said the timing "stinks to high heaven."

There were many references to the recent movie "Wag the Dog," in which a beleaguered president starts a fictitious war to divert attention from a scandal.

Our judgment is that Clinton had to act, in the face of a report by the chairman of the U.N. inspection group that Iraq had again violated its pledge to cooperate with the inspectors. But the timing of the attack could not be more questionable, and there is no wonder there is so much suspicion.

The reaction confirms that Clinton's credibility has been sorely damaged by the Lewinsky scandal and with it his ability to lead the country. Many people simply don't believe him anymore. That is why he should have resigned when the facts of his outrageous conduct were disclosed. His refusal to step down has forced Congress to find a way to deal with a disgraced president, either by impeachment or censure.

The House intends to proceed with the vote on impeachment as soon as the bombing of Iraq stops, presumably in a few days. Whatever the outcome of that vote -- and of the vote in the Senate, should the House vote for impeachment -- the damage to Clinton's presidency has already been done -- by his own reckless and cynical acts. This president is badly wounded.

Prosecutor misconduct

GOVERNMENT prosecutors in their zeal sometimes seem to forget that their mission is to seek justice, not necessarily the conviction of the accused. That means providing defense attorneys evidence that might result in acquittals. Allegations that a Big Island prosecutor withheld such exculpatory evidence in a murder case are serious charges that should be referred to the judiciary's Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Deputy Prosecutor Kay Iopa was accused of misconduct on several occasions in the trial of Christopher Wilmer, 21, charged with murder for the death of 73-year-old retired businessman Gordon Granger in May 1997. Granger was stabbed 25 times at his home in the Puueo district. There were no eyewitnesses, so circumstantial evidence is especially important.

When Iona learned of a report that Wilmer may have been somewhere else when Granger was attacked, she failed to tell defense attorney Brian De Lima, according to presiding Circuit Judge Riki May Amano. The law "clearly, clearly, clearly" required her to disclose the information, the judge said.

Iopa also failed to inform De Lima about possible influences on Wilmer's chief accuser, Misty Kuheana, his onetime girlfriend who had a child by him. When De Lima asked if Kuheana had been compensated for her cooperation with police, Iopa neglected to say that Kuheana had indeed been given $1,000 by Crime Stoppers. In addition, Iopa allowed an assistant to tell Kuheana that Wilmer had written an admiring note to another woman. Iopa has admitted lying about the letter.

De Lima maintained that Iopa's misconduct was aimed at increasing Kuheana's jealousy and contempt for Wilmer. Kuheana testified in the trial that Wilmer had confessed to her that he had killed Granger.

Judge Amano declared a mistrial because of Iopa's conduct, but further action is needed. Unless Iopa's conduct is reviewed and disciplinary measures taken for proven incidents of misconduct, other prosecutors will be encouraged to abuse their positions and ignore their obligation to seek justice.

UH scientist’s prize

THE University of Hawaii has another feather in its academic cap with the award of the 1999 Japan Prize for Information Technologies to Professor W. Wesley Peterson. The prize, which carries a cash award of about $400,000, will be presented in Tokyo before Emperor Akihito and other Japanese government leaders. Peterson, a professor of information and computer sciences, was recognized for his work in digital communications error control.

This has been a memorable year for UH scientists. In July UH researcher Ryuzo Yanagimachi and his associates received worldwide attention when they reported in the British journal Nature on the creation of more than 50 clones of adult mice.

Achievements such as these are evidence of how far the university has come in its pursuit of excellence. Now that the state has granted the university system greater autonomy, more academic honors can be expected.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor