The Wall Street Journal - 07.10.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Monday, October 7, 2019 |A19

Trump and Ukraine: What We Know

But that’s where the agreement

stops. One side says the quid pro

quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s ask-

ing his Ukrainian counterpart to in-

vestigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden

at the risk of losing military funds al-

ready approved by Congress—was so

obvious it didn’t need to be stated in

direct language. The other side says

every conversation among world

leaders carries some kind of implied

quid pro quo, and in this case the re-

quest for investigation was entirely

appropriate. You might even say it

was one of Mr. Trump’s highest pri-

orities, given the risk that a potential

future President Biden might be com-

promised in his dealings with a for-

eign government.

I see conflicting reporting on the

biggest fact about Mr. Biden and

Ukraine: Did the then vice president

want the prosecutor fired because

his son Hunter was on the board of

Burisma, which was at some point

under investigation by Ukrainian au-

thorities? The press on the left says

no, the right says yes. My rule of

thumb says we shouldn’t treat ei-

ther version as true—for now.

Did Hunter Biden accept the Bu-

risma board seat, which paid

$50,000 a month, while Ukraine was

part of his father’s official portfolio?

Yes, all sides report that to be a

fact. Was Hunter qualified for such

a role? Both sides say not so much.

Both sides also agree that Hunter’s

taking that position wasn’t illegal

but sure looks swampy.

Both sides further agree that Joe

Biden is on video bragging about

getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired

by using the threat of withholding

U.S. aid in the amount of $1 billion.

But there is disagreement onwhyhe

did it. Was it because theprosecutor

was ineffective and suspected of

corruption himself or because the

prosecutor wasfightingcorruption

at Burisma? We see opposing press

reports on the left and the right, so

my rule says wait for all of that to

sort out.

If you strip out the parts of the

Ukraine story we can’t yet know to

be true, you still know enough to

have a responsible opinion. Vice

President Biden was handling the

Ukraine portfolio while his son had

a financial interest in Ukraine, and

that is enough of a conflict to merit

an investigation. We all agree that

the sitting president is responsible

for protecting the integrity of Amer-

ican elections and generally keeping

foreign interference in U.S. politics

to a minimum. That’s what Mr.

Trump was doing on the Ukraine

phone call. (For those of you who

say such matters should be handled

at lower levels of government, my

experience in corporate America

tells me nothing much gets done un-

til the bosses talk and agree. I as-

sume government is similar.)

All sides can also agree that Mr.

Trump was serving his own re-elec-

tion interests by asking Ukraine to

investigate Mr. Biden. But we also

agree our political system allows

that—even encourages it—so long as

the president is also clearly pursu-

ing the national interest. Before the

Democratic primary, would it be

good for the country to know more

about Joe Biden’s relationship with

Ukraine? Democrats should appreci-

ate finding out soon if there is any-

thing of concern, because I assume

they don’t want to go into the gen-

eral election with a candidate who

has some surprises in his Ukrainian

closet.

What we all agree to be true

about Joe and Hunter Biden is that

they had the types of interactions

with Ukraine that raise eyebrows

and invite a closer look. We also all

agree that protecting the integrity

of American elections should be a

top priority for a president.

I won’t try to convince you that

my rule of thumb works every time.

I assume there are times when one

side is simply right and the other is

wrong. But keep an eye out for how

often the ruledoesprove reliable.

And remember to wait a week or

two for the fog to clear before you

make any decisions about what is

fact and what is not.

Mr. Adams is creator of Dilbert

and author of “Loserthink: How Un-

trained Brains are Ruining Amer-

ica.”

By Scott Adams

SCOTT ADAMS

I

f you’ve followed the Ukraine
phone-call news, you might
have noticed reality branching
into two completely different
movies. In one, President
Trump was doing his job of protect-
ing the republic by asking an allied
country to help out on an important
legal investigation. The other movie
involves Orange Hitler bullying a
foreign country into meddling in our
elections by “digging up dirt” on a
political opponent.
Which movie is the real one, if
such a thing exists? I’d like to offer
a rule of thumb for evaluating polit-
ical news: If a fact is reported the
same by both the left-leaning and
the right-leaning press, it’s probably
a fact. If not, wait and see.
It’s also smart to wait a week or
two before you make up your mind,
as the fog of war often makes early
reporting unreliable. But after the

fog clears, if all sides agree on a
fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least
it’s credible, even if future reporting
debunks it.
In the case of Mr. Trump’s
Ukraine phone call, all sides agree a
whistleblower exists, at least in the
minimal sense of using the whistle-
blower process. We also agree a
phone call was made, and the tran-
script seems to capture what was
said. We also know a few other
facts: Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo was on the call, and the
whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam
Schiff’s office before filing the com-
plaint, and some other details.

As Americans watch two

different movies, here’s a

way to discern what’s

happening off the screen.

OPINION

Privacy vs.

Security:

It’s a False

Dilemma

By Dave Weinstein

A

ttorney General William Barr

asked Facebook CEO Mark

Zuckerberg last week not to

proceed with the social media com-

pany’s “plan to implement end-to-

end encryption across its messaging

services” without including a means

for law enforcement to access the

content legally. Earlier Mr. Barr re-

opened the debate whether U.S. tech-

nology companies should be com-

pelled to insert vulnerabilities into

their products to assist law enforce-

ment. “Making our virtual world

more secure should not come at the

expense of making us more vulnera-

ble in the real world,” he said in July.

He now urges that tech companies in

general “should not deliberately de-

sign their systems to preclude any

form of access to content.”

Mr. Barr has good reason to be

frustrated. Encryption makes it much

harder for federal, state and local in-

vestigators to do their job, whether

surveilling communications between

messaging apps or gathering digital

evidence from a smartphone. So

what’s more important, privacy or

public safety?

As in many such debates, where

you stand depends in part on where

you sit. I’ve spent my career trying to

score every possible gain over highly

advantaged hackers, so I empathize

with concerns about privacy. But dur-

ing my time in state government I

also saw closets full of evidence-rich

cellphones waiting to be unlocked by

cops.

Earlier this summer Mr. Barr ar-

gued that ordering companies to

leave a chink in their encryption for

law enforcement wouldn’t be all that

onerous. He cited the example of the

1994 Communications Assistance for

Law Enforcement Act, or Calea,

which responded to new digital tele-

phony technology by forcing telecoms

to ensure that law enforcement can

perform warranted surveillance.

But this analogy is a false one.

With Calea, Congress transferred the

burden from law enforcement to the

telecoms in the form of a costly

statutory requirement. But mandat-

ing encryption back doors wouldn’t

burden only U.S. tech companies. It

would burden their customers,

whose security and privacy would

be sacrificed to accommodate law

enforcement.

This safety vs. privacy debate has

run for decades. In 1993 President

Clinton dubbed encryption a “dual-

edged sword” that “helps to protect

the privacy of individuals and indus-

try, but also shield criminals and ter-

rorists.” Mr. Clinton was unveiling a

supposedly secure technology called

the “Clipper Chip,” marketed to pro-

tect privacy while also allowing law

enforcement access to encrypted data

with a warrant. Security researchers

soon compromised it.

The major difference between then

and now is the sophistication and

ubiquity of encryption. Facebook and

other tech giants have made what

was once military-grade technology

available to billions. But the debate

has stalled because we’re asking the

wrong question. Safety vs. privacy is

a false dilemma.

Encryption also makes it harder,

sometimes nearly impossible, for

hackers and foreign intelligence agen-

cies to hurt the U.S. At issue is

whether weakening encryption—and

that’s what Mr. Barr is asking for—vi-

tiates its usefulness. And to what de-

gree do heavier burdens on law en-

forcement diminish public safety?

Congressisthe proper body to

balance these risks—to reconcile in-

dividual privacy with public safety.

The idea of a legislative mandate on

U.S. companies to build encryption

back doors raises a simple and im-

portant question: What about tech-

nologies built overseas? Criminals

and terrorists would immediately

migrate to devices and applications

that are not subject to such access.

The net result would be neutral for

law enforcement, negative for U.S.

citizens and companies.

It’s understandable that Mr. Barr

is frustrated. But he should take

comfort in knowing that China,

Russia, Iran and cyber miscreants

all around the world are equally

frustrated by the ubiquity of strong

encryption. Let’s keep it that way

for now and eventually let Congress

decide.

Mr. Weinstein is chief security of-

ficer at Claroty and former chief

technology officer of New Jersey.

Barr is right—encryption

makes police work harder.

But it also frustrates

hackers and foreign spies.

PUBLISHED SINCE 1889 BY DOW JONES & COMPANY

Rupert Murdoch

Executive Chairman, News Corp

Matt Murray

Editor in Chief

Robert Thomson

Chief Executive Officer, News Corp

William Lewis

Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10036
Telephone 1-800-DOWJONES

DOW JONES MANAGEMENT:

Ramin Beheshti,Chief Technology Officer;

Natalie Cerny,Chief Communications Officer;

Kamilah Mitchell-Thomas,Chief People Officer;

Edward Roussel,Chief Innovation Officer;

Christina Van Tassell,Chief Financial Officer

OPERATING EXECUTIVES:

Kenneth Breen,Commercial;

Jason P. Conti,General Counsel;

Tracy Corrigan,Chief Strategy Officer;

Frank Filippo,Print Products & Services;

Kristin Heitmann,Chief Commercial Officer;

Nancy McNeill,Corporate Sales;

Thomas San Filippo,Customer Service;

Josh Stinchcomb,Advertising Sales;

Suzi Watford,Chief Marketing Officer;

Jonathan Wright,International

Barron’s Group:Almar Latour,Publisher

Professional Information Business:

Christopher Lloyd,Head;

Ingrid Verschuren,Deputy Head

Neal Lipschutz Karen Miller Pensiero
Deputy Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Jason Anders,Chief News Editor;
Thorold Barker,Europe;Elena Cherney,Coverage
Planning;Andrew Dowell,Asia;Alex Martin,Print
& Writing;Michael W. Miller,Features & Weekend;
Emma Moody,Standards;Shazna Nessa,Visuals;
Matthew Rose,Enterprise;Michael Siconolfi,
Investigations;Louise Story,Strategy and Interim
Product & Technology;Nikki Waller,Live
Journalism;Stephen Wisnefski,Professional News

Gerard Baker,Editor at Large

Paul A. Gigot,Editor of the Editorial Page;
Daniel Henninger,Deputy Editor, Editorial Page

WALL STREET JOURNAL MANAGEMENT:
Joseph B. Vincent,Operations;
Larry L. Hoffman,Production

Abortion Trumps Self-Rule in N. Ireland

T

he last day of October is marked

as a “do or die” Brexit day by

British Prime Minister Boris

Johnson. Oct. 22, marks another polit-

ical deadline regarding self-determi-

nation in the United Kingdom. That’s

when Parliament seeks to impose a

permissive abortion law on Northern

Ireland—against the will of the major-

ity of people who live there.

Northern Ireland is part of the U.K.

but for decades had the right to de-

cide its own laws on abortion. Since

the Good Friday Agreement came into

force in 1999, a devolved parliament,

the Assembly in Stormont, has had

the power to legislate for the prov-

ince. The Assembly voted down pro-

posals to legalize abortion as recently

as February 2016. But a political dis-

agreement between the region’s big-

gest parties has left Stormont in

limbo since January 2017.

Activists seized on the political pa-

ralysis to lobby the British govern-

ment to legalize abortion in the

north. In July the British Parliament

voted overwhelmingly to wipe out the

north’s long tradition of protecting

unborn children and give the region

some of the most liberal abortion

laws in Europe. In doing so, Westmin-

ster demolished the decadeslong un-

derstanding that the British govern-

ment couldn’t simply impose laws

pertaining to important and sensitive

social issues on a fractious and fragile

Northern Ireland.

Abortion politics have muddled an

already complex political landscape

in the six counties of the north,

which share a 310-mile border with

the Republic of Ireland. The Demo-

cratic Unionist Party, which favors

continued union with Britain—where

abortion is legal—opposes liberaliza-

tion of the law. Sinn Féin, which sup-

ports political unity with the Repub-

lic, is in league with London when it

comes to legalizing abortion. The re-

turn to direct rule by Westminster

was backed to the hilt by Sinn Féin,

whose raison d’être is to bring about

an independent and united Ireland

free of British control.

In the Irish language,sinn féin

translates as “we ourselves.” Sinn

Féin once had a heavily Catholic iden-

tity. During the half-century of sec-

tarian violence known as the Trou-

bles, the party of Gerry Adams and

Martin McGuinness was understood

to be the political arm of the Provi-

sional Irish Republican Army. Their

decision to go cap in hand to the Brit-

ish Parliament to seek direct rule on

abortion has upended centuries of re-

publican tradition.

But this betrayal of republican

principles may come at a price.

Peadar Tóibín, who founded a new

political party, Aontú, after being

forced out of Sinn Féin for his pro-life

stance, believes Sinn Féin’s progres-

sive drift has contributed to a recent

collapse in support both north and

south of the border.

The majority of people in North-

ern Ireland disagree with Westmin-

ster’s decision to legalize abortion.

Sixty-four percent of respondents to

an October 2018 ComRes poll said

any decision on whether to change

Northern Ireland’s abortion laws

should be made by its elected politi-

cians and not by the British House of

Commons.

Yet unless the Assembly at Stor-

mont sits by Oct. 21, July’s vote will

stand and it will become legal to ob-

tain an abortion in Northern Ireland.

The DUP has said it is willing to re-

convene. Sinn Féin is likely to stall,

hoping that Parliament’s bid to force

change on the north can succeed.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson is busy wor-

rying about other things, but while

he and his ruling Conservative Party

supposedly champion self-determina-

tion in pursuit of Brexit, the U.K. is

set to foist an unwanted, undemo-

cratic abortion regime on Northern

Ireland. So much for respecting the

will of the people.

Ms. Ui Bhriain is director of the

Life Institute in Dublin.

By Niamh Ui Bhriain

My Brother Ali Is Iran’s Latest Hostage

A

s the Trump administration
speaks of placing “maximum
pressure” on Iran, my brother
Ali Alinejad has become another vic-
tim of Iran’s perpetual maximum
pressure on its own citizens. Two
weeks ago, Intelligence Ministry
agents raided his home in Tehran
and blindfolded and handcuffed him
in front of his two small children,
and dragged him away. He is now be-
ing interrogated at Iran’s notorious
Evin prison. His only crime is being
my brother.
Around the same time as Ali’s ar-
rest, a team of seven agents raided
my former husband’s home in the
northern city of Babol. The agents ar-
rested his sister and brother, again
using blindfolds and handcuffs. They
too were targeted only because of
their connection to me.
Why pick on me? Five years ago
on Facebook, I launched My Stealthy
Freedom, a campaign against the
compulsory hijab, the most visible
symbol of clerical rule in Iran.
Since then, women from all over
Iran, even in conservative and reli-
gious cities like Mashad and Qom, are
removing their headscarves and post-
ing photos and videos of their acts of
defiance. I receive more than 2,000
messages from these women each
day. My Stealthy Freedom has quickly
become the biggest civil-disobedi-
ence campaign in the history of the
Islamic Republic.
Feeling the pain, the regime has
lashed out. In late July, Mousa Ghaz-
anfarabadi, head of Iran’s Revolution-
ary Court, announced that I was to be
treated as a “hostile government”
with which interaction is punishable
by up to a decade in prison.
In August, six women were sen-
tenced to a combined 109 years for
peacefully protesting the compulsory
hijab. One, Saba Kordafshari, is only
20 and faces 24 years in prison. If the
authorities thought this would scare
off Iranian women, they were wrong.
Women continue to send me videos
of their resistance.

My brother wasn’t involved in the

campaigns. He was, however, my con-

stant source of family news, and I

loved to regale him with tales of my

amazing sunflowers and the little

patch of basil and mint I tend to in

Brooklyn, N.Y. His arrest is an at-

tempt to silence me and other women

who resist.

Today an Iranian woman cannot

travel abroad or seek divorce without

her husband’s permission. She cannot

be a judge or a member of the Guard-

ian Council, which vets all laws. In-

heritance laws are deeply unfair, and

the regime even denies women sim-

ple pleasures such as attending a

sports match at a stadium. Last

month a woman was sentenced to 10

years in prison for singing in public.

Since taking power in 1979, the cleri-

cal government has found a way to

demean women and restrict their lib-

erties in every aspect of life.

The most pernicious of these re-

strictions continues to be the com-

pulsory-hijab laws of 1979 and 1983,

which require women in public places

to wrap their heads in scarves. The

compulsory hijab is a way to censor

women, erasing their identities and

subjugating their individualities.

Imprisoning women who don’t

wear hijabs reiterates the Islamic Re-

public’s constant message: The re-

gime doesn’t recognize individuals as

the rightful owners of their own bod-

ies. That’s why it won’t let my rela-

tives leave Iran, even though it forced

me into exile in 2009. They’re more

useful as hostages.

Hostage-taking is part of the re-

gime’s DNA. The 1979 invasion of the

U.S. Embassy and 444-day captivity

of diplomats there helped solidify the

Islamic Republic. Today Iran illegally

imprisons Iranian-Americans Siamak

and Baquer Namazi, British-Iranian

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and many

more citizens of Western nations.

The arrests of my family members

came as President Hassan Rouhani

spoke at the United Nations about

the West’s “unjust and oppressive ac-

tions” against Iran. Foreign Minister

Javad Zarif complains that U.S. sanc-

tions prevent him from visiting an

Iranian ambassador who is being

treated at a New York hospital. What

about all the Iranians whose families

have been torn apart for decades be-

cause of the regime he represents?

While Iranian officials invoke sover-

eignty and justice to get their way

abroad, sovereignty of the individual

and rule of law mean nothing to the

regime at home.

President Trump reportedly seeks

a meeting with Mr. Rouhani, and

French President Emmanuel Macron

pushes to salvage the nuclear deal. I

fear the Trump administration will

cut a deal with Tehran that ignores

human rights, emboldening the cleri-

cal regime to crack down on its do-

mestic opposition without concern

for international pressure.

Let the unlawful arrest and deten-

tion of my family be a warning to Mr.

Macron and the White House: Iran’s

is a regime of hostage-takers, and

hostage-takers cannot be trusted.

Ms. Alinejad is author of “The

Wind in My Hair: My Fight for Free-

dom in Modern Iran.”

By Masih Alinejad

The ayatollahs hold him

in a notorious prison as

retaliation for my activism

against compulsory hijab.