Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know what I have planned coming up. Next Tuesday, President Obama will be announcing his decision on the troop situation in Afghanistan. In anticipation of this, I will be working diligently on three new blog posts that hopefully will be done before then. First, in two seperate posts, I will break down both the wars: how they happened, what has happened, and where they are headed. Then, in the third I will give my opinion on where I think we should head, what the war is doing to our troops, and our relationship with Iran(hope you're ready to strongly disagree with me; most will concerning Iran.) I have some very strong beliefs here, and I am putting a lot of work into these posts. I hope you will click back here later this week to read them. And please, tell everyone you know who might be interested. Thanks for all you support!!
Justin
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Basic Rights
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." Amendment VI, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
America was built upon a foundation of laws, and a system of enacting those laws. If someone breaks a law, we have a judicial system with a specific, proven way of meteing out justice. This system is crucial to our identity as a free, fair nation, a nation where even criminals-burglars, rapists, fraud artists, mass murderers-have some basic rights. Without respect for these rights, we are no better than any totalitarian or oppressive state. This difference is what makes America great.
Yet for some reason, over the past decade, some people have tried to circumvent this system in the name of "national security." The USA PATRIOT Act is the most blatant, and most well known, of these instances. In the PATRIOT Act, the Bush Administration approved the use of illegal methods such as warrantless wiretapping and illegitimate detainment of suspects. When criticized, the White House said they were "protecting us" and if you complained, you were unpatriotic, and probably a traitor. Yet, aren't things like wiretapping and detainment hallmarks of oppressive regimes? Those on the right rail against left-wing communists, and big government looking over your shoulder, yet support "Big Brother-"type programs and policies like the PATRIOT Act, something that would not seem out of place in Orwell's "1984."
Now, another issue along these lines has popped up in New York City. Last week, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khaleed Sheik Mohammad, would be tried in a federal court in New York City. This immediately created an uproar in the Republican Party. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News, "This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public." He called the trials an "unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists" and a "security risk." I don't even know what to make of these comments. Disregarding the Bill of Rights is a good thing for the public? Last I checked, putting a terrorist on trial is not giving them an "advantage." And how would it be a security risk? Wouldn't compromising our system of laws be a victory for the terrorists? Just throwing them in prison wihtout a trial would be great propaganda for Al Qaeda. It's the same with Guantanomo Bay. Gitmo is Al Qaeda's single greatest recruiting tool. When talking about the "great American evil," they can simply point to Guantanamo as an example of the way America disregards other people's rights. Moving these detainees to Thomson, Illinois, which has volunteered to take them, would put all the negativism associated with Gitmo to rest.
People on the right claim holding and trying terrorists here creates security problems. Do they really have that little faith in our prisons, police, military, and courts? Illinois currently holds 35 prisoners classified as "terrorists" without any problems. And in 2006, the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, was prosecuted and convicted in a federal district court in Virginia, without any security problems. So what makes some think we can't do the same with Al Qaeda terrorists? Instead of a criminal court, Republicans want them tried in a military tribunal. This is unnecessary, however. These five terrorists are not on trial for military crimes. They are on trial for crimes committed in New York, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. If you strip away all the identifiers, 9/11 is easy to identify along criminal lines: a group of men commit mass murder by killing thousands simultaneously. There was no war going on, and it wasn't committed in a war zone. It's simple. This is how America's judicial system works. You don't just change it because you want to.
Let me make one final point. Besides being against legally and humanely holding prisoners, and giving them a quick and fair trial, some on the right are now advocating against a trial for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood tragedy. I guess they want him jailed immediately, or executed without trial. My point is, they want to ignore our legal system in prosecuting him. Now, let me ask you something. Did those thirteen troops who died at Fort Hood, or the 5882 troops killed so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the 2976 people killed on 9/11, did all these people die so that we can set aside our laws and customs? Did they die so we can disregard civil liberties and human rights? Is it worth invalidating 8871 deaths for no reason? Because if we follow through on what the right is yelling incoherently for us to do, then they all died in vain. America must not compromise it's values. We must be a beacon of liberty and justice, even when it comes to terrorists. Without our laws, what are we? We must hold ourselves above the rest of the world. It's who we are.
America was built upon a foundation of laws, and a system of enacting those laws. If someone breaks a law, we have a judicial system with a specific, proven way of meteing out justice. This system is crucial to our identity as a free, fair nation, a nation where even criminals-burglars, rapists, fraud artists, mass murderers-have some basic rights. Without respect for these rights, we are no better than any totalitarian or oppressive state. This difference is what makes America great.
Yet for some reason, over the past decade, some people have tried to circumvent this system in the name of "national security." The USA PATRIOT Act is the most blatant, and most well known, of these instances. In the PATRIOT Act, the Bush Administration approved the use of illegal methods such as warrantless wiretapping and illegitimate detainment of suspects. When criticized, the White House said they were "protecting us" and if you complained, you were unpatriotic, and probably a traitor. Yet, aren't things like wiretapping and detainment hallmarks of oppressive regimes? Those on the right rail against left-wing communists, and big government looking over your shoulder, yet support "Big Brother-"type programs and policies like the PATRIOT Act, something that would not seem out of place in Orwell's "1984."
Now, another issue along these lines has popped up in New York City. Last week, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khaleed Sheik Mohammad, would be tried in a federal court in New York City. This immediately created an uproar in the Republican Party. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News, "This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public." He called the trials an "unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists" and a "security risk." I don't even know what to make of these comments. Disregarding the Bill of Rights is a good thing for the public? Last I checked, putting a terrorist on trial is not giving them an "advantage." And how would it be a security risk? Wouldn't compromising our system of laws be a victory for the terrorists? Just throwing them in prison wihtout a trial would be great propaganda for Al Qaeda. It's the same with Guantanomo Bay. Gitmo is Al Qaeda's single greatest recruiting tool. When talking about the "great American evil," they can simply point to Guantanamo as an example of the way America disregards other people's rights. Moving these detainees to Thomson, Illinois, which has volunteered to take them, would put all the negativism associated with Gitmo to rest.
People on the right claim holding and trying terrorists here creates security problems. Do they really have that little faith in our prisons, police, military, and courts? Illinois currently holds 35 prisoners classified as "terrorists" without any problems. And in 2006, the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, was prosecuted and convicted in a federal district court in Virginia, without any security problems. So what makes some think we can't do the same with Al Qaeda terrorists? Instead of a criminal court, Republicans want them tried in a military tribunal. This is unnecessary, however. These five terrorists are not on trial for military crimes. They are on trial for crimes committed in New York, Washington D.C., and rural Pennsylvania. If you strip away all the identifiers, 9/11 is easy to identify along criminal lines: a group of men commit mass murder by killing thousands simultaneously. There was no war going on, and it wasn't committed in a war zone. It's simple. This is how America's judicial system works. You don't just change it because you want to.
Let me make one final point. Besides being against legally and humanely holding prisoners, and giving them a quick and fair trial, some on the right are now advocating against a trial for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood tragedy. I guess they want him jailed immediately, or executed without trial. My point is, they want to ignore our legal system in prosecuting him. Now, let me ask you something. Did those thirteen troops who died at Fort Hood, or the 5882 troops killed so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the 2976 people killed on 9/11, did all these people die so that we can set aside our laws and customs? Did they die so we can disregard civil liberties and human rights? Is it worth invalidating 8871 deaths for no reason? Because if we follow through on what the right is yelling incoherently for us to do, then they all died in vain. America must not compromise it's values. We must be a beacon of liberty and justice, even when it comes to terrorists. Without our laws, what are we? We must hold ourselves above the rest of the world. It's who we are.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Secession?
Hey guys, just checkin in real quick.
I hope you all enjoyed the videos. They are my insidious way of looking busy while in fact I do very little haha. Anyways, I'll be writing again this week, so I better get my work ethic in check. And after my one post diversion into political science, I think I'm gonna go back to issues, because I have more to say about that, and well, this whole blog idea is about me saying things, right?
Just to touch on a view things. First, congratulations to President Obama on recieving the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree it was shocking and I also agree maybe he wasn't the most qualified. However, this talk that he wasn't qualified in anyway is ridiculous. He has done so many good things in such a short amount of time, from peace talks with Iran to the advancement of minority rights here in America. He has projected a wonderful, new image of America to the world, which is exactly what we needed, considering the way we were viewed for the previous eight. It's embarassing that anyone in this country would be upset that he won (almost as embarassing as certain people cheering the fact that Chicago missed out on the Olympics.) I understand if you think he's underqualified. However, you should be proud. This isn't just an individual honor. This is a statment on America's new standing in the world.
One thing that is bothering me is the secessionist talks coming from certain states. I can't believe that people would be talking like this. What happened to patriotism? Can you really love America if you don't want to be a part of it anymore? Grow up. Secession is not an option, it isn't even a conversation. It's absolutely ridiculous, and borders on treason.
All these things, from the Olympics controversy to secession to siding with rebels in Honduras (see: Demint, Sen. Jim), makes the Republicans look strangely unpatriotic. Weren't these the same folks who just a few short years ago that said if you so much as look at the president wrong you were un-American? The same ones who bestowed us with "freedom fries?" Now they are out of power, and suddenly they seemingly abandon their country. Just because someone else is in power doesn't mean you give up on America. I don't remember Democrats threatening secession during the Bush Administration, and he did some pretty wacked out stuff.
For the best overview of Republican thinking right now, read this column by Paul Krugman from the New York Times last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1
That sums it up pretty well. A strong, coherent, intelligent conservative movement is crucial to the success of this nation. The Republican Party has abandoned rationality and coherency in favor of vitriol and partisan politics. It's sad.
Well, I'll be back later this week. Later!
I hope you all enjoyed the videos. They are my insidious way of looking busy while in fact I do very little haha. Anyways, I'll be writing again this week, so I better get my work ethic in check. And after my one post diversion into political science, I think I'm gonna go back to issues, because I have more to say about that, and well, this whole blog idea is about me saying things, right?
Just to touch on a view things. First, congratulations to President Obama on recieving the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree it was shocking and I also agree maybe he wasn't the most qualified. However, this talk that he wasn't qualified in anyway is ridiculous. He has done so many good things in such a short amount of time, from peace talks with Iran to the advancement of minority rights here in America. He has projected a wonderful, new image of America to the world, which is exactly what we needed, considering the way we were viewed for the previous eight. It's embarassing that anyone in this country would be upset that he won (almost as embarassing as certain people cheering the fact that Chicago missed out on the Olympics.) I understand if you think he's underqualified. However, you should be proud. This isn't just an individual honor. This is a statment on America's new standing in the world.
One thing that is bothering me is the secessionist talks coming from certain states. I can't believe that people would be talking like this. What happened to patriotism? Can you really love America if you don't want to be a part of it anymore? Grow up. Secession is not an option, it isn't even a conversation. It's absolutely ridiculous, and borders on treason.
All these things, from the Olympics controversy to secession to siding with rebels in Honduras (see: Demint, Sen. Jim), makes the Republicans look strangely unpatriotic. Weren't these the same folks who just a few short years ago that said if you so much as look at the president wrong you were un-American? The same ones who bestowed us with "freedom fries?" Now they are out of power, and suddenly they seemingly abandon their country. Just because someone else is in power doesn't mean you give up on America. I don't remember Democrats threatening secession during the Bush Administration, and he did some pretty wacked out stuff.
For the best overview of Republican thinking right now, read this column by Paul Krugman from the New York Times last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1
That sums it up pretty well. A strong, coherent, intelligent conservative movement is crucial to the success of this nation. The Republican Party has abandoned rationality and coherency in favor of vitriol and partisan politics. It's sad.
Well, I'll be back later this week. Later!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment of Health Care Reform
Tonight, Keith Olbermann did an hour long special comment on the health care debate. It is a must-watch. Please, i beg you, find an hour and watch these videos. You will not look at the health care debate the same again.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Videos
This was great. Betsy McCaughey gets her ass handed to her by Rep. Anthony Weiner and Dylan Ratigan on "Morning Meeting" this morning.
"I oppose that math."
"You can oppose the math all day."
thats awesome. go dylan!!!
Im slightly embarassed for her.
Ok that was a lie. I loved every minute. I have watched that video several times today. If this is the best the right can throw at health reform, then we don't have much to worry about.
If you want more look up the video of Betsy on the Daily Show a few weeks ago. Jon Stewart also hands it to her.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
"I oppose that math."
"You can oppose the math all day."
thats awesome. go dylan!!!
Im slightly embarassed for her.
Ok that was a lie. I loved every minute. I have watched that video several times today. If this is the best the right can throw at health reform, then we don't have much to worry about.
If you want more look up the video of Betsy on the Daily Show a few weeks ago. Jon Stewart also hands it to her.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Supreme Court
First of all, sorry I've been away for so long! School has started and I have been so incredibly busy! But I've gotten some pressure lately from people to start writing again, so here we go. I want to shift directions, though, and make a fresh start. Now that I am enrolled in Political Science courses here at OCU, I am very interested in the way our government works. While current issues are still very important to me, and I have still have opinions on them, I would like to use this space to discuss, for lack of a better term, political science topics. I still want feedback, now more than ever. Your input is crucial. A discussion of our government's structure and the way things happen in it is crucial, especially at this point in time, with some many exciting things happening in Washington D.C. I hope everyone is mildly interested in this new direction, and you all are willing to discuss with me.
I really want to talk about the Supreme Court right now. Now, my motive is that tonight in my Politics of Law class, our entire conversation centered on the nomination process of the Supreme Court, and what those who have a hand in the selection of justices should look for in candidates. We also looked at who or what exactly a Supreme Court justice represents. In the American government, everything originates at the Constitution. However, at times, the Constitution is intentionally vague in its wording. The Founding Fathers purposely wrote it this way so that it would be a living document that pertained to all ages, not just the one in which they lived. Because of this, a body is needed to interpret the way the Constitution is written and apply is to society. This body is the Supreme Court. The way this is done is through judicial review. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules on them based on their interpretation of the Constitution. The law that the case concerns in either upheld by the Court or declared unconstitutional. If no particular law is concerned, then a precedent is set for future matters concerning the issue. The Supreme Court has no official way to enforce its rulings, but it understood that you go along with them out of respect for the Constitution. If you disagree, you can attempt to bring another case that concerns the law in question, and attempt to get it heard. Now, this summer, the big controversy was over judicial activism. This is where the court is not just interpreting law, but instead making policy. My opinion is that this is splitting hairs. I guess technically the act of making precedent could be interpreted as policy making. However, the precedent can be overturned if an official law is passed. Until then though, the duty of the Court is to establish a precedent that is as good as policy, in effect. Also, I suppose the act of declaring something unconstitutional could be considered policy making, in a way. Do you see the point I'm getting at here? The outrage over the idea of the court making policy is absurd. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on these laws and ideas. If it overturns a law, in effect, it creates a "policy". The Court has no way of writing a law into effect; that power is granted solely within the Congress.
The other big controversy surrounding the Sotomayor confirmations was the idea of personal bias and a candidate's background. It is impossible to peel away one's personality from one's self. It is who you are. Of course, anytime a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling, that person is going to draw upon their own experiences to help them understand the impact their ruling will have on people. This is why we have nine justices, and not just one. The variety of opinions and experiences will allow the body as a whole to make the correct decision. This idea is one explored prominently in philosophy. You cannot take off the "rose-colored glasses" through which you see life. Your personality, which is shaped by your life experience and background, has a hand in everything you do. This is what creates opinions and individuals. A variety of opinions and ideas on the Supreme Court is a good thing! We want the Constitution interpreted in a way that doesn't cater to one group or another. If you have nine people who are the same gender, same race, same religion, same age, same background, then the way they interpret is obviously gonna lean in a certain direction. But if you have nine different people, and those people bring their ideas and experience and customs to the conversation, then the debate over laws will be more nuanced and far-reaching, and the correct ruling will be made, because all opinions have been heard and all viewpoints have been consulted. Remember, the Constitution is a living document. It is not static; it does change. It changes because we as a people change, and the way we look at this great document changes. Thus, we interpret it differently than America in 1878 did, differently than America in 2145 will. American society and the Constitution must adapt to each other; it is not a one way street. It one or the other does not adapt, then no progress can ever be made. If we still thought the way our Founders did, then slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be allowed to vote or hold office. It is absolutely crucial to our survival as a nation. And it is what makes America such a great country: while others are mired in Medieval ways of life, we are constantly flowing forward and allowing ourselves to become a better people.
I just want to address one more issue. The biggest part of our conversation in class tonight centered on who does the Supreme Court represent? I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court represents nobody. They are not voted in. They don't favor one group over another. The argument was made that perhaps they represent the people. However, if this was the case, then they would never rule in favor of the government in a matter. It is absolutely crucial that they do not have a particular constituency. Their job is to interpret law not based in what the general populace is, but what is right by the Constitution and for our country as a whole.
Please, let me know what you think. What is the job of our Supreme Court? Are they fulfilling that job? Do they represent someone or something in particular? Remember, free and open discussion of our opinions and ideas is what sets our republic apart from other forms of society.
I really want to talk about the Supreme Court right now. Now, my motive is that tonight in my Politics of Law class, our entire conversation centered on the nomination process of the Supreme Court, and what those who have a hand in the selection of justices should look for in candidates. We also looked at who or what exactly a Supreme Court justice represents. In the American government, everything originates at the Constitution. However, at times, the Constitution is intentionally vague in its wording. The Founding Fathers purposely wrote it this way so that it would be a living document that pertained to all ages, not just the one in which they lived. Because of this, a body is needed to interpret the way the Constitution is written and apply is to society. This body is the Supreme Court. The way this is done is through judicial review. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules on them based on their interpretation of the Constitution. The law that the case concerns in either upheld by the Court or declared unconstitutional. If no particular law is concerned, then a precedent is set for future matters concerning the issue. The Supreme Court has no official way to enforce its rulings, but it understood that you go along with them out of respect for the Constitution. If you disagree, you can attempt to bring another case that concerns the law in question, and attempt to get it heard. Now, this summer, the big controversy was over judicial activism. This is where the court is not just interpreting law, but instead making policy. My opinion is that this is splitting hairs. I guess technically the act of making precedent could be interpreted as policy making. However, the precedent can be overturned if an official law is passed. Until then though, the duty of the Court is to establish a precedent that is as good as policy, in effect. Also, I suppose the act of declaring something unconstitutional could be considered policy making, in a way. Do you see the point I'm getting at here? The outrage over the idea of the court making policy is absurd. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on these laws and ideas. If it overturns a law, in effect, it creates a "policy". The Court has no way of writing a law into effect; that power is granted solely within the Congress.
The other big controversy surrounding the Sotomayor confirmations was the idea of personal bias and a candidate's background. It is impossible to peel away one's personality from one's self. It is who you are. Of course, anytime a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling, that person is going to draw upon their own experiences to help them understand the impact their ruling will have on people. This is why we have nine justices, and not just one. The variety of opinions and experiences will allow the body as a whole to make the correct decision. This idea is one explored prominently in philosophy. You cannot take off the "rose-colored glasses" through which you see life. Your personality, which is shaped by your life experience and background, has a hand in everything you do. This is what creates opinions and individuals. A variety of opinions and ideas on the Supreme Court is a good thing! We want the Constitution interpreted in a way that doesn't cater to one group or another. If you have nine people who are the same gender, same race, same religion, same age, same background, then the way they interpret is obviously gonna lean in a certain direction. But if you have nine different people, and those people bring their ideas and experience and customs to the conversation, then the debate over laws will be more nuanced and far-reaching, and the correct ruling will be made, because all opinions have been heard and all viewpoints have been consulted. Remember, the Constitution is a living document. It is not static; it does change. It changes because we as a people change, and the way we look at this great document changes. Thus, we interpret it differently than America in 1878 did, differently than America in 2145 will. American society and the Constitution must adapt to each other; it is not a one way street. It one or the other does not adapt, then no progress can ever be made. If we still thought the way our Founders did, then slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be allowed to vote or hold office. It is absolutely crucial to our survival as a nation. And it is what makes America such a great country: while others are mired in Medieval ways of life, we are constantly flowing forward and allowing ourselves to become a better people.
I just want to address one more issue. The biggest part of our conversation in class tonight centered on who does the Supreme Court represent? I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court represents nobody. They are not voted in. They don't favor one group over another. The argument was made that perhaps they represent the people. However, if this was the case, then they would never rule in favor of the government in a matter. It is absolutely crucial that they do not have a particular constituency. Their job is to interpret law not based in what the general populace is, but what is right by the Constitution and for our country as a whole.
Please, let me know what you think. What is the job of our Supreme Court? Are they fulfilling that job? Do they represent someone or something in particular? Remember, free and open discussion of our opinions and ideas is what sets our republic apart from other forms of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
