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.

Palin: A Comedy of Errors

Time for part 2 of my extra long weekend post. Just a couple subjects on tap here.

PALIN

For a little comic relief, I give you Sarah Palin and everyone around her! I know, that's an old and unfunny joke at this point, but that is what this situation feels like anymore. Lets look at how this comedy of errors is playing out: First, underqualified, semi-intelligent, fanatical woman is somehow elected governor of Alaska. Next, aforementioned governor proceeds to bend ethics and laws to her liking, while somehow convincing everyone she is fighting corruption. Then, fading presidential nominee pins her as running mate to (successfully) inject life into failing campaign. Governor-turned-VP nominee proceeds to bolster conservative base while alienating moderates, including the people running the campaign. Her lack of curiosity, low work ethic, and non-understanding of issues makes her the butt of jokes across the country. After the election, instead of laying low and buffing up on issues in anticipation of a potential 2012 presidential bid, she makes the rounds of the speaking circuit and develops a public feud with a late-night comedian, while alienating her few remaining political allies. Then, in a move that leaves everyone and their dog shaking their head, she resigns from the governorship with a rambling, semi-intelligible news conference with honking geese as her backing vocals. She spends the next week defending herself with the tired talking point, "I'm not a quitter, I'm a fighter," despite the fact she just quit her job that she was elected to. If it were a play, it might be funny. But this is an actual person we are talking about. It's almost sad at this point. And now she's in a spat with the father of her teenage daughter's baby, who she tried to force into marriage. Once again, I can only shake my head. The silver lining here? At least she's not running a state anymore.
By the way, if you haven't read the Vanity Fair article about Palin, you really need to. You can find it at the Vanity Fair website, titled "It Came From Wasilla."

CIA, CONGRESS, AND WIRETAPPING

Lots of developments coming from this front. The CIA and certain members of Congress are at odds over a public letter from six House Democrats addressed to CIA Director Leon Panetta. According to the Dems, Panetta admitted in a hearing that the CIA had misled Congress in the past. The CIA is obligated, under the National Security Act of 1947, to inform Congress of everything it does. Now it is being reported that the issue being discussed here is a secret counterterrorism operation that answered only to former VP Dick Cheney. Apparently, even Panetta didn't know about this operation until recently, and immediately ordered it's termination upon finding out about it. He also immediately informed Congress of the operation's existence. Also, a CIA report was unclassified that tells that President Bush personally authorized warrantless wiretapping. Not only this, but to get approval, he skipped getting Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off, because Ashcroft was in the hospital recovering from surgery. OK, lets check these out one-by-one. First, what ever happened to the balance of powers and Congressional oversight in the CIA? Did the Bush administration decide it would follow the rules only when it felt like it? When the CIA decides it is gonna do what it wants, without telling anyone, and the White House is OK with that, who is to stop them from doing something illegal? This also vindicates House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who received criticism from the right for claiming that CIA misled her. Sounds like she was telling the truth. And Panetta didn't really deny the allegations. He simply issued a statement stating that "it's not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress" Not exactly a scathing denial. We know it's not the CIA's policy, but policy and reality seem to have differed considerably over the last eight years. As for the connections to Bush-Cheney, this only confirms what many have suspected about the Bush Administration (and VP Cheney in particular) for a long time. It's really scary that even the CIA director didn't know about it. This ties in with the CIA failing to inform Congress of their acts. Apparently nobody knows what is going on in Langley. Except Dick Cheney. (Now that's a scary thought!) Finally, the fact that Bush was personally involved with the wiretapping is not a big shocker, at least to this observer. This is also very deja vu-like, considering the new Nixon Tapes, in which Nixon also personally authorizes wiretapping. Good example to follow. This could be a big blow to the former administration if a federal prosecutor decides to pursue charges. Regardless, many conservatives will argue that the the former president had every right to do things like this, considering the war on terror. No, you are wrong. The president never has the right to do these things. This undermines our laws and the Constitution. If Republicans love the Constitution as much as they say, they will stop trying to rip it to shreds over anything that concerns national security. Follow the laws. That is what they are there for.

Well, time to wrap this up. As a parting note, two quick, ridiculous stories. Governor Rick Perry of Texas (he of secessionist fame) has nominated as his new secretary of education someone who in the past said that public education was unconstitutional and communistic. Good job, Gov. Perry, you are making everyone proud. In your new nation that you want to form, will all education be outlawed? Can we just give this guy a patch of land somewhere far away to call his own, so we can get him out of our hair? Also, goodbye to Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois. The embattled senator, appointed by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich, has announced he will not pursue re-election. Thank God.

Coming Monday, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am looking forward to it, and personally, I have no doubt she will be confirmed easily, making Monday a mere formality. More on this subject sometime in the next few days. Also, I may delve into the Republican sex scandals and the mysterious religious tying Ensign and Sanford together. If I can figure it out. Very shady, very interesting.

Thank you for sticking with me through this long-winded post; I promise they won't all be this long, this weekend was just one of those times. I'll be back within the next few days!