Barely four days after the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas day, and Republicans are already throwing the Constitution and our legal system out the window. On Christmas Day, Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an airplane in route to Detroit with a bomb that he had strapped to him. Luckily, the bomb failed and Abdulmutallab was overpowered and restrained. Once on the ground, he was seized by FBI agents and on the 26th, he was charged in a federal court of trying to destroy the airliner. And the screams of outrage from the right began almost immediately. Representative Peter King (R-NY), the ranking Republican in the House Homeland Security Committee, was the first to come out and blame the Obama Administration for this attempted attack. King has also come out and said that Abdulmutallab should not be tried in federal court, but instead in a "military tribunal."
"Wait," I hear you ask. "Haven't the Republicans been eviscerated over the last several years because of the handling of accused terrorists during the Bush Administration?" Well, yes, you are correct. And apparently, the Republicans learned little from it. King has decried the fact that Abdulmutallab will get a lawyer and Miranda rights. This is the same argument that was made about numerous enemy combatants seized during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans seem to think that we should just freeze all laws and rights in this country just because we are at war. They think anyone who commits a crime in the name of Al Qaeda should be thrown straight in prison, or even executed, without a fair trial first. This is absolutely wrong. Our Constitution was written for a reason. We have laws. Those laws must be observed and upheld. Just because someone commits a crime doesn't mean those laws become moot just because we are especially angry. If we aren't following the law, why even defend our nation? Why not just surrender? Our laws and rights set us apart from those we are fighting; when we abandon them, we are no longer an America worth defending. Abdulmutallab has just as much right to a fair trial as you or me. Why? Because he committed a crime here. And anyone who committs a crime here has rights so that we can curb abuses of power. The Bush Administration disregarded this, and apparently, some are willing to do it again. What they dont understand is that these tactics hurt America in the long run. When we disregard our own laws, it allows the terrorists to call us hypocrites. When we engage in torture, it becomes a recruiting tool for terror organization. We must not abandon our Constitution and laws. The courts may be slow, but they are effective. We must prosecute and find someone guilty before they can be punished, no matter who it is. Circumventing this process is like trying to arrest a susupected criminal before they even commit a crime. Our legal system is reactionary, nor preemptive. It cannot be preemptive. Because if it becomes that way, what is to stop your local police officer from arresting and charging you because he thinks you might someday commit a crime?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Health Reform?
We are closer than ever to passing Health Reform through the Senate, and I don't really know if I feel good about it.
News is coming out this morning that, after 13 hours of negotiating last night, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) has agreed to vote for the bill, giving the Democrats the majority they need. At what cost, though? Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) cut a deal with Nelson to ensure that Nebraska will never again pay a dime for Medicaid coverage. He also cut deals for Michigan, Louisiana, and Vermont, so that Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich), Mary Landrieu (D-Lou) and Bernie Sanders (I-Ver) would vote for the bill. He needed deals for Nelson, Levin, and Landrieu because, as conservative Democrats, they were moving away from the bill's public option (which was cut) and Medicare buy-in(which was also cut.) So I'm not really sure why he had to cut a deal when the two most liberal parts of the bill are already gone. The claim is because of abortion wording, which is not as restrictive as some hope (apparently, every single Senator has forgotten about Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal funding can be applied to abortions.) Sanders got a deal because no public option is included, and Sanders threatened to vote against the bill for this reason. I agree with Sen. Sanders; I think this bill should be scrapped. Without a public option, this is a handout to the insurance companies. The individual mandate included means millions of new customers for the insurance companies to overcharge and screw around. This is not the reform we have been working for since June. It's sad that Sen. Sanders has caved so easy. So now that we are here, with the first vote less than 24 hours away, I feel torn. Obviously, I want a health care bill badly. But I do not like the one being presented. Passing it will be a huge step, but the cost os too high. I agree that getting this done by the end of the year is important, but not if we have to make these crap deals for it to happend. I can only hope that a deal has been reached to reinsert the public option during conference committee (maybe our president will actually assert some force here and get it done?) That is basically our last hope. That, or reconciliation on the House bill, which would be nice, but won't happen. The next few days are going to be very interesting to see what happens.
One final note: I'm already tired of hearing Republicans complain about how this bill was crafted behind closed doors, how they weren't included, how it happened too fast. Republicans, shut up. Every time you were given the chance to help, you simply tried to torpedo all health reform. This is a Democratic bill. You want your own health care bill, go write one (fat chance that it even gets throught committe.) And as far as the "too fast" debate, last I checked, we've been having this debate since June. You know whats coming in this bill. And besides, it's not like you guys didn't spend eight years making shady backroom deals that you shoved through the Senate anyways without so much as acknowledging Democrats. It's called being the minority party. Get used to it.
News is coming out this morning that, after 13 hours of negotiating last night, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) has agreed to vote for the bill, giving the Democrats the majority they need. At what cost, though? Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) cut a deal with Nelson to ensure that Nebraska will never again pay a dime for Medicaid coverage. He also cut deals for Michigan, Louisiana, and Vermont, so that Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich), Mary Landrieu (D-Lou) and Bernie Sanders (I-Ver) would vote for the bill. He needed deals for Nelson, Levin, and Landrieu because, as conservative Democrats, they were moving away from the bill's public option (which was cut) and Medicare buy-in(which was also cut.) So I'm not really sure why he had to cut a deal when the two most liberal parts of the bill are already gone. The claim is because of abortion wording, which is not as restrictive as some hope (apparently, every single Senator has forgotten about Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal funding can be applied to abortions.) Sanders got a deal because no public option is included, and Sanders threatened to vote against the bill for this reason. I agree with Sen. Sanders; I think this bill should be scrapped. Without a public option, this is a handout to the insurance companies. The individual mandate included means millions of new customers for the insurance companies to overcharge and screw around. This is not the reform we have been working for since June. It's sad that Sen. Sanders has caved so easy. So now that we are here, with the first vote less than 24 hours away, I feel torn. Obviously, I want a health care bill badly. But I do not like the one being presented. Passing it will be a huge step, but the cost os too high. I agree that getting this done by the end of the year is important, but not if we have to make these crap deals for it to happend. I can only hope that a deal has been reached to reinsert the public option during conference committee (maybe our president will actually assert some force here and get it done?) That is basically our last hope. That, or reconciliation on the House bill, which would be nice, but won't happen. The next few days are going to be very interesting to see what happens.
One final note: I'm already tired of hearing Republicans complain about how this bill was crafted behind closed doors, how they weren't included, how it happened too fast. Republicans, shut up. Every time you were given the chance to help, you simply tried to torpedo all health reform. This is a Democratic bill. You want your own health care bill, go write one (fat chance that it even gets throught committe.) And as far as the "too fast" debate, last I checked, we've been having this debate since June. You know whats coming in this bill. And besides, it's not like you guys didn't spend eight years making shady backroom deals that you shoved through the Senate anyways without so much as acknowledging Democrats. It's called being the minority party. Get used to it.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Iraq
On March 20, 2003, coalition forces, led by the United States, initiated a preemptive strike against Iraq, under the presumption that Iraq was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction. The coaliton forces swiftly moved across the country, ousting President Saddam Hussein's government with relative ease. On May 1, 2003, in front of a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," President George W. Bush annouced "The United States and our allies have prevailed." Later that year, on December 13, Hussein was captured by American forces, signaling the end of his regime. It appeared that, in the span of just nine short months, coaltion forces had wrapped up a quick and successful ousting of the Iraqi government.
Yet, here we sit, November 2009, and the war in Iraq is still raging. Soon after the capture of Hussein, an insurgency led by Al Qaeda forces began making life dificult for coalition forces. In addition, civil war broke out following the formation of a new, American-backed government. At this point in time, occupation forces are strongly resented by the Iraqi people, and the government is ignored by many. Instead, local councils, influenced by Al Qaeda, hold the real power. Yet, many in this country continue to insist that Iraq is a successful, and justified, war. However, the facts tell a different story.
The beginning of America's second war in Iraq actually dates back to January 2001, soon after George W. Bush was sworn in as president of the United States. Just ten days after the Inauguration, President Bush ordered his aides to begin searching for a reason to overthrow the Iraqi government. A memo titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" also began circulating in the White Hosue around this same time. In March '01, a Pentagon memo titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" was produced, showing a map of areas in Iraq prime for petroleum production.
After Spetember 11th, President Bush began calling for Iraq to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction, and to comply with UN resolutions calling for weapons inspections. The Iraqi government insisted numreous times that they had no WMDs, and in late 2002, allowed UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, into the country. Blix informed the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating fully with inspections, and that he would be able to work quickly to complete his inspections in he had no outside interference.
The Bush Administration, however, had no intention of allowing Blix the chance to prove that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush wouldn't even listen to his own advisors. George Tenet, head of the CIA, was at the time telling Bush repeatedly that the CIA's own probes had shown that Saddam had no weapons. In fact, the CIA had interviewed a member of Saddam's cabinet, who said that not only did Saddam not have WMDs, he didn't even have the ability to produce them. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked to marginalize Tenet and the CIA report, and soon produced their own report, written by the newly formed Office of Special Plans. The OSP report used new, "secret" intelligence known only to Cheney and the Rumsfeld Defense Department. This report said that the CIA intelligence was faulty, and that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs. Cheney's office proceeded to leak this information to the New York Times, which Cheney then cited to make his information seem more legit.
At this same time, the Administration sent former Ambassador Jospeh Wilson to investigate claims that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed Bush that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. But once again, the Administration chose to ignore the facts, and in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had informed him that Iraq was acquiring Uranium from African nations. In June 2003, Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed laying out his investigation, and exposing the White House for ignoring him. Soon after, his wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent, leading to a Justice Department investigation that led to the eventual proscution of Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
In 2005, the Downing Street Memo showed a greater extent of the fraud committed by the Bush Administration. The memo details a meeting between the White House and British leadership that took place on July 23, 2002. In it, British intelligence states that Bush had clearly made up his mind to attack Iraq regardless of what else happened, and was fixing facts around policy, instead of basing policy on facts and information obtained.
In October 2002, 75 members of the U.S. Senate were informed that Iraq possessed the capabilities to attack the east coast with chemical and biological weapons. A few days later, the Senate voted to allow the Joint Chiefs to pursue military actions against Iraq. In February of 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the UN General Assembly laying out the American case for war. Powell told the UN the same thing that had been told to the Senate. However, the UN told Bush that preemptive strikes went against the UN charter, and he did not have UN support. In early March, Hans Blix reported that he had yet to find any WMDs, and he stated that he needed to be allowed more time without outside interference.
On the last day of January, however, Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House. Bush told Blair of an proposed plan to paint a spyplane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq, in the hopes it would be shot down and provoke the UN into pursuing war. The two leaders also resolved to attack Iraq regardless of the outcome of the inspections. They even set a date for invasion: March 10.
The Bush Administration began investigating what would be needed to conduct a successful war against Iraq. The top U.S. Army general, Eric Shineski, turned in a report stating that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to fight a winning war. The White House, however, did not like this number, and Runsfeld soon turned out his own report calling Shineski's suggestion way off base, and advising a significantly lower number of troops.
On March 20th, the invasion of Iraq began. The invading troops were mostly made up of American and British troops, with other countries supplying token amounts. The invasion proceeded northwest from the Persian Gulf, and Baghdad was taken by April 9th. Coaltion leaders declared the invasion successfully completed by April 15, and Bush held his "Mission Accomplished" celebration two weeks later. Only 139 U.S. troops had died.
It soon became clear that coalition forces werent going to be leaving Iraq anytime soon, though. In the months after Bush's declaration, religious radicals and other insurgents began a concerted effort to puch back against coalition troops. These insurgents opposed the U.S. plan to implement a democratic government with U.S. backing. After the capture of Hussein, insugrency attacks became more frequent and deadly.
2004 was a particularly bad year for the American-led forces. The American government began signing over many, many more duties to private contractors, who are not heavily regulated. Controversies ensued over shady practices and poor work by the contractors, particularly Blackwater USA. In June, the Provisional government signed over control of Iraq to the new Iraqi government, which provoked renewed violence from the insurgency. Finally, in April, the Abu Grahib scandal broke. Photos from the prison camp outside Iraq showed humiliating and tortoruous acts committed against Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. troops. The Abu Grahib incident is commonly held to be the main turning point in the war, the point at which coalition success took a downturn.
2005 brought the first elections for the new Iraqi government, and the ratification of their constitution. These events prompted the bloodiest month of the war, in April, and erased hopes of a forthcoming end to the insurgency, and the war.
The violence of 2005 carried over to 2006 to bring about civil war in Iraq. Various secterian groups began fighting each other, in addition to coalition troops, making it hard for the troops to know who was friendly, and who was enemy. Also, at the end of December, Saddam Hussein was put to death by the Iraqi government, for crimes against humanity. Most of the crimes cited were committed during Hussein's time as an ally of the U.S. and Britain during the 1980's.
2007 brought about the troop surge, an increase in 21,500 American troops. At the same time, Britain began pulling troops aout, due to increased opposition to the war back home. The surge was successful in reducing violence in Iraq, and in September, General David Petraeus announced that American troops would soon be reduced. However, secterian violence was as bad as ever, especially between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.
2008 brought the arming and deployment of the new Iraqi military, and the reduction of involvement from U.S. troops. However, interference from Iran and Turkey caused violence to increase, and the American-backed government continued to be heavily unpopular. The civil war was also growing. In April, General Petraeus testified to Congress that the troop withdrawal needed to be halted, due to the fact that Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable.
During all thise time, the presence of Al Qaeda became a problem. Before the war, Al Qaeda had no prsence in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein believed that Al Qaeda was forment rebellion against him. However, during the war, Al Qaeda was able to gain a foothold, and were major players in promoting the insurgency.
In late 2008, the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was passed in Iraq and America. The Agreement stated that U.S. forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. troops would be gone by December 31, 2011. The June 2009 withdrawal was a success, with Iraqi forces able to maintain control of the cities.
In 2009, with the election of Barack Obama as the new American President, the first exit strategy formulated by the U.S. was announced. This was considered by many a huge success, as the Bush Administration had failed over the course of six years to ever present a cohernent strategy for one day leaving Iraq. Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq would cease by August 31, 2010, and that troops would be gone by the date specified under the Forces Agreement.
The war in Iraq has been extraordinarily costly, and these costs are only exacerbated by the fact that the war is both unneccessary and potentially illegal. Long before September 11th, the Bush Administration had resolved that it would enact a preemptive war against a sovereign nation. In building the case for war, the White House ignored intelligence asserting that there was no reasonable pretext for war, instead lying to the public, the Congress, and the UN about what was happening in Iraq. Throughout 2002, the Hussein government insisted they had no WMDs, and the inspections by Hans Blix backed this up. Six years later, it appears that Saddam was telling the truth, as no weapons have been found, and in fact, no evidence of the ability to even produce WMDs has been found. The American public was led to believe that Iraq was an iminent threat to national security, and in lying to the Senate about the threat, potentially committed purjury. Neither had Saddam or his government committed any recent humanitarian violations. Due to the actions of the Bush Administration, our country is mired in a war that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. And the war is not even successful at this point. Civil war is raging, and Al Qaeda, who had not been involved in Iraq, now has a significant foothold among the people there. The government is widely unpopular, and the Iraqi people are resentful of the presence of coalition forces in their country. America has neglected its duty of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, returning much of Iraq to the middle ages in terms of technology and practices. For all intents and purposes, our foray into Iraq is an unmitigated failure, and one that could have been avoided. We cannot support a war on two fronts, especially while trying to work through a major recession. December 2011 cannot come quickly enough. Our government and military need to use the intervening two years to rebuild a country we have destroyed.
Yet, here we sit, November 2009, and the war in Iraq is still raging. Soon after the capture of Hussein, an insurgency led by Al Qaeda forces began making life dificult for coalition forces. In addition, civil war broke out following the formation of a new, American-backed government. At this point in time, occupation forces are strongly resented by the Iraqi people, and the government is ignored by many. Instead, local councils, influenced by Al Qaeda, hold the real power. Yet, many in this country continue to insist that Iraq is a successful, and justified, war. However, the facts tell a different story.
The beginning of America's second war in Iraq actually dates back to January 2001, soon after George W. Bush was sworn in as president of the United States. Just ten days after the Inauguration, President Bush ordered his aides to begin searching for a reason to overthrow the Iraqi government. A memo titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" also began circulating in the White Hosue around this same time. In March '01, a Pentagon memo titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" was produced, showing a map of areas in Iraq prime for petroleum production.
After Spetember 11th, President Bush began calling for Iraq to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction, and to comply with UN resolutions calling for weapons inspections. The Iraqi government insisted numreous times that they had no WMDs, and in late 2002, allowed UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, into the country. Blix informed the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating fully with inspections, and that he would be able to work quickly to complete his inspections in he had no outside interference.
The Bush Administration, however, had no intention of allowing Blix the chance to prove that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush wouldn't even listen to his own advisors. George Tenet, head of the CIA, was at the time telling Bush repeatedly that the CIA's own probes had shown that Saddam had no weapons. In fact, the CIA had interviewed a member of Saddam's cabinet, who said that not only did Saddam not have WMDs, he didn't even have the ability to produce them. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked to marginalize Tenet and the CIA report, and soon produced their own report, written by the newly formed Office of Special Plans. The OSP report used new, "secret" intelligence known only to Cheney and the Rumsfeld Defense Department. This report said that the CIA intelligence was faulty, and that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs. Cheney's office proceeded to leak this information to the New York Times, which Cheney then cited to make his information seem more legit.
At this same time, the Administration sent former Ambassador Jospeh Wilson to investigate claims that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed Bush that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. But once again, the Administration chose to ignore the facts, and in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had informed him that Iraq was acquiring Uranium from African nations. In June 2003, Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed laying out his investigation, and exposing the White House for ignoring him. Soon after, his wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent, leading to a Justice Department investigation that led to the eventual proscution of Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
In 2005, the Downing Street Memo showed a greater extent of the fraud committed by the Bush Administration. The memo details a meeting between the White House and British leadership that took place on July 23, 2002. In it, British intelligence states that Bush had clearly made up his mind to attack Iraq regardless of what else happened, and was fixing facts around policy, instead of basing policy on facts and information obtained.
In October 2002, 75 members of the U.S. Senate were informed that Iraq possessed the capabilities to attack the east coast with chemical and biological weapons. A few days later, the Senate voted to allow the Joint Chiefs to pursue military actions against Iraq. In February of 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the UN General Assembly laying out the American case for war. Powell told the UN the same thing that had been told to the Senate. However, the UN told Bush that preemptive strikes went against the UN charter, and he did not have UN support. In early March, Hans Blix reported that he had yet to find any WMDs, and he stated that he needed to be allowed more time without outside interference.
On the last day of January, however, Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House. Bush told Blair of an proposed plan to paint a spyplane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq, in the hopes it would be shot down and provoke the UN into pursuing war. The two leaders also resolved to attack Iraq regardless of the outcome of the inspections. They even set a date for invasion: March 10.
The Bush Administration began investigating what would be needed to conduct a successful war against Iraq. The top U.S. Army general, Eric Shineski, turned in a report stating that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to fight a winning war. The White House, however, did not like this number, and Runsfeld soon turned out his own report calling Shineski's suggestion way off base, and advising a significantly lower number of troops.
On March 20th, the invasion of Iraq began. The invading troops were mostly made up of American and British troops, with other countries supplying token amounts. The invasion proceeded northwest from the Persian Gulf, and Baghdad was taken by April 9th. Coaltion leaders declared the invasion successfully completed by April 15, and Bush held his "Mission Accomplished" celebration two weeks later. Only 139 U.S. troops had died.
It soon became clear that coalition forces werent going to be leaving Iraq anytime soon, though. In the months after Bush's declaration, religious radicals and other insurgents began a concerted effort to puch back against coalition troops. These insurgents opposed the U.S. plan to implement a democratic government with U.S. backing. After the capture of Hussein, insugrency attacks became more frequent and deadly.
2004 was a particularly bad year for the American-led forces. The American government began signing over many, many more duties to private contractors, who are not heavily regulated. Controversies ensued over shady practices and poor work by the contractors, particularly Blackwater USA. In June, the Provisional government signed over control of Iraq to the new Iraqi government, which provoked renewed violence from the insurgency. Finally, in April, the Abu Grahib scandal broke. Photos from the prison camp outside Iraq showed humiliating and tortoruous acts committed against Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. troops. The Abu Grahib incident is commonly held to be the main turning point in the war, the point at which coalition success took a downturn.
2005 brought the first elections for the new Iraqi government, and the ratification of their constitution. These events prompted the bloodiest month of the war, in April, and erased hopes of a forthcoming end to the insurgency, and the war.
The violence of 2005 carried over to 2006 to bring about civil war in Iraq. Various secterian groups began fighting each other, in addition to coalition troops, making it hard for the troops to know who was friendly, and who was enemy. Also, at the end of December, Saddam Hussein was put to death by the Iraqi government, for crimes against humanity. Most of the crimes cited were committed during Hussein's time as an ally of the U.S. and Britain during the 1980's.
2007 brought about the troop surge, an increase in 21,500 American troops. At the same time, Britain began pulling troops aout, due to increased opposition to the war back home. The surge was successful in reducing violence in Iraq, and in September, General David Petraeus announced that American troops would soon be reduced. However, secterian violence was as bad as ever, especially between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.
2008 brought the arming and deployment of the new Iraqi military, and the reduction of involvement from U.S. troops. However, interference from Iran and Turkey caused violence to increase, and the American-backed government continued to be heavily unpopular. The civil war was also growing. In April, General Petraeus testified to Congress that the troop withdrawal needed to be halted, due to the fact that Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable.
During all thise time, the presence of Al Qaeda became a problem. Before the war, Al Qaeda had no prsence in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein believed that Al Qaeda was forment rebellion against him. However, during the war, Al Qaeda was able to gain a foothold, and were major players in promoting the insurgency.
In late 2008, the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was passed in Iraq and America. The Agreement stated that U.S. forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. troops would be gone by December 31, 2011. The June 2009 withdrawal was a success, with Iraqi forces able to maintain control of the cities.
In 2009, with the election of Barack Obama as the new American President, the first exit strategy formulated by the U.S. was announced. This was considered by many a huge success, as the Bush Administration had failed over the course of six years to ever present a cohernent strategy for one day leaving Iraq. Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq would cease by August 31, 2010, and that troops would be gone by the date specified under the Forces Agreement.
The war in Iraq has been extraordinarily costly, and these costs are only exacerbated by the fact that the war is both unneccessary and potentially illegal. Long before September 11th, the Bush Administration had resolved that it would enact a preemptive war against a sovereign nation. In building the case for war, the White House ignored intelligence asserting that there was no reasonable pretext for war, instead lying to the public, the Congress, and the UN about what was happening in Iraq. Throughout 2002, the Hussein government insisted they had no WMDs, and the inspections by Hans Blix backed this up. Six years later, it appears that Saddam was telling the truth, as no weapons have been found, and in fact, no evidence of the ability to even produce WMDs has been found. The American public was led to believe that Iraq was an iminent threat to national security, and in lying to the Senate about the threat, potentially committed purjury. Neither had Saddam or his government committed any recent humanitarian violations. Due to the actions of the Bush Administration, our country is mired in a war that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. And the war is not even successful at this point. Civil war is raging, and Al Qaeda, who had not been involved in Iraq, now has a significant foothold among the people there. The government is widely unpopular, and the Iraqi people are resentful of the presence of coalition forces in their country. America has neglected its duty of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, returning much of Iraq to the middle ages in terms of technology and practices. For all intents and purposes, our foray into Iraq is an unmitigated failure, and one that could have been avoided. We cannot support a war on two fronts, especially while trying to work through a major recession. December 2011 cannot come quickly enough. Our government and military need to use the intervening two years to rebuild a country we have destroyed.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Coming Soon!!
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
Justin
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
