In reading Duncan’s Perspective regarding the website Wikileaks I was struck by some of the questions that were asked. “If a person releases this type of information while knowing the potential harm it can cause to many people, why does he still release it?” Well, there are many reasons to release information that is harmful to people or organizations. The term whistle blower is defined as “an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it.” Does that answer the question? Wikileaks ‘terrorist’ like releases have led in 2009 to Amnesty International awarding WikiLeaks their Media Award for exposing "extra judicial killings and disappearances" in Kenya. It has exposed toxic dumping by the commodities giant Trafigura along the Ivory Coast of Africa which according to the United Nations, affected over 108,000 people’s health and in many cases resulted in death. It has caused criminal investigations to be begun regarding the Bank giant Kaupthing Bank and their illegal actions just prior to the collapse of the banking sector in Iceland that led to the their financial crisis. These are just a handful of documents that Wikileaks has released and let us not forget, these documents are not created by Wikileaks, they are created by the people responsible for these actions. Perhaps a better question should be why these people and organizations are doing things that if they come under public scrutiny would be harmful or devastating to their organization? Perhaps we should not be making memos and documents that are harmful to our future relations with foreign leader and their countries. Perhaps we should not be bombing people in Baghdad without confirming that they are not journalist first. All these actions were done by our government and yet we are outraged that Wikileaks has exposed them and not that they occurred at all?
I will admit that not everything that Wikileaks has done is one hundred percent fine in my estimation, but then I’m not fine with lots of things that our government has done either. I actually think that leaking these documents to the world is a lot more effective and noble than selling them to our enemies without us knowing about it. It is also a lot less damaging to our public relations because at least we know what our enemies are aware of and we don’t have to guess. We have given lip service to a more transparent government but that has not become a reality. I would also like to point out that Wikileaks is not the wholly irresponsible anarchists they are made out to be. They have a careful review process of the documents they publish that verifies their veracity and authenticity. Most news organizations are not this careful and in fact most governments aren’t as well. Need we be reminded of the whole ‘weapons of mass destruction’ debacle our own government faced? We went to war over that only to find out later that it was false. Wikileaks has also made an attempt to protect people in Afghanistan who would be killed if they were identified as collaborating with us. They have withheld over 15,000 documents for review, deleting names from the documents before their release. They also asked the Pentagon and several human rights groups for help in identifying and removing names to reduce potential harm to these people that these documents could cause, but were denied assistance. If the argument is really that people could die because of these documents than this action on our part makes no sense. If however, it is political posturing then it makes perfect sense.
Duncan also writes, “I also believe that it should be considered an attack on the United States and he (Assange) should be considered in the same category as a terrorist.” Well, since there are hundreds of definitions for the word terrorist, I’m sure that by some of them Wikileaks could be classified as a terrorist. However, so could Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Glen Beck, the Christian Coalition, Karl Rove and countless others. The word terrorist has really lost its meaning in America today and is just thrown out there as an emotionally charged word to make people react in fear and not really consider the situation rationally. This is by its very definition an act of terrorism. In reality, the Wikileaks organization is going to be very hard to prosecute as terrorist or as a group involved in espionage and there is a very good reason for that. The First Amendment, arguably the most important Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Wikileaks is protected under both freedom of speech and freedom of press. They are not stealing these documents, they are merely reporting them. This will make prosecution of Wikileaks very hard according to our own Constitution as several Supreme Court cases have previously established “that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.” The government has also reportedly considered prosecuting Assange (Wikileaks director) for the trafficking of stolen government property, which would also be problematic as the diplomatic cables are intellectual property rather than physical. And let’s not forget that one of the biggest problems with prosecuting Assange is the fact that he is not American and would have to be extradited to the US in order to do so. International Law also protects the Freedom of Speech and of the Press. After all, that is essentially what Wikileaks is, a journalistic resource that provides accurate and authenticated information. A smear campaign has occurred concerning Wikileaks and Assange and most people have been swayed by the emotionally charged and overblown images that this campaign has employed. Saying they are terrorists and should be prosecuted for treason or espionage is simply ridiculous. Its fear mongering and people are falling for it.
I felt that Duncan’s Perspective did not delve deeply enough into this issue. I find that the current debate over Wikileaks is less an issue of the US protecting themselves and how, “It’s frightening to imagine that after 911, we are still a very vulnerable country.” to quote Duncan, and more an issue of if we are going to respect our own laws even if they are inconvenient, potentially embarrassing or even dangerous as some claim. Evan Hughs the editor in chief of Wired.com said, “"The greatest threat we face right now from WikiLeaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that’s building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked." On December 3 of this year Ron Paul, a Texas Republican Congressman said in defense of Wikileaks, "In a free society we're supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble." I think he is absolutely right.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Should Prosecutors be safe from Prosecution?
In 1985 John Thompson was convicted in a New Orleans court of attempted armed robbery and murder. While on death row in 1999 after his final appeal had been exhausted, an investigator found a lab report containing exculpatory blood evidence that the prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense. The evidence exonerated Mr. Thompson of the crime and in 2003 he was released from prison. He brought a federal civil rights claim against the New Orleans District Attorney’s office and was awarded $14 million in damages. While prosecutors normally have immunity for their actions while working, Thompson successfully argued in the lower courts that the District Attorney’s office had failed to train their lawyers about the case Brady v. Maryland, which states that the prosecution must provide the defense with exculpatory evidence. Thompson has been able to prove that four separate attorneys were aware of this blood evidence but failed to come forward. Mr. Connick, the District Attorney at the time of the original trial has countered that the actions of one attorney does not prove inadequate training and should not hold the whole office accountable. He contends that it is reasonable to assume that a lawyer is trained in the law and aware of the ramifications of the Brady case. He also warns against the ’slippery slope’ of opening up District Attorney’s offices to new liability and prosecution. This case, known as Connick v. Thompson, was heard this session by the Supreme Court and will be decided at the end of the session.
This case is one of those unfortunate situations where the true issue is not being addressed. Really, criminal and civil charges should be brought against prosecutors who suppressed evidence. Unfortunately, because of the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman heard by the Supreme Court, prosecutors have enjoyed almost absolute immunity from lawsuits, even when it is proven that their genuine, malicious and illegal conduct deprived a citizen of liberty. This case was meant to protect the attorneys so that they would not be frightened to prosecute, and the idea was that professional discipline would be adequate to keep them in line. However, this has not been true; a study conducted by USA Today revealed that even in cases such as this, when an attorney put innocent people in jail knowingly, they almost never had to endure any punishment at all. In New Orleans itself this has proven to be true. While Mr. Connick argued in his defense that this case represents one isolated incident, the facts do not back him up. According to available records provided by Findings by the Innocence Project of New Orleans, of the 36 men sentenced to death in New Orleans Parish during Connick’s tenure, 9 have had favorable evidence withheld by the prosecution. Four of those men were eventually exonerated. Simply speaking, one in four of these men were sentenced to death after evidence that would have cast doubt on their guilt was failed to be provided. Of all these cases the harshest sentence given to an attorney was a three month suspension that was then suspended by the court so that he was not actually punished at all. Connick is comfortably retired and the attorney responsible for Thompson’s case died without having to face any consequences. This points to a culture of corruption and without any checks on these attorneys there is no reason for them not to be.
I agree with Connick that it is reasonable to assume that a licensed attorney knows about the Brady case and its ramifications. However, with no consequences for that attorney should he break this law, I feel it is unreasonable to expect it to be followed. If everyone simply followed the law because it was the right thing to do, we would not need a justice system or the police. It’s preposterous to think that someone who makes a living trying to bend the legal system to suit their purposes and win by any means necessary would balk at breaking the law when they know they won’t be prosecuted for it, and in fact cannot be named in a civil suit. Yes, prosecutors should not be afraid to do their job, but they also should be afraid to break the law. By giving them this immunity you have taken away any incentive to be ethical except for their own conscience, and I think it is generally believed that lawyers tend to be a little short on that commodity. These people are in positions of power, with the ability to destroy the lives of fellow citizens. As such they should be held accountable for their very serious actions to the full extent of the law.
The case before the Supreme Court will be a very tricky one to decide. Morally, I feel that clearly Thompson deserves the money and that the District Attorneys Office should be punished for their malicious and knowing prosecution of an innocent man. However, because the case hinges on the inadequate training of the responsible attorneys and not on the knowing breaking of the law, I feel that the case is not as solid as it should be. The Supreme Court should in my opinion rule in the favor of Thompson so that some recourse will become open to the public against corrupt prosecutors and their offices. Obviously internal professional discipline has not been enough to keep this issue under control. However, what really is needed is a balance to be reached between allowing prosecutors to their job without fear of reprisals and harsh punishments for officials who knowingly break the law they are sworn to enforce. We cannot expect the system to work if the people running it are immune to its consequences.
This case is one of those unfortunate situations where the true issue is not being addressed. Really, criminal and civil charges should be brought against prosecutors who suppressed evidence. Unfortunately, because of the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman heard by the Supreme Court, prosecutors have enjoyed almost absolute immunity from lawsuits, even when it is proven that their genuine, malicious and illegal conduct deprived a citizen of liberty. This case was meant to protect the attorneys so that they would not be frightened to prosecute, and the idea was that professional discipline would be adequate to keep them in line. However, this has not been true; a study conducted by USA Today revealed that even in cases such as this, when an attorney put innocent people in jail knowingly, they almost never had to endure any punishment at all. In New Orleans itself this has proven to be true. While Mr. Connick argued in his defense that this case represents one isolated incident, the facts do not back him up. According to available records provided by Findings by the Innocence Project of New Orleans, of the 36 men sentenced to death in New Orleans Parish during Connick’s tenure, 9 have had favorable evidence withheld by the prosecution. Four of those men were eventually exonerated. Simply speaking, one in four of these men were sentenced to death after evidence that would have cast doubt on their guilt was failed to be provided. Of all these cases the harshest sentence given to an attorney was a three month suspension that was then suspended by the court so that he was not actually punished at all. Connick is comfortably retired and the attorney responsible for Thompson’s case died without having to face any consequences. This points to a culture of corruption and without any checks on these attorneys there is no reason for them not to be.
I agree with Connick that it is reasonable to assume that a licensed attorney knows about the Brady case and its ramifications. However, with no consequences for that attorney should he break this law, I feel it is unreasonable to expect it to be followed. If everyone simply followed the law because it was the right thing to do, we would not need a justice system or the police. It’s preposterous to think that someone who makes a living trying to bend the legal system to suit their purposes and win by any means necessary would balk at breaking the law when they know they won’t be prosecuted for it, and in fact cannot be named in a civil suit. Yes, prosecutors should not be afraid to do their job, but they also should be afraid to break the law. By giving them this immunity you have taken away any incentive to be ethical except for their own conscience, and I think it is generally believed that lawyers tend to be a little short on that commodity. These people are in positions of power, with the ability to destroy the lives of fellow citizens. As such they should be held accountable for their very serious actions to the full extent of the law.
The case before the Supreme Court will be a very tricky one to decide. Morally, I feel that clearly Thompson deserves the money and that the District Attorneys Office should be punished for their malicious and knowing prosecution of an innocent man. However, because the case hinges on the inadequate training of the responsible attorneys and not on the knowing breaking of the law, I feel that the case is not as solid as it should be. The Supreme Court should in my opinion rule in the favor of Thompson so that some recourse will become open to the public against corrupt prosecutors and their offices. Obviously internal professional discipline has not been enough to keep this issue under control. However, what really is needed is a balance to be reached between allowing prosecutors to their job without fear of reprisals and harsh punishments for officials who knowingly break the law they are sworn to enforce. We cannot expect the system to work if the people running it are immune to its consequences.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Freedom of Speech
A unfortunate religious group known as the Westboro Church group have taken to protesting outside the funerals of service men and women who have fallen in the line of duty. They believe that US soldiers are being killed because we are too tolerant of homosexuals and abortion. A father of one of the soldiers has sued the group, winning monetary damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. However, an appeals court overturned the case based on the groups First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.
I agree with Amor patriae’s take on the issue. The whole idea that you can pick and choose what should be protected under the First Amendment is preposterous. No matter how innocuous something is, you can find someone who will be offended by it. That is the whole point of the First Amendment, to protect people from the whims and opinions of others. You can’t make exceptions no matter how tempting it is, even in cases as hideous as this one. I also appreciated that the writer changed their initial opinion of the case when thinking unemotionally on it. That is what we as a people need to do more often and what the Judicial Branch needs to do always. While someone being so despicable as to protest outside the funeral of a soldier killed in duty because they believe that the US is too tolerant of homosexuals is repugnant, living in a country that does not allow it is even more so.
The Westboro Church group, infamous for these anti gay protests should stop, but the way to achieve that is not in suing them. In Weston , MO a group of locals heard of the Westboro’s plans to demonstrate outside of the funeral of one of their local soldiers and formed a protest of their own that shielded the funeral and ultimately forced the retreat of the Westboro group. This is a much more effective and satisfying way of dealing with these protestors. Instead of potentially infringing on the rights of all US citizens, we should use our rights to say what we think and give the Westboro Church a taste of their own medicine. Protesting outside their church every Sunday does not sound like a bad way to spend the day. I personally think that the Westboro Group is a crazy, grotesque mutation of what a religious organization should be, but I would rather they protest, than that all those who have fought for our right to do so have their struggles be in vain.
I agree with Amor patriae’s take on the issue. The whole idea that you can pick and choose what should be protected under the First Amendment is preposterous. No matter how innocuous something is, you can find someone who will be offended by it. That is the whole point of the First Amendment, to protect people from the whims and opinions of others. You can’t make exceptions no matter how tempting it is, even in cases as hideous as this one. I also appreciated that the writer changed their initial opinion of the case when thinking unemotionally on it. That is what we as a people need to do more often and what the Judicial Branch needs to do always. While someone being so despicable as to protest outside the funeral of a soldier killed in duty because they believe that the US is too tolerant of homosexuals is repugnant, living in a country that does not allow it is even more so.
The Westboro Church group, infamous for these anti gay protests should stop, but the way to achieve that is not in suing them. In Weston , MO a group of locals heard of the Westboro’s plans to demonstrate outside of the funeral of one of their local soldiers and formed a protest of their own that shielded the funeral and ultimately forced the retreat of the Westboro group. This is a much more effective and satisfying way of dealing with these protestors. Instead of potentially infringing on the rights of all US citizens, we should use our rights to say what we think and give the Westboro Church a taste of their own medicine. Protesting outside their church every Sunday does not sound like a bad way to spend the day. I personally think that the Westboro Group is a crazy, grotesque mutation of what a religious organization should be, but I would rather they protest, than that all those who have fought for our right to do so have their struggles be in vain.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Fox News Saves the Day
Well, once again Fox News has managed to save the day. I was listlessly going through news articles trying to find something to write about that seemed like a story demanding attention. Feeling particularly apathetic about the lameness of the Tea Partyers and ‘broken’ Washington, I was finally struck by the audacity of Fox News and their affiliates. Any attempt to even try at subtlety or objectivity has completely evaporated. Fox News’ parent company, News Corp. owned by Keith Rupert Murdoch has donated $1 million dollars to the Republican Governors Association, a huge donation by any standards, but in light of the source a staggering slap in the face of the American people. Come on Rupert, at least try and be a little discreet and just by all these people off behind closed doors. That way, we can all have at least an illusion that papers that you own like the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and the Times of London are not completely devoid of all merit. This is my problem with people today, there’s no subtlety or gamesmanship. I guess Karl Rove proved that if you just came right out and said it, then nobody would stop you. This however has taken away any rational person’s ability to watch your news stations or read your papers and even pretend that this is not agenda setting at its worst. Not that something like the Fox News Channel has been trying to hide it but this has gone a step further. There are so many issues that are wrong in this situation that I’m actually a little flabbergasted.
Journalistic Objectivity According to Wikipedia the definition of journalistic objectivity is, “In the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.” I know that the media has always been plagued by yellow journalism, slanted writing and the problem of powerful and wealthy men controlling the flow of information, but can we say conflict of interest. With such a blatant statement of News Corps support for one political party over another one has to wonder who will believe Jack Horner a spokesman for News Corps statement, "It's patently false that a corporate donation would have any bearing on our news-gathering activities at Fox News or any other of our properties." Yet, coverage of this very subject has been strangely absent on Fox News leading Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association to question their ‘commitment’ to objective news coverage. This donation harms the credibility and ethics of all news sources to say nothing of the journalist who work for News Corps. This kind of maneuver will negatively impact their willingness to report on news that casts a negative light on the Republican Party. This in turn will make for an even more biased and controlled media than we already have. This whole situation screams reform, although I’m sure Congress will once again do nothing.
News Corps have long been criticized for their growing monopoly of the nation and the world’s media outlets. In the USA deregulatory measures known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were taken concerning our Media. While intended to foster greater competition, many critics argue that the act instead created more conciliation and less journalistic competition reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005. Perhaps this contribution of $1 million was Murdock’s way of saying thank you.
Campaign contributions are another one of those subjects that politicians just love to talk about reforming but whenever it comes to a vote somehow it always gives them greater freedom instead of reining them in. The fact that our system allows a corporation to donate $1 million dollars to a political party is shameful. The fact that the Republicans would take that money from a news conglomerate and act like there is no conflict of interest is just a testament to how far we have sunk ethically. Personally, letting a corporation make contributions seems like a huge mistake for us as a nation. It gives power not to the people but to unprosecutable entities that we have no ability to reign in. I know that the idea is not to have a politician taking money from an individual as that seems like a pretty clear cut case of bribery, but a corporation giving money to a party is really no less of a threat. In fact, one could argue that they are managing to control a whole party through the means of one big contribution, rather than trying to buy politicians piecemeal. In 1907 the Tillman Act banned contributions from corporations to national campaigns. Since then, many have managed to chip away at this Act, arguing that under the First Amendment that it is unconstitutional to prohibit corporations from contributing as it infringes on their right to free speech. However, you could argue that if we as a nation have endowed on corporations the ‘rights’ of an individual, than they would be prohibited from donating more than $2,000 in a political campaign as is any individual citizen. This would eliminate these kinds of hideous payoff contributions from happening. We need to make the case that corporations if they are going to have the ‘rights’ of an individual must also face the consequences and limitations of an individual, or else I’m going to start to lobby for corporate status so that I to can do whatever I want and never be prosecuted.
These are only a few of the issues this contribution brings up. I'm sure if you thought about it you could find an infinite number of things wrong with it. The fact is that this is a very real indication of the state of our political machine and the mind set of the American people. We are floundering under a mountain of horrible situations and corrupt bureaucracy. We're drowning in it. So I want to thank Fox News and the Republican Party and most especially Mr. Murdock for once more stepping up to the plate and proving that they can take it just a little bit further.
Journalistic Objectivity According to Wikipedia the definition of journalistic objectivity is, “In the context of journalism, objectivity may be understood as synonymous with neutrality. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.” I know that the media has always been plagued by yellow journalism, slanted writing and the problem of powerful and wealthy men controlling the flow of information, but can we say conflict of interest. With such a blatant statement of News Corps support for one political party over another one has to wonder who will believe Jack Horner a spokesman for News Corps statement, "It's patently false that a corporate donation would have any bearing on our news-gathering activities at Fox News or any other of our properties." Yet, coverage of this very subject has been strangely absent on Fox News leading Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association to question their ‘commitment’ to objective news coverage. This donation harms the credibility and ethics of all news sources to say nothing of the journalist who work for News Corps. This kind of maneuver will negatively impact their willingness to report on news that casts a negative light on the Republican Party. This in turn will make for an even more biased and controlled media than we already have. This whole situation screams reform, although I’m sure Congress will once again do nothing.
News Corps have long been criticized for their growing monopoly of the nation and the world’s media outlets. In the USA deregulatory measures known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were taken concerning our Media. While intended to foster greater competition, many critics argue that the act instead created more conciliation and less journalistic competition reducing the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005. Perhaps this contribution of $1 million was Murdock’s way of saying thank you.
Campaign contributions are another one of those subjects that politicians just love to talk about reforming but whenever it comes to a vote somehow it always gives them greater freedom instead of reining them in. The fact that our system allows a corporation to donate $1 million dollars to a political party is shameful. The fact that the Republicans would take that money from a news conglomerate and act like there is no conflict of interest is just a testament to how far we have sunk ethically. Personally, letting a corporation make contributions seems like a huge mistake for us as a nation. It gives power not to the people but to unprosecutable entities that we have no ability to reign in. I know that the idea is not to have a politician taking money from an individual as that seems like a pretty clear cut case of bribery, but a corporation giving money to a party is really no less of a threat. In fact, one could argue that they are managing to control a whole party through the means of one big contribution, rather than trying to buy politicians piecemeal. In 1907 the Tillman Act banned contributions from corporations to national campaigns. Since then, many have managed to chip away at this Act, arguing that under the First Amendment that it is unconstitutional to prohibit corporations from contributing as it infringes on their right to free speech. However, you could argue that if we as a nation have endowed on corporations the ‘rights’ of an individual, than they would be prohibited from donating more than $2,000 in a political campaign as is any individual citizen. This would eliminate these kinds of hideous payoff contributions from happening. We need to make the case that corporations if they are going to have the ‘rights’ of an individual must also face the consequences and limitations of an individual, or else I’m going to start to lobby for corporate status so that I to can do whatever I want and never be prosecuted.
These are only a few of the issues this contribution brings up. I'm sure if you thought about it you could find an infinite number of things wrong with it. The fact is that this is a very real indication of the state of our political machine and the mind set of the American people. We are floundering under a mountain of horrible situations and corrupt bureaucracy. We're drowning in it. So I want to thank Fox News and the Republican Party and most especially Mr. Murdock for once more stepping up to the plate and proving that they can take it just a little bit further.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
It has become increasingly hard to support the Obama administration and their promise of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ in the face of their ‘pragmatic’ approach to the issues they have faced. The most glaring offenses in my opinion, have been in the handling of the prisoners of our country’s war on terror and the Obama administrations protection of Bush era officials and in many cases the continuation of their policies. In this blog written by Andy Worthington for The Smirking Chimp on October 14 of this year, Mr. Worthington explores the issues of the violation of the prisoner’s rights and the Obama Administration’s rather frightening handling of them. The Smirking Chimp is considered a left leaning blog and the audience that Mr. Worthington is writing for no doubt consists of those who feel as he does about torture and constitutional rights. However, Mr. Worthington makes a very good argument about the legal and moral wrongness that has surrounded this issue. Obama, instead of supporting the habeas corpus litigation initiated by the Supreme he initiated an interagency task force to review the cases at Guantanemo. He writes of a particular prisoner Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, who was held on the basis of the flimsiest connection to Al-Qaeda. Mr. Ahmed had in fact been in a Taliban prison for two years before he was taken into custody in 2002 by the Americans and held in Guantanemo until he was finally freed under President Obama, but only after the case was exposed in a US court. His imprisonment was based on hearsay and association but Obama’s administration held him until this scandal was finally taken to court. This kind of thing is just unacceptable and the fact that the Obama administration has not done a full house cleaning and removed all the people responsible for this kind of thing but has instead left them in positions of power is appalling. Mr. Worthington references many other articles and blogs in his article, most of them actually referring to other blogs he himself has written. This issue is obviously one he has spent a lot of time writing about and researching, and while he obviously feels very strongly about it, he has done his legwork and appears to know what he’s talking about. He systematically goes through the policies of the Obama administration regarding this issue and finds that not much has changed from the Bush era. Certainly Obama has protected those responsible for the war crimes that our country has committed and has changed very little regarding their approaches. Mr. Worthington then goes so far as to say that Obama’s actions have gone even farther than that in his recently exposed use of drone assassins in Pakistan and his defense of plans to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, suggesting that this protection has become important in his own plans for government. Overall, I feel that Mr. Worthington has made a very compelling argument and agree with his trepidation in Obama's conduct concerning these issues. We live in a country based on certain rights and these policies violate our rights and go against not only are legal system, but what I sincerely hope is our moral code as Americans.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
TheG.O.P.'s Pledge / The same old line
Once again the battle between the Republicans and the Democrats is rearing its ugly head. The latest travesty comes from the House Republicans who have issued a ‘Pledge to America’, an attempt to play on the feelings and fears of the uninformed masses. This ‘Pledge’ has all the familiar points that the Republicans love to trot out when election time draws near; taxes, the deficit and how the Republicans are going to save the American people from the reckless and elitist Democrats. If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. The author of The G.O.P.‘s Pledge argues very convincingly that the Republicans’ ‘Pledge’ is another attempt at political posturing that offers no real solutions and serves only to polarize an already deeply divided country. The writer contends and I agree that while the document says nothing earth shattering in the way of innovative ideas, that it is irresponsible and destructive in such a tenuous time. The author systematically goes through the document pointing out many of its flaws and the impossible promises made by the Republicans. Promises to lower taxes and reduce the budget deficit at the same time, which has never happened and never will, are treated thoroughly if a touch derisively. Clearly the author is not a Republican, or if he is he is deeply disturbed by his party’s rhetoric. I would hazard to guess however that he is a liberal writing mostly for other liberals. He intimates that he finds it ’hard to believe that even the most disaffected voters will be taken in’ by the Republicans manipulations. His tone of ridicule is not one would take if one was attempting to change someone’s mind. However, his logic is sound and he makes many good points, pretty much systematically going through the document and arguing it. He talks about how many of their pledges for change have already been implemented and also argues that the current economic crisis we have has been inherited from the Bush era of cutting taxes for the wealthy and ‘reducing’ government spending. How anyone can promise to reduce government spending and support the war at the same time is a mystery. What this article really emphasizes in my opinion, is the lack of new ideas in the Republican party and their blatant manipulation of the truth. Unfortunately for us all, the same thing can be said with equal honesty of their opponents the Democrats.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Is freedom the price of security?
"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." Thomas Jefferson
The question of our basic human rights being subjugated for national security has once again been shifted from what is right to what is convenient in a time of war. Torture, being held without a trial, and turning over prisoners to foreign governments to be held and tortured for ‘information’ are only some of the issues that this war on terrorism has brought up. The latest insult that has been given to human rights is the federal court ruling stating that former prisoners of the CIA (which is in and of itself ludicrous that the CIA is allowed to have prisoners) cannot sue over their alleged torture because their lawsuits might expose secret government information. This article, ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html ) published on September 8, 2010, demonstrates in my opinion, one of the scariest issues that we as citizens are failing to act on. Torture, a despicable and ineffective method of information gathering, and one outlawed by international treaties, has once again become an issue for our nation. But I think the real heart of this particular issue is the right to a trial, a right that is being denied for 'national security'. Obama promised transparency and change and loudly criticized the Bush administration for its use of largely illegal and completely immoral methods during this war. Yet here we are, nearly two years after his election and a federal court has denied a man who was tortured and held for years by our government the right to sue a private corporation that was complicit in the transfer of prisoners. He wasn’t even suing the government, which has long had a law stating that it cannot be sued without its permission. So now the government is endowing corporations with the same protection that they themselves have enjoyed. This is horrible. People should be outraged and scared. The fact that the government is implying that our national security rests on information that could come out in a civil trail regarding the transport of prisoners arranged by a subsidiary of Boeing is laughable. If our national security is that fragile than what have we been spending billions of dollars on every year? The fact that we are supposed to subjugate the rights of the individual for some nebulous, unexplained national security is infuriating. What the current administration is really trying to do is to protect its own interests and the interests of its allies. Because let’s face it, people will continue doing something that is wrong as long as they don’t get into trouble for it.
The question of our basic human rights being subjugated for national security has once again been shifted from what is right to what is convenient in a time of war. Torture, being held without a trial, and turning over prisoners to foreign governments to be held and tortured for ‘information’ are only some of the issues that this war on terrorism has brought up. The latest insult that has been given to human rights is the federal court ruling stating that former prisoners of the CIA (which is in and of itself ludicrous that the CIA is allowed to have prisoners) cannot sue over their alleged torture because their lawsuits might expose secret government information. This article, ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html ) published on September 8, 2010, demonstrates in my opinion, one of the scariest issues that we as citizens are failing to act on. Torture, a despicable and ineffective method of information gathering, and one outlawed by international treaties, has once again become an issue for our nation. But I think the real heart of this particular issue is the right to a trial, a right that is being denied for 'national security'. Obama promised transparency and change and loudly criticized the Bush administration for its use of largely illegal and completely immoral methods during this war. Yet here we are, nearly two years after his election and a federal court has denied a man who was tortured and held for years by our government the right to sue a private corporation that was complicit in the transfer of prisoners. He wasn’t even suing the government, which has long had a law stating that it cannot be sued without its permission. So now the government is endowing corporations with the same protection that they themselves have enjoyed. This is horrible. People should be outraged and scared. The fact that the government is implying that our national security rests on information that could come out in a civil trail regarding the transport of prisoners arranged by a subsidiary of Boeing is laughable. If our national security is that fragile than what have we been spending billions of dollars on every year? The fact that we are supposed to subjugate the rights of the individual for some nebulous, unexplained national security is infuriating. What the current administration is really trying to do is to protect its own interests and the interests of its allies. Because let’s face it, people will continue doing something that is wrong as long as they don’t get into trouble for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)