Senator John McCain is wrong to oppose the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the United States Military.
The policy is on the verge of being overturned by the courts. In a blog post previously, “The Military has done well with gays and lesbians”, the history of the issue was explored. It was a policy that came out of a legislative fight 17 years ago. The policy said that if the recruit doesn’t speak of his or her sexual orientation, the military won’t ask. But, someone who spoke up and was kicked out, took the issue to court. The courts agreed that the policy violated his rights and over turned it. The only reason it hasn’t been tossed aside right now is because the Supreme Court has allowed time for the legislative process to make a change.
The military doesn’t think that it is a problem they can’t handle. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a report issued by the military on the repel of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It reported that more than two thirds of the service members who answered surveys did not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.
Senator McCain was not convinced. He said, “I remain concerned, as I have in the past, and as demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed.” He has expressed in the past that he is concerned that the military forces will not be able to focus on the mission because the person next to them is gay.
Adm. Mullen said in response, “I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career,” he said. “I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target.”
The military over the last 17 years has done just fine. In all that time, and longer as evidence by Adm. Mullen’s remarks, the military has done what it has been asked to do and it can’t be document that there would be any harm from the repel of the policy.
Mr. McCain, you are outdated on this issue.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Another common criminal is labeled a terrorist
I don’t care why he did it. I don’t care about his religion. I don’t care that he was young, old, black or white. I don’t care about anything involved in his crime other than it didn’t work and that he wanted to do it.
Mohamed Mohamud, a Muslim, is charged with attempting to kill perhaps hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. It was prevented because a tip was given to the FBI many months ago about Mohamud’s statements he made about striking back at the great Satan. The FBI set up a sting operation, sold him fake bomb making material that Mohamud thought was the real stuff. When he dropped the car off, walked away and made the phone call that was to detonate the bomb, the FBI arrested him.
Done. A common criminal arrested before anyone could be hurt.
Another example, some may say, of why Islam is the religion of hate and violence. Another example of why we should not allow mosques to be built anywhere, especially near Ground Zero. This is proof that we are at “war” with Islam. Round them all up and be done with it.
If it is another example of Islam the crazy religion, why did the Imam from the community say that he did know the young man, but didn’t see any of the signs that you might expect from someone who is plotting such a thing? He said Mohamud attended the mosque rarely. If this is an example of a religion teaching hate, why did he acted alone on this action? If he worked with others they would have been picked up on the same day by the FBI. Officials, who worked with Mohamud for many months, said he had no connection with individuals or groups overseas.
He, like all the others, is not a terrorists. He is a common criminal who plotted murder. By calling him and charging him with terrorism, we feed his own justification for his actions and those of common criminals all over the world.
By labeling all the followers of a religion terrorists, we take our eyes off the real problem. Instead of watching for the real face of terror, the common criminal among us, we are diverted by the many good people that don’t want anything to do with all of this. Instead of looking for the face that will harm us, we are confused by the millions of innocent faces that would help us if we didn’t suspect them also.
Let’s not glorify Mohamud’s actions. He is just a common criminal.
-----
Mohamed Mohamud, a Muslim, is charged with attempting to kill perhaps hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. It was prevented because a tip was given to the FBI many months ago about Mohamud’s statements he made about striking back at the great Satan. The FBI set up a sting operation, sold him fake bomb making material that Mohamud thought was the real stuff. When he dropped the car off, walked away and made the phone call that was to detonate the bomb, the FBI arrested him.
Done. A common criminal arrested before anyone could be hurt.
Another example, some may say, of why Islam is the religion of hate and violence. Another example of why we should not allow mosques to be built anywhere, especially near Ground Zero. This is proof that we are at “war” with Islam. Round them all up and be done with it.
If it is another example of Islam the crazy religion, why did the Imam from the community say that he did know the young man, but didn’t see any of the signs that you might expect from someone who is plotting such a thing? He said Mohamud attended the mosque rarely. If this is an example of a religion teaching hate, why did he acted alone on this action? If he worked with others they would have been picked up on the same day by the FBI. Officials, who worked with Mohamud for many months, said he had no connection with individuals or groups overseas.
He, like all the others, is not a terrorists. He is a common criminal who plotted murder. By calling him and charging him with terrorism, we feed his own justification for his actions and those of common criminals all over the world.
By labeling all the followers of a religion terrorists, we take our eyes off the real problem. Instead of watching for the real face of terror, the common criminal among us, we are diverted by the many good people that don’t want anything to do with all of this. Instead of looking for the face that will harm us, we are confused by the millions of innocent faces that would help us if we didn’t suspect them also.
Let’s not glorify Mohamud’s actions. He is just a common criminal.
-----
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
In The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, uses the phrase, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” According to Gary Wills, author of many books on America and some of its most famous people, Jefferson was not hiding anything nor meant to mislead anyone with the phrase. In all of Jefferson’s writings he chose his words very carefully to make sure he was saying just what he meant. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the words he chose, and in that order, for what he wanted to express.
The order is important. It places life first, then liberty followed finally by the pursuit of happiness. It was clear that the most important goal of government, as he saw it, was to help protect life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very important, but when it comes to the balance between all of them, he gave life the first position.
The Declaration of Independence declared the Colonies separation from the English government so that a new nation could formed. But, Jefferson and others, still felt a strong need for government. With a government they could enforce a common standard of behavior within and defend against invaders. This common goal was to be done in balance with between life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as evidenced by the phrase.
After the misstep of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was created. In that document, the liberties that we enjoy in America were recognized by the newly formed government. A government formed to provide a safe environment to enjoy our liberties and to pursue our happiness.
Those liberties clearly take a second position to a safe environment. Jefferson and others did not intent government to value rights over harm, that would be chaos. This is true both from the order of his famous phrase, but also because of the very reason government exist. If, events or circumstances can be demonstrated to cause or have the possibility of harm, then what ever liberties we may have need to be limited to maintain order and safety. To amplify, government can take action to limit liberties, if, and only if, it clearly demonstrates that harm would result if the limitation were not enforced.
We have the right to free speech, except in a crowded theater when we yell fire. We have the right to own property but will lose the right to that property if we don’t pay our taxes. We have the right to bear arms but can’t use them to hunt in the city. Even the Constitution guarantees our right to Habeas Corpus unless “the public safety may require it” to be suspended.
Our liberties are important, but have no value if they can’t be enjoyed in a safe environment. Staying alive; life; is more important than all the liberties we have.
-----
The order is important. It places life first, then liberty followed finally by the pursuit of happiness. It was clear that the most important goal of government, as he saw it, was to help protect life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very important, but when it comes to the balance between all of them, he gave life the first position.
The Declaration of Independence declared the Colonies separation from the English government so that a new nation could formed. But, Jefferson and others, still felt a strong need for government. With a government they could enforce a common standard of behavior within and defend against invaders. This common goal was to be done in balance with between life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as evidenced by the phrase.
After the misstep of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was created. In that document, the liberties that we enjoy in America were recognized by the newly formed government. A government formed to provide a safe environment to enjoy our liberties and to pursue our happiness.
Those liberties clearly take a second position to a safe environment. Jefferson and others did not intent government to value rights over harm, that would be chaos. This is true both from the order of his famous phrase, but also because of the very reason government exist. If, events or circumstances can be demonstrated to cause or have the possibility of harm, then what ever liberties we may have need to be limited to maintain order and safety. To amplify, government can take action to limit liberties, if, and only if, it clearly demonstrates that harm would result if the limitation were not enforced.
We have the right to free speech, except in a crowded theater when we yell fire. We have the right to own property but will lose the right to that property if we don’t pay our taxes. We have the right to bear arms but can’t use them to hunt in the city. Even the Constitution guarantees our right to Habeas Corpus unless “the public safety may require it” to be suspended.
Our liberties are important, but have no value if they can’t be enjoyed in a safe environment. Staying alive; life; is more important than all the liberties we have.
-----
Monday, November 29, 2010
No more sermons at the soup kitchen
No more sermons at the soup kitchen.
Government must stay neutral when it comes to religion. It cannot support one religion over another nor can it even have the appearance of supporting one over another.
Yet, under President Bush, faith based organizations could deliver federal aid while preaching their form of religion. Churches and other religious organizations, under President Bush’s executive order, could deliver federal aid, such as the operation of a soup kitchen, while they were delivering a sermon.
That is changing. President Obama has amended the executive order issued by President Bush mandating the separation of the normal functions of a church and the delivery of federal aid.
Faith based organizations, no matter what calling, should not be able to deliver federal aid of any kind. This is a much too close relationship between God and Country. Whenever this happens, it is much too easy for anyone, especially those that are receiving the aid, to draw the conclusion that there is something special with this religion. Especially if the members of the church are preaching while having dinner.
President Obama’s amended of the order mandates the separation of the two activities, which is a start at getting local religious organizations out of federal aid delivery. The president’s order also goes a step farther. The amendment requires the government to “monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and government entities.”
Don’t forget, in England during the pre American colonial days, religion and government went hand in hand. You were required to be a particular religion, depending on who was in power at the time. If you were protestant and the state religion was catholic, as it was under Queen Mary of Scots, you needed to change. Even tax dollars collected from a protestant would in part be delivered to the catholic church for support, but none to the protestant church. [ The Church of England, a legitimate religion by any standard, was separated from the Catholic Church by Henry the Eighth in an effort to support his government and provide legitimacy for his personal activities. It was, by some conclusions, not only a state religion, but one created for the state.]
In the Constitution, in a plan to make sure that state supported religion doesn’t happen in the new country, the signers wrote in the opening lines of the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” They also made very clear in the document that no religious test would be provided to elected officials, providing even further evidence that they wanted to keep religion out of government functions.
By placing a seal of approval on certain religious organizations to dole out federal aid, it appears to support that religious organization. If that money was going to catholic organizations, Queen Mary would be very pleased. But, we in the United States should not be.
-----
Government must stay neutral when it comes to religion. It cannot support one religion over another nor can it even have the appearance of supporting one over another.
Yet, under President Bush, faith based organizations could deliver federal aid while preaching their form of religion. Churches and other religious organizations, under President Bush’s executive order, could deliver federal aid, such as the operation of a soup kitchen, while they were delivering a sermon.
That is changing. President Obama has amended the executive order issued by President Bush mandating the separation of the normal functions of a church and the delivery of federal aid.
Faith based organizations, no matter what calling, should not be able to deliver federal aid of any kind. This is a much too close relationship between God and Country. Whenever this happens, it is much too easy for anyone, especially those that are receiving the aid, to draw the conclusion that there is something special with this religion. Especially if the members of the church are preaching while having dinner.
President Obama’s amended of the order mandates the separation of the two activities, which is a start at getting local religious organizations out of federal aid delivery. The president’s order also goes a step farther. The amendment requires the government to “monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and government entities.”
Don’t forget, in England during the pre American colonial days, religion and government went hand in hand. You were required to be a particular religion, depending on who was in power at the time. If you were protestant and the state religion was catholic, as it was under Queen Mary of Scots, you needed to change. Even tax dollars collected from a protestant would in part be delivered to the catholic church for support, but none to the protestant church. [ The Church of England, a legitimate religion by any standard, was separated from the Catholic Church by Henry the Eighth in an effort to support his government and provide legitimacy for his personal activities. It was, by some conclusions, not only a state religion, but one created for the state.]
In the Constitution, in a plan to make sure that state supported religion doesn’t happen in the new country, the signers wrote in the opening lines of the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” They also made very clear in the document that no religious test would be provided to elected officials, providing even further evidence that they wanted to keep religion out of government functions.
By placing a seal of approval on certain religious organizations to dole out federal aid, it appears to support that religious organization. If that money was going to catholic organizations, Queen Mary would be very pleased. But, we in the United States should not be.
-----
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The military has done well with gays and lesbians in the ranks
It would appear that conservatives are walking two paths but only see one.
Many conservatives are asking that the military not allow gays in the services. They feel that having gays fight alongside straights would kill moral and cause all kinds of havoc. This has all come to the top of the issue list with the court ruling on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule that the military has lived with for 17 years.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” deal was brokered by the Clinton administration with congress in 1993. It states that if the military doesn’t ask about the sexual preference of a recruit and if the recruit doesn’t tell his or her preference, everything will be just fine. As soon as someone let their preference be known, the military escorted them to the door and slammed it shut behind them.
But, someone the military had ushered out recently became defiant and took their case to court. They argued that the policy violated the First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians [because they could not speak their mind] and due process rights [because they were not charged with a crime].
The Obama administration, not wanting to cause a wake in the middle of elections asked the Supreme Court to keep a temporary injunction on the ruling. He wanted time for congress and the administration to develop a new policy that will be supported by the courts. The Supreme Court complied, for a while.
Now the issue is being addressed by congress.
But, here is the conservative’s double speak. First, for seventeen years since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place, gays and straights have fought some of the toughest wars in memory side by side. The Gulf War, the Iraqi war and the Afghanistan war have all been well pursued. The moral of the troops and the support from the home front have been outstanding. No one can deny the military success of these wars.
Yet, conservatives, claim gays in the military would destroy moral. Well, where is the evidence?
The military response to the court rulings have been honorable. The latest statement from the military is that they can have a policy to allow gays and lesbians to serve their country by the end of the year.
Over the last 17 years the military has done an outstanding job. There is no reason anymore to deny anyone to serve their country.
-----
Many conservatives are asking that the military not allow gays in the services. They feel that having gays fight alongside straights would kill moral and cause all kinds of havoc. This has all come to the top of the issue list with the court ruling on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule that the military has lived with for 17 years.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” deal was brokered by the Clinton administration with congress in 1993. It states that if the military doesn’t ask about the sexual preference of a recruit and if the recruit doesn’t tell his or her preference, everything will be just fine. As soon as someone let their preference be known, the military escorted them to the door and slammed it shut behind them.
But, someone the military had ushered out recently became defiant and took their case to court. They argued that the policy violated the First Amendment rights of gays and lesbians [because they could not speak their mind] and due process rights [because they were not charged with a crime].
The Obama administration, not wanting to cause a wake in the middle of elections asked the Supreme Court to keep a temporary injunction on the ruling. He wanted time for congress and the administration to develop a new policy that will be supported by the courts. The Supreme Court complied, for a while.
Now the issue is being addressed by congress.
But, here is the conservative’s double speak. First, for seventeen years since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place, gays and straights have fought some of the toughest wars in memory side by side. The Gulf War, the Iraqi war and the Afghanistan war have all been well pursued. The moral of the troops and the support from the home front have been outstanding. No one can deny the military success of these wars.
Yet, conservatives, claim gays in the military would destroy moral. Well, where is the evidence?
The military response to the court rulings have been honorable. The latest statement from the military is that they can have a policy to allow gays and lesbians to serve their country by the end of the year.
Over the last 17 years the military has done an outstanding job. There is no reason anymore to deny anyone to serve their country.
-----
Friday, November 19, 2010
This is not a demo-crazy... not yet at least
It isn’t crime that defeats a democracy, it is the lack of getting the facts right.
Today, the country is on the verge of becoming a demo-crazy instead of being a democracy. So many people on both sides are spreading rumors and crazy theories because it supports their position. These irresponsible acts are picked up on the web and before you can find the source to check the facts, the tall tales get moving as fast as electrons can move email.
The latest is a claim by Michelle Bachmann, a conservative and Tea Party favorite. Anderson Cooper, CNN reporter and news show host, asked Bachmann how she would cut the budget. Instead of answering the question directly, she said, “I think we know that just within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He’s taking 2,000 people with him. He’ll be renting over 870 rooms in India, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending.”
That sounded just a little too good to Bachmann to check the facts. It helped her get attention off what she would cut and supported her position that the Democrats and the President are just tax and spend people.
Rush Limbaugh starting talking about the cost. He said on his show, “in two days from now, he’ll be in India at $200 million a day.” Glenn Beck, not to be out done by just repeating rumors needed to embellish. It turns out to be a “vacation” for Obama that included warships, aircraft carriers, 3,000 people and one tenth of the U.S. Navy. Note that Bachmann said it was with 2,000 people. Wonder were the other 1,000 people came from?
Cooper thought that he should check on this little piece of information. Any responsible reporter should check the facts, especially one as big as this one. It does have to be asked why a representative of the United States congress didn’t ask the same questions before talking about them?
What Cooper found out is a little different then the story making the rounds. The short of it is, the story comes from an unnamed alleged Indian official from Maharashtra (a state in India) talking about the cost of the entire Asian trip by the American President. Now that is a great source.
The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell is quoted as saying to Cooper, “I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy and some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president’s trip to Asia. That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.” He went on to say that the entire war in Afghanistan is costing $190 million dollars a day.
Robert Gibbs, the White House secretary said that for security reasons, they don’t make detailed comments about travel plans and arrangements for the President. But, he did say that, “I am not going to go into how much it costs to protect the president, [but this trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip doesn’t cost $200 million a day.” Trips by Bush and Clinton of similar size to similar destinations cost only about $5.2 million per day, inflation adjusted.
Every day we all need to make decisions about our government and the people that we elect to help operate it. Our decisions are based on the information we are provided. If we have bad information, we will always make bad decisions.
If that bad information comes from people that we place trust in, if they only repeat rumors and stories that sound too good to check, there is no hope, we will be a demo-crazy
-----
Today, the country is on the verge of becoming a demo-crazy instead of being a democracy. So many people on both sides are spreading rumors and crazy theories because it supports their position. These irresponsible acts are picked up on the web and before you can find the source to check the facts, the tall tales get moving as fast as electrons can move email.
The latest is a claim by Michelle Bachmann, a conservative and Tea Party favorite. Anderson Cooper, CNN reporter and news show host, asked Bachmann how she would cut the budget. Instead of answering the question directly, she said, “I think we know that just within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He’s taking 2,000 people with him. He’ll be renting over 870 rooms in India, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending.”
That sounded just a little too good to Bachmann to check the facts. It helped her get attention off what she would cut and supported her position that the Democrats and the President are just tax and spend people.
Rush Limbaugh starting talking about the cost. He said on his show, “in two days from now, he’ll be in India at $200 million a day.” Glenn Beck, not to be out done by just repeating rumors needed to embellish. It turns out to be a “vacation” for Obama that included warships, aircraft carriers, 3,000 people and one tenth of the U.S. Navy. Note that Bachmann said it was with 2,000 people. Wonder were the other 1,000 people came from?
Cooper thought that he should check on this little piece of information. Any responsible reporter should check the facts, especially one as big as this one. It does have to be asked why a representative of the United States congress didn’t ask the same questions before talking about them?
What Cooper found out is a little different then the story making the rounds. The short of it is, the story comes from an unnamed alleged Indian official from Maharashtra (a state in India) talking about the cost of the entire Asian trip by the American President. Now that is a great source.
The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell is quoted as saying to Cooper, “I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy and some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president’s trip to Asia. That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.” He went on to say that the entire war in Afghanistan is costing $190 million dollars a day.
Robert Gibbs, the White House secretary said that for security reasons, they don’t make detailed comments about travel plans and arrangements for the President. But, he did say that, “I am not going to go into how much it costs to protect the president, [but this trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip doesn’t cost $200 million a day.” Trips by Bush and Clinton of similar size to similar destinations cost only about $5.2 million per day, inflation adjusted.
Every day we all need to make decisions about our government and the people that we elect to help operate it. Our decisions are based on the information we are provided. If we have bad information, we will always make bad decisions.
If that bad information comes from people that we place trust in, if they only repeat rumors and stories that sound too good to check, there is no hope, we will be a demo-crazy
-----
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Justice wins in New York terrorism trial
In the old western movies from the 40’s and 50’s, when they would try to hang the bad guy, someone would ask, “shouldn’t we give him a trial?” The answer that came back was often, “Good idea, then we’ll hang him.”
A jury in New York yesterday convicted Tanzanian Ahmed Ghailani of conspiracy and sentenced him to 20 years to life. He was a Guantanamo Bay detainee that is said to have helped plan the bombing of United States government buildings in 1998. He was moved to a civilian court in an attempted by the Obama administration to demonstrate that “terrorist” could be tried in civilian courts. They acquitted him of more than 280 other charges.
Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, said that a light sentence like that and acquittal on the other charges will not happen again because “the Republicans are now in charge” after the recent election. King is about ready to take over the chair of Homeland Security Committee.
It sounds like the old western again. “Oh, ya, will give him a trial then hang him.”
Keep in mind this wasn’t a jury selected from Chicago or Kansas City that haven’t felt the brunt of “terrorism” like New York City. [I will continue to use the word “terrorist” for a little longer, but these aren’t terrorist, they are common criminals that have been given a glorified name that makes them out to more than they are.] The jury was selected from the people of the city that has had the most trouble with terrorism. All New Yorkers that were alive when the towers were attack remembers the deep fear and anger that exploded inside of them on that day. But yet, they found him not guilty on a slew of charges. If anyone would want to simply give him a trial and then hang him, it would be them.
Could it be, it is daringly asked, Ghailani could be innocent on the other charges? Could it be that the government hadn’t made a strong enough case? Representative King said that the rest of the Gitmo detainees should be tried in a military court. Is that because he is just looking for a hanging and not justice?
The “terrorist”, to be called criminals from here on out in this post, win the most converts to their cause when the United States operates in secrecy. When the country does hold trial in private, all kinds of stories can be weaved about what is “really” happening. To hold trial in an open civilian court with all to observe, it is much more difficult to weave the tales.
But, even deeper as far as our culture and community are concerned, it is justice. In countries that do not hold true to the trilogy of justice; laws made by consensus, enforced by an independent executive and judged by an independent court system; open trial doesn’t and can’t happen. We only need to look at what happen in Iran in the past couple of months. Three people were held captive and not given the opportunity to challenge their case in open court. We all condemned the Iranian government for not properly holding hearings and presenting their case. How is it we can condemned them for actions that we might take on our own?
Just because Ghailani was acquitted on all but one of the charges, doesn’t mean the United State’s court system isn’t the right place for these common criminals. He is going to spend 20 years in prison. New York City wasn’t attacked as many said it would be. There wasn’t an attempt to break him out of prison.
In an honest and open system like ours, there is risk. Risk that someone may get off. But that is a far better risk then giving the enemy more ammunition by holding the trials in secret prisons far from any kind of justice.
The prison at Guantanamo Bay must close. Yes, that message is for all the Peter Kings of the country, but also for President Obama.
-----
A jury in New York yesterday convicted Tanzanian Ahmed Ghailani of conspiracy and sentenced him to 20 years to life. He was a Guantanamo Bay detainee that is said to have helped plan the bombing of United States government buildings in 1998. He was moved to a civilian court in an attempted by the Obama administration to demonstrate that “terrorist” could be tried in civilian courts. They acquitted him of more than 280 other charges.
Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, said that a light sentence like that and acquittal on the other charges will not happen again because “the Republicans are now in charge” after the recent election. King is about ready to take over the chair of Homeland Security Committee.
It sounds like the old western again. “Oh, ya, will give him a trial then hang him.”
Keep in mind this wasn’t a jury selected from Chicago or Kansas City that haven’t felt the brunt of “terrorism” like New York City. [I will continue to use the word “terrorist” for a little longer, but these aren’t terrorist, they are common criminals that have been given a glorified name that makes them out to more than they are.] The jury was selected from the people of the city that has had the most trouble with terrorism. All New Yorkers that were alive when the towers were attack remembers the deep fear and anger that exploded inside of them on that day. But yet, they found him not guilty on a slew of charges. If anyone would want to simply give him a trial and then hang him, it would be them.
Could it be, it is daringly asked, Ghailani could be innocent on the other charges? Could it be that the government hadn’t made a strong enough case? Representative King said that the rest of the Gitmo detainees should be tried in a military court. Is that because he is just looking for a hanging and not justice?
The “terrorist”, to be called criminals from here on out in this post, win the most converts to their cause when the United States operates in secrecy. When the country does hold trial in private, all kinds of stories can be weaved about what is “really” happening. To hold trial in an open civilian court with all to observe, it is much more difficult to weave the tales.
But, even deeper as far as our culture and community are concerned, it is justice. In countries that do not hold true to the trilogy of justice; laws made by consensus, enforced by an independent executive and judged by an independent court system; open trial doesn’t and can’t happen. We only need to look at what happen in Iran in the past couple of months. Three people were held captive and not given the opportunity to challenge their case in open court. We all condemned the Iranian government for not properly holding hearings and presenting their case. How is it we can condemned them for actions that we might take on our own?
Just because Ghailani was acquitted on all but one of the charges, doesn’t mean the United State’s court system isn’t the right place for these common criminals. He is going to spend 20 years in prison. New York City wasn’t attacked as many said it would be. There wasn’t an attempt to break him out of prison.
In an honest and open system like ours, there is risk. Risk that someone may get off. But that is a far better risk then giving the enemy more ammunition by holding the trials in secret prisons far from any kind of justice.
The prison at Guantanamo Bay must close. Yes, that message is for all the Peter Kings of the country, but also for President Obama.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)