On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as illegal the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners. By a 5 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks, voilated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules. The ruling, handed down on the last day of the court's 2005-2006 term, followed the deaths of three Gitmo prisoners this month.
The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was Bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan. He was captured in November 2001 and is one of about 450 foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The court's decision only addressed the military tribunals, not the broader issues of whether enemy combants can be held indefinitely or whether the camp should be closed. Justice Stevens said the tribunals failed to provide one of the most fundamental protections under U.S. military rules, the right for a defendant to be present at all proceedings.
President Bush said that he takes the findings seriously and that the American people need to know that the ruling won't cause killers to be put out on the streets.
I feel that it is about time they do something right about Gitmo. It just isn't right to throw these people into prison and never give them a fair trail or a trail at all for that matter. Some say that the prisoners aren't getting tortured and they got what they deserved but this is not the case. The prisoners are obviously getting tortured. Why else would you hang yourself or go on hunger strikes if there wasn't some form of torture going on. I'm not saying that these prisoners should be just let off and set free. All I'm saying is that they deserve to get their day in court. It is very hypocritical for the Republican party to be for equal rights for humanity but believe and allow the Guantanamo prison to continue to operate like it is.
House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records. The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents. This resolution comes as Republicans from the presedent on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial recors from the U.S. to overseas countries.
The Standing Committee, which is a legislative commitee that exist beyond the adjournment of the legislative body, decided which orginizations and reporters can be accredited, according to the rules of both the House and Senate press galleries.
The chairwoman of the Standing Committee of Correspondents and a Boston Globe reporter, Susan Mulligan, said that under no circumstances would they revoke anyone's credentials simply because a government official is unhappy with what the reporter's newspaper has written.
President Bush criticized the reports calling the disclosure disgraceful and a great harm to national security. Vice President Dick Cheney is also voicing support for the program.
I think that if this program goes through, this will be the beginning of the end to free press in the United States. I just don't see how the government can be allowed to take away our voice. I'm not saying that every issue of national security should be leaked because it shouldn't be made a public matter. The person responsible is the person that leaked the information not the press. I stand right along side The New York Times Executive Editor Bill Kellen when he said that a free press is the key check on the goverment's abuse of power.
As you may have heard, The New York Times newspaper could possibly be facing some serious allegations about breaking national security policies by publishing a controversial story. I have many problems with all of this.
Here in America we must abide by a certain document that is known as the supreme law of the land. The famous document I am referring to is of course known as The Constitution. When our Founding Fathers wrote The Constitution, the added ten amendments intended to protect us from the government. These amendments are known as The Bill of Rights. The first amendment states and I quote, "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."
Applying this to what is going on with The New York Times goes something like this. The government wants to prosecute members of the newspaper for publishing "classified" information that is supposedly endangering American's. My problem with this is in the form of two issues. First of all, the information they published wasn't classified information. All they said was that the government is keeping an eye on money transfers between the U.S. and Middle East countries. This information is no way classified. If you didn't have any idea that this was going on then you must be living a really sheltered life.
The second issue I have on this matter is why are we trying to prosecute the publisher of the story, The New York Times? Why not go after the person who is really responsible for the crime, the person who leaked the story. The New York Times didn't leak the story, so therefore they must have got their information from somewhere, and that person is the one responsible. That person is the one that is putting the American public at a risk of national security if the so called information leaked is actually "classified" information. This goes back to the old saying, "Don't shoot the messenger." The New York Times was only doing what their Constitutional rights allow them to do, and that is report the news based on their freedom of speech and freedom of press.
The same thing happened in 1971 when a high-level Pentagon analyst by the name of Daniel Ellsburg carried a briefcase filled with documents stamped "Top Secret" out of his office with one clear plan: leak them to Congress, leak them to the press, and get the truth out about the Vietnam War. Ellsberg said his only regret is that it took him so long - two years - to copy and leak the 7,000-page study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam to Congress and the press. Ellsberg was indicted for espionage and at one point faced 115 years in jail. Charges were dropped when it was revealed that President Richard Nixon's operatives burglarized the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in order to discredit him. All this information was reported by the The New York Times who was the source for the leak of these Pentagon Papers. The government tried to prosecute The New York Times as well but of course the charges on them got dropped because they had no legal bounds for the allegations. I think if Nixon had not tried to pull some funny business then Ellsberg would have been convicted.
I truly think that if the government intervenes and puts a censorship on what the media can and cannot publish, then we are moving closer to becoming a communist government. This is everything the American way stands against. If the government censors what one can publish then what is stopping them from taking it to the extreme. What is stopping them from taking away our speech and opinions altogether. A person without an opinion is like a person with no heart or soul. You have to have the right to stand up for yourself and speak out in what you believe in whether it is right or wrong. Prosecuting The New York Times will not solve anything. It will only make matters worse.
To sum everything up I think that the two extreme conditions will still go against the American way. If you censor the press to its entirety then you are communist but if you don't censor at all then the country will have no secrets and all the other nations will know everything we are doing which will jeopardize national security. You must have some sort of regulations to stop the two extreme cases from happening.
The Supreme Court entered the debate over global warming on Monday. Their intent is rule on whether new cars, trucks, and power plants must be regulated to slow climate change due to global warming. The case is to be heard in the fall and could be one of the most important environmental disputes ever to come before the court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor, auto makers could be forced to produce a fleet of vehicles that will emit less pollution in our environment.
Until now, the threat of global warming has prompted much public debate, but little governmental action. All I have to say is its about time. The government needs to get involved on this issue. Something needs to be done to stop the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Maybe after The Supreme Court rules, President Bush will start taking this issue seriously. The future of our children are at stake here. Just pray that The Supreme Court will vote in favor so we all can live longer, healther lives.
According to an article in the 6-22-06 edition of the LSU school newspaper, The Reveille, LSU will now become a walking campus starting in the fall 2006 semester. The reason for this change is for both aesthetic and safety reasons. According to LSU Office of Facility Development project manager Dennis Mitchell, it will give LSU the feel of a unified college campus.
According to a poll on the LSU Reveille website, 61% of the people say that students should be allowed to drive on campus during school hours while 39% are opposed to it. I am a part of the 39%. If you've never been to the beautiful campus of Louisiana State University, you should visit it. One thing you will notice is that there are two main road that pass directly through campus. One is Highland Road and the other is Nicholson Drive. Neither of these roads will be closed based on the new plan due to the high traffic volumes of these roads. The roads that will be closed are the road exclusive to the campus. I do not have a problem with them being closed to students. On campus there is no "central" parking lot to park in. All of our parking lots are located around the out skirts of campus. The only parking lots located in the center of campus are for faculty.
The less people driving around campus the easier it will be for pedestrians to move around campus. If the roads aren't backed up with traffic and the crosswalks blocked, then it will be a lot easier to maneuver around campus. Since students can't park near their classroom buildings anyway, they have no business driving around causing congestion. Another issue is safety. Obviously, the more people on the roadways, the greater the chances of pedestrians getting injured. I can't count how many times per semester I have to hurry through a crosswalk because of the angry, impatient student drivers on campus.
To sum everything up, I think it is a really good idea. It will keep the pedestrians safer, the campus looking neater and cleaner, and the students in a little bit better shape.
As of today, June 26, 2006, can you believe that there are still states in the nation that legally allow cock fighting. One of those states is New Mexico and of course the other is my home state, Louisiana.
I've had the opportunity to go to a cock fighting event a few years back. It took place inside an old barn contrary to the way it is mostly done today, in private. They charged you a small entry fee but once you actually got in, its something you'll never forget. In the middle of the arena was a man-made square cage surrounded by hurricane fencing. Surrounding the cage was seating to about twenty rows high. I was shocked when I first got my glimpse of the action. People were screaming and yelling all around me. They were placing illegal bets on which bird would win the fight.
You have a few different catagories of cock fights. The reason they have this is because it makes for cleaner kills. They tape artificial spurs, knives, or what looks like swords to their two feet. The two owners enter the cage and everyone starts making bets. Then the referee signal for the owners to bring the roosters together. They stand about five feet apart then on the referre's signal, they release the birds. The birds, doing as they are trained, kick and peck at the other bird until one falls helplessly. The referee then signals for the owners to pick up the birds and reposition them for another round. The referee lets this go until one bird is completely lifeless. This normally takes about three to six rounds. That night they must have had at least 50 different fights take place.
I actually know a guy that actually trains these birds for cock fighting. He pumps them full of steroids and other hormones. He spends many hours with these birds training them and making sure they grow strong to be able to handle a battle.
From a political and moral standpoint, I cannot see how in the 21st century can we still allow these barbaric activities to continue. A bill was proposed in the LA House of Representives to stop this cruel sport. It got voted down yet again. The reason for this bill being killed was the legislators saying that it would cripple our feed industry. They said it would put too much pressure on the local feed stores and would force them to go out of business. I say that is a load of bull. You can't say that a feed store's profit ability is solely relying on these cock fighters. Cock fighting should be banned for many reasons. It is barbaric. Instead of raising these rooster to fight, why not raise them for the intended meaning, for food or reproduction. Because of all the hormones and steriods they pump them birds with, after they die the only thing you can do with them is throw their bodies away like trash. This also sends a very negative meaning about the great state of Louisiana to many outsiders. If you hear that this state still allows cock fighting, you probably lose some respect for its residents, whether or not they support cock fighting. It is a disgrace to our state as well as our nation to allow this cruel and barbaric sport to take place.
The Weekend Free-For-All is when I get away from politics and talk about other things. Today I'm going to talk about the movie: The Lake House.
Last weekend my girlfriend and I went see the movie, The Lake House. As a guy I really didn't want to see it at first but as usual, once I sit and start watching, I normally gets better. The Lake House stars Sandra Bullock and Keaunu Reeves.
I'm not going to spoil the whole plot. I'm just here to give my two cents. All in all I think it is really a good movie. For the guys out there, you'll probably just think it is OK and probably only go if your wife or girl friend bugs you to see it (this was my case). Of course, though, the female audience will love it because it has all the elements that women want to see. These elements include a love plot, a mushy ending, a breakup in the middle, a get back together, blah blah blah.
Personally once I actually sat down and started watching and getting into it, naturally I started to like it. It does have a really good plot but not too realistic with the whole two years apart thing. As a college student who loves physics, this kinda goes against everything Einstein's been preaching for years. The movie is really easy to follow and trust me, you'll like it.
From experience, I'd have to say this movie is for the older female audience. When I was in the theater with my girlfriend, we looked around and I don't know why but the majority of the crowd was of the middle-aged female. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that because I can see why this movie would appeal to that demographic. All I want to know is did you notice the large amount of middle-aged women in there? Was it only my theater? I'd love to know.
Since the launching of the Fox News network on October 7, 1996, they came up the slogan "We Report, You Decide". I feel they need to add a few words after the slogan to make it more fitting: "We Report, You Decide: On Missing White Women". If you ever watched the Fox News channel you may have noticed that the leading story on most of programs has to deal with a missing white woman. If you are new to this idea try watching On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. This show is a prime example of a "missing white woman" broadcast. Studio B with Shephard Smith is another example as well.
You may be wondering why this is so, why is Fox News's majority of its stories devoted to missing white women? I think the answer to that is pretty simple, they show us what the majority of the audience wants to see. It has been proven and stated on "The Rush Limbaugh Show" that more females are watching TV now than ever before. Woman are starting to out number men according to TV polls. Because of this, Fox News, in order to keep the majority of all news being watched, must show stories that are appealing to their new demographic, women. This is just the simple concept of whoever has the highest ratings controlls the market and makes the most profit.
Here's what I don't understand. Fox News makes it sound like the only people in America that come up missing are white woman preferably teenagers and college students. I'm pretty sure that black women, black men, and even white men come up missing in the country but you don't hear anything about it. Not many stories Fox News produces has to do with other missing people. It seems to strictly dedicated its broadcasting to the missing white women.
The problem with voting is simple; people are ignorant to the issues. Some just don't care to know what it actually is they are voting for and others just vote solely on one issue. One issue voting is hurting the American way because there are just so many other issues that you need to take into account. Before you go and vote, you need to do a little bit of homework so you know where your candidate stands. If you look at just one issue but not the rest, you really don't know who you are voting for. All you have to do is a little bit of research and find the candidate that best fits your political views.
Abortion - (Conservative) - To me, abortion is simply killing a child. There is no way of knowing what this child would have grown up to be because you physically took his right to live and no one has the right to take a life. The only way abortion is justified is if it endangers the mother's life.
Death Penality - (Liberal) - The death penality is still simply the act of taking someone's life. No matter what mistake one makes in life still does not justify putting them to death. Locking them up in prison for the rest of their life isolates them from society where they cannot harm another human being ever again. Let them sit and think about what they did, killing them would be too easy.
Homeland Security - I feel that homeland security is the biggest key to our safety as Americans. If we can secure our borders then we will have no problems with other countries attacking us. I think the military's main purpose should be homeland security. If we develop anti-missle technology, deport people people with expired visa's and greencards that are known threats, and impose stricter laws to get into this country, the U.S. would be a safer place. If terrorist in other countries cannot attack U.S. soil, then they pose no direct threat to us. We need to stop meddling in other countries affairs and take care of our own security first. We are not the World Police.
War In Iraq - (Liberal) - I am strongly against the war in Iraq not because you may think I am against war because I am not against all war. I am actually for the war in Afaghanastan because the Taliban attacked us on our own soil. Iraq was and still is no threat to the U.S. in any way. We just went in and took over thier government to replace it with one we chose that the Iraqi people never asked for. They do not want us in their country. To them, WE are the terrorist. The reason the President gave to justify the war in Iraq was because of WMD's which to this day, there has been no proof to credit this inaccurate accusation. We are simply fighting poeple who pose no threat to us.
Gun Control - (Liberal) - True or False? If society does not have guns in their possession, civilians cannot shoot each other with guns. Answer: True. I'm not trying to say that by taking away guns will eliminate all violence and killings, all I'm saying is that guns make it easier to perform the act. Take away the guns and yes, people will still kill one another, but by doing this will make it a little more difficult to do. Stop federal aid until one turns in their guns, offer incentives to turn in one's guns, and freeze all financial assets until one's guns are handed over are all ways we can achieve gun control and stop the brutal murders in our society.
Illegal Immigration - Illegal immigration is exactly what it is: Illegal. We should first secure the borders with the aid of a strong fence or wall then deport all the illegal aliens. I'm not saying don't allow immigration but there are LEGAL ways to do it. It is not fair for the illegals to come into this country and work and not pay their fair share of Social Security and taxes while the hard working American public has no choice but to pay.
Prayer In Schools - (Liberal) - I feel that morals cannot be taught to us, they are instilled in us at the moment of birth. They cannot be learned just like how common-sense cannot be taught to a person. For this reason, to teach prayer in shcool is a waste of time. Prayer is between you and God only, not the school or the government. It has no business in our school systems because of Seperation of Church and State and the religious diversity here in America. If you want to pray, do it where it is welcomed....at church.
Gay Marriage - (Liberal) - I feel that homosexuals should have the right to marry for the reason that homosexuality is not a choice, it is just the way you are. Allowing them to marry harms me in no physical way what so ever. It does not violate the marriage between a man and a woman because of the fact that ones marriage is unique only to that couple. Besides, what gives me the right to tell two people who loves one another completely that they do not have the right to marry. In the church's eye, it is morally wrong but that should be between them and God, not our government.
Taxation - (Liberal) - Plain and simple, if you can afford to pay more in taxes then you should. Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit society in any way. It isn't fair to tax the rich the same dollar amount since 5,000 dollars to the lower class mean a lot more than 5,000 dollars to the wealthy.
Drug Enforcement - (Liberal) - Drug problems should be addressed with treatment issues not inprisonment. Putting people in jail for drugs do not make much sense, rehabilitation does. The act of doing drugs does not physically harm me so why should they go to jail for it. More funding for alternative plans like rehab is crutial.
