Image 01

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Top 5 Reasons Why Trying Terrorists in Military Tribunals Would Be a Huge Mistake

Monday, February 1st, 2010

This morning Rasmussen reported that the majority of Americans think that terrorists should be tried by military tribunal and not outside of Guantanamo Bay. Presumably, their reasoning follows along the lines that terrorists should not be granted the same rights and protections granted to U.S. citizens facing criminal prosecution, and a general “not in my backyard” sentiment when it comes to choosing a location for the trials. Both of these arguments against Federal trials in civilian populated areas seem quite fair on their face. However, that doesn’t necessarily make them right.

It is possible to create a much longer list on this issue, but here are the top five reasons why terrorists should not be tried by Military Tribunals.

5. We don’t need to give terrorists more recruitment material. From mistreatment in prisons, to Guantanamo Bay itself, we’ve been fueling the fires of resentment against us, and handing recruitment material to terrorists on a silver platter. Bluntly, we’re better than that.

4. The “rights” we would be giving them aren’t real. Be honest. We’ve seen plenty of trials involving heinous crimes in this nation, and we’ve all known very well that when the accused were actually guilty, the trials were often just shows. Does anyone seriously think that any amount of work done by a defense attorney on behalf of the terrorists would cause them to be found “not guilty”?

3. Anything but a public trial would be ineffective in the end. Military Tribunals would be carried out behind closed doors, and only the results would be known to the public. That would do a great disservice to our country. The world needs to see the inner-workings of these proceedings, period. If it is not known, we add to reason five here, and additionally create an environment of distrust worldwide. We’re the freedom nation. Why do we need to hide?

2. Logistics is not an excuse in the age of technology. Security rightfully should be of the highest concern. But why are we even considering this as we would any other sort of trial in the past? We’ve never been in this position before, so we have the opportunity to bend the rules a little. It isn’t even a matter of bending the rules – defendants have attended trials in the past via closed circuit television due to security concerns. Leave the defendants behind bars, and let them view the proceedings via television. It’s not like there isn’t a gaggle of teleconferencing firms out there that have the technology to manage this.

1. Terrorists are not entitled to trials by Military Tribunals. By trying terrorists in Military Tribunals as opposed to civilian courts, we would be validating their cause as a legitimate military action, and would grant them the status of military combatants on a field of battle. The cause of any terrorist organization is not worthy of such status. If that were the case, then we probably should have tried Timothy McVeigh in a Military Tribunal, simply because he felt that he should declare war on the U.S. Terrorists are not military combatants – they are common criminals. They do not wage war on a field of battle – they attack civilians. They are mass murderers, pure and simple. Treating them as anything else would be granting them some level of honor. It’s sad to think that so many Americans want to do just that.

TwitterTechnorati FavoritesStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

The Citizens United Ruling and Why Ignorance Is Not Bliss

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

“The world of American Politics is populated with individuals that rely on the ignorance of the masses to maintain their seats of power.”

It’s been well over twenty years since a fellow traveler working a local campaign said that to me. He wasn’t a political genius – just a disgruntled pollster on his fifth or sixth round of scotch, trying to drown his sorrows over a recent loss.

I’ve remembered the statement all these years, but rarely dust it off. In spite of the fact that I’m generally a cynic, that one is just a bit more cynical than I usually am. Right now it comes to mind not for its cynicism, but for its truth.

While many warn of the negative implications(2) of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, and some offer potential responses to it, there is very little talk about truly practical solutions. Pointing out that ruling is misguided, or suggesting legislative remedies either do nothing, or leave openings for future similar rulings.

At this point no matter which side one is on with this issue, it can be assumed that everyone speaking out on this ruling is relying on the veracity of that statement given to me by a not-so-sober pollster. Either one is out there crying to protect the masses from the evil corporations, or rejoicing at the lifting of previous restrictions in campaign advertising. If there is a middle ground where people are demanding that the public be offered more education on the political process, they are being drowned out.

Now more than at any other time in our history, information is currency, and we are awash in it. We are bombarded with it from the moment we wake, until we drift off to sleep. It is impossible to avoid it. That is the crux of the argument for both sides, one claiming that those with the most money will be able to drown out the rest, and the other claiming that the people are entitled to information regardless of the timing or source. The irony is that both are right.

Instead of crying foul or rejoicing in a hollow victory, there should be a general outcry for increased voter education. Losing an election because the masses were influenced by the loudest voices or winning simply because one’s message dominated the airwaves are equal. The first is an obvious loss, but the second is not real victory either. When voters realize that they were bought with lies or distortions or simply a passing fad, the “winner” loses their support in the long-run. Ignorance of the masses can win the day, but rarely earns long-standing loyalty – sooner or later the masses figure out the truth.

As it stands right now, voters often don’t know what they are voting for. Campaign managers rely on this. I’ve spent scores of campaigns working at the polls, and watching voters that didn’t know what the job descriptions were for the local row offices they were electing officials to fill. I learned to hate the little button that lets voters choose a straight ticket. The one thing I loved was answering questions – if someone bothered to ask me about who was on the ballot, or about the offices up for grabs, I knew that at least that person wanted to attempt to make an educated choice.

When I worked to promote voter registration, I would regularly tell people that they should sit down and think about what they wanted their elected officials to do for them before casting their ballots. They should pay attention to the advertisements, but not assume that they were truthful. Finally, if they were still in doubt, I said that they should stop and talk to the pollsters on the way in to the polling place – all of them, not just the ones associated with their chosen party. A few times I actually ended up being questioned at the polls by voters I’d recruited, and those times are easily some of the best memories I have.

The Citizens United ruling is an opportunity. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about change over the past couple years, and now we’ve been presented with a chance to prove whether or not real change is in the wind. Will we roll over and let corporations dictate what voters do at the polls simply by spending money? Or will we take this opportunity to reach out to the masses and drag them out of the ignorance that so many political operatives rely?

TwitterTechnorati FavoritesStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Belated Happy Constitution Day or an open letter to SCOTUS

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Let me preface this by saying that I am not (nor will I ever be) a Constitutional scholar. However, I am a perpetual student of politics and history, and am speaking from that perspective.

In a perfect world, the Supreme Court of the United States would be absolutely immune to political influences. Since that is patently against human nature, that isn’t the case. However, the matter of following history at least a little is generally at the heart of many rulings we see handed down from our highest court. When these references to history are centered around relatively modern circumstances – situations and rulings from the previous century, for example – they are usually quite appropriate. But when a statement begins with something like “the framers of the Constitution intended…”, every fiber of my being wants to scream out in protest.

Stop that!

Stop trying to frame rulings based on what you think the authors of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote the document in the first place. In our society, we tend to poke fun at those silly pay-per-minute phone lines promising insights from beyond with the assistance of “genuine psychics.” Don’t try to put yourself in the same category as the fringe element of this nation that claims they can converse with the dead!

I know it is tempting to try to divine what the framers would do in any given situation – in a way, it’s like leaving yourselves a group of scapegoats that no one can touch. Why not leave the repercussions of your choices on someone who’s long been planted in the earth?

It’s an easy way out, and just like all other shortcuts, it has its own set of problems. Primarily, the issues that we are facing today could never have been predicted by the most intelligent persons on the planet at the time the Constitution was drafted. That said, why in the world would anyone really want to know what people then would think about what is happening now?

The only thing that the framers thought about that is worth considering is the mechanism for change. They were not arrogant enough to think that their words would perpetually remain the law of this land, and they left us instruments for change. That includes you. You are not meant to play time-traveling mind readers. The Constitution is your starting point. The needs of this nation are your primary concern. Respect the memory of the framers not by trying to imitate them, but by expanding on what they started. Mention them only on the anniversary of their accomplishment. There are 364 days left until you need to pay homage to them. Use that time wisely.

TwitterTechnorati FavoritesStumbleUponFacebookDeliciousDiggShare

Secured for spam by MLW and Associates, LLP's Super CAPTCHASecured by Super-CAPTCHA © 2009-2010 MLW & Associates, LLP. All rights reserved.

Featuring WPMU Bloglist Widget by YD WordPress Developer