Supreme Court rules against Military Tribunals

So, the Supreme Court, in specific reference to Hamdan, a detainee who admitted he was bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard, rejected the authority of the executive to try prisoners in military tribunals.

From CNN: “The enemy combatant designation, according to the Bush administration, means the suspect can be held without charges in a military prison without the protections of the U.S. criminal justice system, such as the right to counsel — a status the [Supreme] court rejected.” These people have been denied so many protections that the Constitution guarantees them. It’s ironic they’re held in a prison that flies the American flag, while the policies fly in the face of our highest law.

It’s refreshing to see a ruling that defends civil liberties come out of the court, after they ruled that police don’t have to knock before entering a person’s home. Although, Bush’s buddy Alito ruled in favor of the government, and Roberts, absent from the Supreme Court ruling, had ruled in favor of the government at the appellate level. I’m sure Bush is happy that they’re defending his outrageous, draconian power-grabs.

Flag desecration

An open letter to the Senators of the United States (those who support the proposed Amendment):

Senator, my name is Ryan Jenkins and I am a resident of Florida and a registered voter.

I urge you to reconsider your stance on the flag desecration amendment before the Senate. The Supreme Court has made it clear on multiple occasions that laws that ban flag burning are Unconstitutional and a violation of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Although I was pleased to see that the vote did not pass today, I am deeply, deeply concerned about the legislature’s continued attempt to check the judiciary by passing a law against established judicial precedent — an authority to which the Congress has no claim. And you must realize that, if passed, the judiciary would likely overrule such an amendment as Unconstitutional.

I urge you to respect the power of the judiciary in defending the Constitutional rights of the American citizen, and to end your attempts to curtail the rights of American citizens. Flag burning is nothing more than an offensive brand of speech, and while I do not endorse it, I understand that the First amendment protects ALL SPEECH within the United States of America, even speech with which we disagree. It is our Bill of Rights that makes us such a wonderful free society, please do not curtail our freedom.

Sincerely,
Ryan Jenkins

Tracking international banking

This new issue with tracking international banking, as reported in the New York Times, does not bother me.

It’s possible that I don’t feel threatened because I don’t routinely transfer sums of a thousand dollars between foreign banks. But I don’t subscribe to that argument when it is used by conservatives to defend phone taps mutatis mutandis. “I’m not a terrorist, so I don’t have anything to hide.”

As well, I don’t chastise the New York Times for reporting the program. It is silly for the administration to be up at arms over something so obvious, or at least, something already widely known. For example, before the NSA phonetapping program was revealed, an episode of ‘24′ showed one terrorist slapping another for talking to a cohort over the phonelines.

If TV terrorists can figure it out, I think real terrorists, who would be much more careful, since their actual survival is on the line, would figure it out as well.

The same goes for this program. George Bush said before, in the aftermath of September 11th, that the country was working to freeze the monetary assets of terrorist organizations abroad. Why is this revelation profound and offensive to the administration, if we already knew about their foreign assets? Beats me. We had to get that information somehow.

But I haven’t solved the problem: the seeming contradiction in my rebuke of the NSA’s program but acceptance of the bank spying. What sort of relevant disanalogies are to be found? Well, it is more difficult to link an account number to a name than it is to link a telephone to a name — although possibly not for the government.

Maybe it’s that I’ve always accepted that governments do this kind of work, follow the money as it were. I can’t say that it is more likely this will produce a lead on a real terrorist, since calling a known terrorist cell phone number is probably as good a clue as any.

Perhaps the simple answer is that this program of bank spying does not resemble the NSA phonetapping, in that it was not an intrusive measure, involving the eavesdropping of Americans wholesale, instituted in the sensational days immediately after September 11th, when all of our collective reason faltered. As well, the administration insists that it is within the law on this particular program, procuring warrants when necessary. They have not fallen back onto the defense that, while they are not procuring warrants, what they are doing is within the Constitution.

Finally, I trust the New York Times’, as a member of the press, the fourth estate, whose implicit objective is to provide as a check on the government, in its reporting. I cannot speak for how I would feel about the program if I didn’t know it existed, but I feel comfortable now that it has been brought to light, and I trust that a large number of dedicated individuals are pouring over law texts to make sure this is within the government’s bounds. In like fashion, several states have sued the federal government in an attempt to make it divulge information about the NSA program. Now that it has been brought to light in similar manner, it can be investigated and, if necessary, altered or abolished. That is the purpose of the fourth estate. That is the purpose of the courts. I feel that both, together, will form an effective check on the far-reaching powers of the Imperial President, at least in this instance.

The Political Sway of Soccer

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and has been a few times praised for its power to unite. For example, a cease fire was agreed upon between rebels and the government in some country (the name escapes me, if I recall correctly it was a country in South America) for this World Cup. But I point out that soccer has also led to the creation of an entirely new archetype of hooligan — sure, it’s a stereotype, but just today on CNN’s page you can find a video of German and English soccer fans fighting in the streets. And it appears to be quite a large civil disturbance.

In much the same way, the shared religion of German and British troops led to the Christmas Eve cease fire in World War I. But we should not forget that Christianity also led to the Crusades.

And while a group of tenets — be it a soccer team one follows, or a savior one believes in — may be cause for good, it may also be cause for suffering. God knows how many people died in the Crusades, some say that more people died fighting for Jesus than died fighting for Hitler. It’s difficult, however, to find a casualty count of the Crusades. Interestingly enough, the so-called “Children’s Crusade” was fought because it was believed God would protect his innocents. So, wave after wave of young children were slaughtered as they tried to retake the Holy Land, all in the name of God.

The only thing that will provide legitimate, long lasting peace, is the simple understanding of the mutual benefit that peace will bring. No sport and no religion will bring world peace, even if they be universally accepted — as there are violent fights between fans of different teams and different sects of religion.

It is silly to praise a sport for having produced a cease fire. It is much more sensical to encourage a deep compassion that would lead to a much more effective, much more genuine, and much more beneficial end to hostilities.

Infanticide

From Peter Singer’s “Practical Ethics”:

“If these conclusions seem too shocking to take seriously, it may be worth remembering that our present absolute protection of the lives of infants is a distinctively Christian attitude rather than a universal ethical value. Infanticide has been practised in societies ranging geographically from the nomadic Australian aboriginies to the sophisticated urban communities of ancient Greece or mandarin China. In some of these societies, infanticide was not merely permitted but, in certain circumstances, deemed morally obligatory. Not to kill a deformed or sickly infant was often regarded as wrong, and infanticide was probably the first, and in several societies the only, form of population control.

“We might think that we are just more ‘civilised’ than these ‘primitive’ peoples. But it is not easy to feel confident that we are more civilised than the best Greek and Roman moralists. It was not just the Spartans who exposed their infants on hillsides: both Plato and Aristotle recommended the killing of deformed infants. Romans like Seneca, whose compassionate moral sense strikes the modern reader as superior to that of the early and medieval Christian writers, also thought infanticide the natural and humane solution to the problem posed by sick and deformed babies. The change in Western attitudes to infanticide since Roman times is, like the doctrine of the sanctity of human life of which it is a part, a product of Christianity. Perhaps it is now possible to think about these issues without assuming the Christian moral framework that has, for so long, prevented any fundamental reassessment.”

I am eager to see how the South Dakota abortion plebiscite turns out. If you want to talk about activists, I’d talk about Legislators passing radical bills the public has no say in. Despite the fact that, technically, these people did elect their Representatives to pass bills, I highly doubt that every one of the candidates made clear their stance on abortion — or else this wouldn’t come as such a shock, and there wouldn’t be thirty-eight thousand signatures of people who want the bill to go to a popular vote.

In addition, the fact that they would outlaw abortion in cases of rape to me represents a powerful moral shortfall.

Liberators

John Murtha quoted a few polls on MSNBC: Eighty percent of Iraqis want Americans out, and forty-two percent think it’s alright to kill American soldiers in Iraq. Forty-two percent of Iraqis sympathize with the insurgents. What happened to being liberators? We continue to occupy Iraq against the will of the people — which seems wrong from a democratic standpoint. And I reject the idea that we have the right to shove democracy down these peoples’ throats. By now, after we have killed terrorists, after we have liberated them from Saddam, shouldn’t they warm up to us? Whatever little thanks they have is being clouded by the fact that the majority of them want us out, and soon.

Bush 41 on Atheism

Roger I. Sherman (reporter): Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
George H. W. Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
–August 27, 1987. Campaign press conference at O’Hare Airport, Chicago.

Jesus Lord God Almighty. I am content in my assertion that a government, especially ours under the Consitution, would be patently wrong in discriminating against a person on the grounds of their religion.

Liberals destroying marriage

The divorce rate is lowest in Connecticut, at thirty-three percent. Much lower than the national average of fifty-one percent. And strikingly lower than that of conservative strongholds Mississippi and Oklahoma — seventy-three percent and seventy-nine percent respectively. The divorce rate among atheists and agnostics is twenty-one percent, while Baptists are at twenty-nine percent and nondenominational Christians are at thirty-four percent.

Certainly, Republicans should worry about the erosion of marriage in their own camps before lashing out at gays if they are truly concerned about “protecting marriage.” This evidence suggests that they are the ones undermining our sacred institution.

World Hunger

From Peter Singer’s “Practical Ethics”:

“The problem is not that the world cannot produce enough to feed and shelter its people. People in the poor countries consume, on average, 180 kilos of grain a year, while North Americans average around 900 kilos. The difference is caused by the fact that in the rich countries we feed most of our grain to animals, converting it into meat, milk, and eggs. Because this is a highly inefficient process, people in rich countries are responsible for the consumption of far more food than those in poor countries who eat few animal products. If we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food saved would — if distributed to those who need it — be more than enough to end hunger throughout the world.”

He has previously established that, consequently there is no significant difference between actively killing a person and letting a person starve to death. His conclusion is that we in affluent nations are responsible for the deaths of starving people all over the world.

Homer Simpson on consumer responsibility

Homer, when convincing Lisa that she shares the responsibility for a lie of Bart’s, says, “It takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen.”

I won’t argue the prima facie absurdity of that moral, but, upon closer inspection, it may teach an appropriate lesson about capitalism.

In a completely laissez-faire capitalist governmentless society, where commerce is controlled through personal contracts (anarcho-capitalism), there would be no FTC to regulate trade or investigate deception. In this ideal situation for capitalism to thrive, the onus lies entirely on the consumer to filter truth from false advertising. Some capitalist ideologies maintain that truthfulness is an unnecessary step in business ethics.

In reference to today’s capitalism, the entire onus is placed on the consumer to “vote with their dollar.” Then, in perfectly informed capitalist society, the people would have a way to persuade multinational corporations and other powerful entities.

For example, when a people oppose globalization, they could refrain from buying American Coca-Cola. If this were effective enough, and said people really valued their cultural and economic independence to continue the boycott, the Coca-Cola Corporation would acknowledge the nonexistence of a profitable market in that area, and would pull out. This is all in accordance with the principles of an ideal capitalist society. The problem is that people don’t oppose globalization, or don’t take moral stances against corporations seriously enough to alter their way of life inconveniently. Another example: many people who know of Wal-Mart’s oppressive trade practices continue to support the company because their products are cheap.

It is often difficult for the individual consumer to reconcile their opposing beliefs (of morality and convenience). But until they act on their wishes and vote with their dollar, they remain complicit with the will of the corporations.