Commission of Inquiry

The last participation topic really got me thinking.  Senator Patrick Leahy proposed to create a Commission of Inquiry to examine the national security faults of the Bush Administration that led to torturing detainees, warantless wiretapping, and more.  I firmly stand by Senator Leahy's proposal for such a commission.  With everything that is happening, national security is definitely a huge factor in the success of our nation in the present and the future.  In order to move forward and further our national security, we must first understand what has happened in the past regarding this issue.  With the Bush Administration's faults leading to such problems as previously stated, past national security needs to be examined and studied so that such problems do not again arise in the future.  Just like any other major event in history, as Americans, we study what has happened so that we can not only make the same mistakes over and over with the same outcome, but we need to study it also to learn from the mistakes and fix whatever problems occurred so that America's national security is not a major problem in the future.  Although there were problems, as with anything, everyone makes mistakes.  The Bush Administration is no different.  They made mistakes regarding several things, including national security.  It just so happens that the national security issue is a major one and desperately needs to be addressed.  With a Commission of Inquiry, we would have specific people diving into the Bush Administration's national security plans and study just what went wrong and also what went right. 

Death Penalty Approach

I completely agree with my classmate's opinion of the death penalty.  One reason this captured my attention is because I have a strong opinion on the subject.  I am 100% pro death penalty.  And after reading, "Keep the Murdering Bastards Alive?!?!" by my classmate, I found that I am definitely not alone. 

She talks of a bill that was introduced to Congress in March that would, "repeal death penalty provisions for a wide range of homicide-related offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the federal criminal code, the Controlled Substance Act, and other statutes relating to aircraft hijacking, espionage and treason, and offenses punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."  Just the thought of this bill going through scares me! 

The criminals that go to great lengths, some not so great, to end someone's life is outrageous.  And now there are people out there trying to get a bill passed to prohibit these criminals from being punished as they should...by the death penalty.  They ended the lives of other individuals, why should they get the chance to enjoy three meals a day, air conditioning, a bed to sleep on, jobs, and recreational activities?  For many of the criminals, a day in prison is far easier and better than a day back home doing who knows what!  By not sentencing the convicted criminals to the death penalty, we would just be giving them a nice day to enjoy hot meals and recreational activities.  Instead, they should be punished just as they have punished their victims and the victims' families. 

I agree with my classmate when she states that she thinks the criminals should suffer just as they made their victims suffer.  It sounds like a pretty good deal, but with the good old Constitution protecting their rights, this will never happen.  Even with the Constitution firmly doing so, I believe the death penalty is a good alternative.  With lethal injection, the criminals don't even have to suffer.  Now, isn't that nice?

Invasion of Privacy

I feel very strongly towards personal privacy, but in today's society, it's become a controversial topic.  Regarding the government's power upon a citizen's privacy, I truly believe that the government does have the right to "eavesdrop" or be cautious of what the people of this nation are doing, planning, or saying.  With the issue of "warrantless wiretapping", I personally believe that it's a good thing.  If an act such as the events of 9/11 could have been avoided in any way by possibly catching on to what those terrorists were doing, why is it such a bad thing?  The government is trying to keep this country safe.  I stand firmly that a citizen's rights should not be violated, but there is no constitutional right to privacy.  It just doesn't exist.  I have no problem allowing the government to "listen' to my phone calls and filter my conversations to look for words or phrases that might have to do with terrorist acts or bombings or anything regarding harm to this nation.  After the events of 9/11, I feel that something did need to be done, and now that the government is "prying" just a little bit more, I feel that certain situations will be avoided.  And for that, I am grateful.  The United States is in a state of extraordinary times and I feel extraordinary measures should be taken, and if that means I give up a little privacy for it, then that's fine by me.

Although I feel this way, I need to state that the "invasion of privacy" needs to stay at a minimum level unless there is probable cause to further that.  A person's privacy should not be completely be imposed upon.  I'm aware that this does raise questions as to what extent to take the governmental interference, and I think that what the government is currently doing is fine.  If they have probable cause to further investigate into a citizen's life or intentions, then that's okay, but they should not have the right to do so simply because they want to. 

Texas as an Executioner

This morning, Mary Shaw gave her opinion on the death row case of Hank Skinner: "In death row case, Supreme Court came through but Texas remains guilty."  She begins by explaining the case in which Hank Skinner was issued a stay of execution by the United States Supreme Court.  Apparently, the Supreme Court thought he should be allowed his civil rights and be entitled to DNA testing that he believes would prove his innocence.  Skinner received this news an hour before he was supposed to be killed.

Why is this important?  Well, it is becoming clearer that the main interest of Texas is to kill people they feel are guilty.  But the reality is that Texas may be executing the wrong people, which Shaw makes very clear in her blog.  In the Skinner case, the testing of his DNA could possibly prove his innocence and release him from death row.  Shaw also gives some insight to other cases that suggest that Texas is guilty of wrongful execution.  In 2004, Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for the alleged arson murders of his daughters.  Last September, it was brought to the public's attention that he may not have been responsible at all.  Evidence showed that the fire for which he was executed might have been pure accident.  Another case involving Reginald Blanton is quite questionable.  Texas executed Blanton last October, arguing that he murdered his friend.  According to Randi Jones of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Blanton's case is an example of prosecutor misconduct.  They excluded African Americans from the jury pool, for one.  There was also no physical evidence concluding Blanton's guilt of the crime.  Shaw states, "Blanton was forced to rely on an incompetent public defender who failed to present evidence of innocence at the original trial."

Shaw clearly states that she blames Texas for wrongfully executing people, and I completely agree.  In each of the cases discussed earlier, there is obvious reasonable doubt as to the guilty party.  Texas courts have been overlooking evidence and jumping at the chance to "put a man under," even if he could possibly be innocent.  I am thankful for the Supreme Court allowing Skinner's stay of execution so that he has a chance to prove his innocence, if that is, in fact, the case by testing his DNA.  Light has been shed on this subject and I truly hope that people begin to see how much of a problem this is and can possibly be even more so in the future.  I know that there are flaws in the legal system, but is it too much to ask that better steps be taken as to proving guilt?

Terrorism

In the article, "The First Tea-Party Terrorist?", Robert Wright talks of Joseph Stack's actions and reasoning for those actions in retrospect to terrorism.  As Austin surely knows, Stack set fire to his home before he flew his airplane into the Echelon building which houses many IRS offices.  Officials later found his manifesto stating his problems with the government and his tax evasion.  There's obviously more to it than just that, but that's not all this article is about.  Aiming and the general American public, Wright explains that Joseph Stack could have been a Tea Partier, a group that deals with anti-tax protests and issues.  Since this party deals with anti-tax, it would seem natural to place Mr. Stack into this category.  Wright suggests Stack's attack could have been the first of this Tea Party, causing the government to put more focus on tax-related issues than it already does.  Wright also states that "the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage", which was a big deal to Stack.  Wright also refers to the term "terrorist".  He states that "a terrorist is someone who attacks in the name of a political cause and aims to spread terror - to foster fear that such attacks will be repeated until grievances are addressed."

Terrorism is a big part of what puts fear into the eyes and hearts of Americans, especially after the 9/11 attacks.  I agree with the common usage of what a terrorist is, and I completely agree that Joseph Stack was a terrorist.  But this time was different than the 2001 attacks.  This time the attack against America was an American.  Because of his hardships and issues with the government, Stack felt the need to strike fear into America and consider himself as part of a cause - fighters against tyranny.  Stack also believed that there will be many more people to join the cause and strike out against it, which I agree with.  No matter what happens, there is always going to be someone who feels they are hurting worse than others and will feel the need to, again, spread terror throughout the nation to get their point across.  I will argue that stack being considered a Tea Partier is irrelevant.  Okay, there is a group of people that are protesting against some political and governmental issue...welcome to America!  The fact is that terrorists take things to a whole new level and cause detriment to the areas they strike.  I feel the issue is just that: terrorists.  Due to what this nation has faced, there are always going to be certain individuals that feel the need to take things a step further than need be.  Joseph Stack may have been well-suited to be placed in the Tea Party category against taxes, fine.  But there are always groups protesting one thing or another.  It's the fact that terrorists exist, and they will always come out of the shadows and into the light to spread fear and anger in the hearts of American citizens.  The fact that it's happened before will be more motivation for terrorists to feel like they can repeat what has already been done, or maybe they will feel the need to "one up" their "competition" and strike out in worse ways, if that's possible.

The Race for Texas Governor

The race for governor is on.  Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina was doing quite well...until now.  She is currently dealing with the fallout from her statements regarding the 9/11 attacks.  Talk show host Glenn Beck questioned her on whether or not she thought the United States government was involved in the tragic attacks.  She tried to dodge the question, stating she didn't have enough information on the subject to provide an answer, but she did say that there are very good arguments in regard to America being involved.  She later tried to do damage control by stating that she didn't believe the government was actually involved, but the damage had already been done.  Perry and Hutchison pounced on the chance to sling mud at their competitor, saying she is "un-American" for believing the U.S. was involved in the attacks.  I feel this is a very good article displaying the tensions among the candidates before the election, which is obviously very important to Texas at this time. 

Read more here: Debra Medina