Blog
Closing Gitmo: my patriotic dissent
|
|
comments (0)
|
With the Senate blocking the release of Gitmo detainees into the United States by stripping President Obama of the $80 million in funding needed to procede with Gitmo's closing I believe it's worth noting my opposition to Gitmo's closing when it was originally announced by the President.
-------------------------
President Obama, in keeping a campaign promise, signed an executive order to close Gitmo in one year. By doing so he has suspended the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; a detainee willing to plead guilty to his involvement in the 9/11 attacks & who was also involved with the February 26th, 1993 attack on the World Trade Center making him involved with the likes of Ramzi Yousef & Abdul Rahman Yasin just to name a couple. We've already released more than 500 detainees from Gitmo & about 60 of them have returned to acts of terror. About 250 detainees remain at Gitmo. Where will they go?
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) says he'd be willing to hold the Gitmo detainees in a maximum security prison in his district. Great --- problem solved. Except Murtha doesn't have a maximum security prison in his district; only a minimum security prison. Oh how convenient. Would you like them in your district? Even in a maximum security prison?
President Obama told Katie Couric that he wanted to "capture or kill" bin Laden. But, pinning him in a cave unable to communicate with his operatives would be satisfactory in protecting the United States. My problem is that if we don't kill bin Laden where will we hold him upon capture? John Murtha's district?
When President Bush was considering closing Gitmo after much criticism from European nations only Albania stepped up to the task. Bush's consideration died because of the lack of cooperation from our European friends. Now Portugal, France, Germany & Switzerland say they'll consider taking the remaining detainees. Great --- let's ship them before they change their minds because I don't want them here.
Today, I offer my first opposition to the actions of President Obama. I'm guessing that if he continues with more of the campaign promises I had a problem with that I'll be dissenting even more in the future. David Harsanyi has already asked "Is Dissent Still Patriotic?" Since dissent was considered patriotic for the last eight years I too wonder how it will be received as we move forward. Maybe we can ask Rush Limbaugh how his dissent has already been received. While I may not share Limbaugh's zeal for an Obama failure I do have my own reservations about the new adminsitration. My hope is that President Obama fails in passing some of his liberal policies that I disagree with just as I voiced my opposition to certain policies under President Bush; such as the bad immigration bill they tried to push through.
While some policies may need to change I believe Gitmo should remain open & the trials should move forward; even at their slow pace to ensure we get it right & get the convictions. Setting & sticking to a standard of no torture may be a good idea but it should also be noted that Gitmo does not equal torture.
I should note in closing that it's good to see President Obama come around on military tribunals. There just may be "hope" after all.
Secession Or Sovereignty
|
|
comments (0)
|
Back in April, just as the Tax Day Tea Parties were swelling with support, Texas Governor Rick Perry made this statement:
"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state," Gov. Perry said. "That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states' rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union."
Since then the Tea Parties have come & gone & some folks seem to think that states reaffirming their rights guaranteed through the 10th Amendment means a secession movement is brewing. While it may be true that some folks do support a secessionist movement I don't believe that's what the majority of states' rights people are suggesting. It's the sovereignty of the individual states; not secession.
My issue is that some folks seem to think that sovereignty & secession are the same thing. They are not. Secession would be a complete separation from the union. They would give up military protection. They would have to come up with their own currency. Secession would be more complicated than I believe some folks who may support it realize. However, asserting state sovereignty is not the same thing.
The 10th Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which is quite similar to a provision that was in the Articles of Confederation (our original document set forth to govern us).
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
I believe by looking at both documents we can get a real sense of what our founders had in mind concerning too much power centralized at the federal level & why states' rights & sovereignty was & still is so important.
States wanting to assert their sovereignty seem to be taking issue with what they perceive as an overreaching federal government. Even though many folks might agree with that far reaching arm of the federal government, states have the right to slap back that far reaching hand. Governor Perry has expressed issues with sending money to Washington only to have it sent back to the people with strings attached. I agree with the sentiments on this issue expressed by Governor Perry. I have always found it idiotic that we send our money to the federal government only to beg for a portion of it back in the form of stimulus.
A state sovereignty movement reasserts the idea that states do have rights & are protected from an overreaching federal government. The federal government is there, in theory, to ensure the states don't trample on our rights --- to protect us. Today, it seems the states are the ones trying to protect us from the federal government's ever extending & far reaching arm. Proclaiming sovereignty is not the same thing as seceding from the Union. States can & should remain sovereign without seceding & destroying the Union. The federal government needs to respect that sovereignty; so long as that state is not violating the right of the people as laid out in the Constitution.
First & Last
|
|
comments (3)
|
After receiving an Email from the online editor of my local newspaper, where my blog was previously published, I wrote the following blog posting titled "My Last Blog Posting." However, it only posted for about an hour before it & my entire blog was removed. I think it's fitting to start my blogging here with that posting.
----------------------------------------------
Regretfully I must conclude my blogging days with this last posting.
I was alerted via Email...
YOU NEED TO REMOVE THIS LINE FROM YOUR BLOG IMMEDIATELY. You need to remove the comments regarding it as well, and you must leave a comment to the effect: "This blog post has been edited and some comments have been removed."
This Email was in reference to my use of "douche bag" to describe pirates who had attacked a commercial ship with U.S. citizens aboard & had taken the captain hostage. While some folks might disagree with the use of such words I don't believe it was vulgar & certainly not any worse than other uses of language on this blog & others.
Just a week later I had the words "dumb bitch" in the title. Then I thought maybe it's not because the words were vulgar but because they attacked a person or a group of people. However, in October of 2007 I called Senator Craig a moron with no demand to remove that attack.
Other uses of harsh language passed without any fanfare. In some of these cases the language wasn't printed in its entirety. Instead, curse words were simulated to show anger over a situation. Simulated cursing also came in another blog as well with #*&% YOU! to show anger & frustration. Some simulated cursing simply replaced certain letters with *** leaving the curse word to your imagination. However, those simulations didn't fool anyone to thinking of a nicer sounding word. Some cursing wasn't even simulated in the case of talking about an "ass-kicking."
I have come to the conclusion that my use of "douche bag" might have been accepted if I had written it "d**che b**." Or, had I used it to describe a disgraced republican politician. Either way, censorship for the slang use of the word in question seems a bit ridiculous considering what has been allowed up to this point.
It truly has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts with you as well as reading yours. However, rather than be unnecessarily censored (in my opinion) I'll have to discontinue my blog.
