Friday, August 06, 2010
I have moved.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Bush needs more time to craft Iraq plan - I'm shocked....
Hussein's lawyer says US should not hand Saddam over to Iraq to be executed.
---
I found this article on foxnews.com which, in my opinion, brings up an interesting question. Should the US hand Saddam over to Iraq for execution? My first gut reaction to the question is no; however, I feel this way for the simple reason that I do not believe in capital punishment. If they (Bush, Shiites, whoever) wanted him dead they should have shot him on the battle field. However, as he so cowardly allowed himself to be captured and he no longer posses a threat to anyone it is now our obligation not to kill him. What gives us the right to execute him, and how would that make us any better than him? Don't get me wrong, I have no respect for the man; and he certainly deserved to be stripped of his power. However, no matter what he may or may not have done I do not believe anyone has the right to execute him, or anyone else for that matter.
Of course there are other factors which weigh in on this as well. Albeit I will be the first to admit I am not exactly up on my understanding of international law or any of the various treaties we (the US) have signed governing prisoners of war; it seems to me Saddam's attorney has a point. Out of all of the treaties we have singed I am fairly sure at least one would prevent the US from handing over a POW to his or her enemies. While one could argue we would simply be returning Saddam Hussein back to his native country, as would be customary with POWs, it could easily be argued that Iraq as it is today is no longer the same Iraq from which Saddam is from. Yes this argument dances around pins and needles; however, in my opinion it is worth mentioning.
On the flip side of the coin is of course another argument. Saddam is from Iraq, is an Iraqi citizen, and he committed his crimes in Iraq. While he may currently be in US custody the current acting government of Iraq has every right to ask the US to extradite Saddam to Iraqi custody so that he can answer for his crimes. This of course begs the question; was he tried according to the current laws governing Iraq or the laws in place during his leadership of Iraq? Whichever the case Iraq is (somewhat) of a sovereign nation and has already tried and convicted him according to their laws and will expect the US to hand him over to be executed; which begs the question, "How would Iraq receive and respond to the US refusing to hand him over?
I will leave it up to you, the reader, to answer these questions and to draw your own conclusions. But, you must admit, it does make you think.
-MichaelN
powered by performancing firefox
Friday, December 22, 2006
How far can the government invade your privacy for evidence.
[From Article]
PORT ARTHUR, Texas In the middle of Joshua Bush's forehead, two inches above his eyes, lies the evidence that prosecutors say could send the teenager to prison for attempted murder: a 9 mm bullet, lodged just under the skin.
Prosecutors say it will prove that Bush, 17, tried to kill the owner of a used-car lot after a robbery in July. And they have obtained a search warrant to extract the slug.
[/From Article]
To what lengths should the government be allowed to invade a person's privacy to prove guilt? Here in the USA we are considered innocent until proven guilty. While on trial, for the most part, we have the same freedoms awarded to any citizen including that of privacy and self, and that is where the problems start. Obviously the government has to be able to invade a suspects privacy to some degree to gather evidence which is why we have search warrants etc. However the question being raised in this case is how far is too far?
Depending on how one may look at the word "privacy" a DNA test very well could be just about as private as you can get. However, a DNA test requires only a quick cotton swab and not surgery under general anesthesia which opens an entirely new can of worms. It seems to me, from the way the article is worded, defendants are making the argument as a clear cut fact. Their concern, as well as the concern for many who are against allowing the surgery, is that if the prosecutors are allowed to to force this man to have the bullet removed it will open the door for the government to force more invasive surgeries onto suspects in the future.
While that may be a valid concern there is an argument on the other side of the coin that I do not feel should be ignored. Taking this case for example, removing the bullet could prove Joshua Bush's guilt (or innocence), and should Mr. Bush be innocent of the charges having the state pay for the bullet to be removed (saving him the expense) should be no problem for him. His refusal to allow the state to pay for the bullet to be removed is, in my humble opinion, additional evidence of his guilt.
I do understand the argument for those against allowing the prosecutors to remove the bullet. In fact I fully agree with it. However, rather than creating a clear cut stance that the government can't do something perhaps laws should be set in place to clearly dictate what circumstances it will be allowed. This circumstance, for instance, would be just one of those in which the state should have the right to have the bullet removed. The bullet, from what the article says, is in an area where it can be easily removed with no danger to Mr. Bush. On the other hand if the bullet where lodged in an area deeper in his body were there could be some risk to Mr. Bush then this would be a clear cut example saying the state could not force the removal of the bullet.
Privacy is important, and the government should always have clear and good reasons to invade it. It is unfortunate that cases which are not clear cut and seem to exist on both sides of a boundary such as this one come up from time to time. We, however, can not be blinded by either the need to gather the evidence or the protection of one man's rights to be held to as an example. It is unfortunate that people on both sides of the issue are trying to make this into a larger issue than it actually is. Sometimes abnormal things happen which can't be governed by the common law and must be handled as a one of a time thing. Obviously lawmakers can not foresee every possible outcome when they create laws, and from time to time we will have to be able to adapt to a one of a kind situation such as this one.
powered by performancing firefox
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Funny Politics
I saw this on another blog and thought it worth reposting. Original here: http://tum123.multiply.com/journal
---
A little girl asked her father,"Daddy, do all fairy tales begin with 'Once upon a time'?" "No, sweetheart," he answered, "Some begin with 'If I am elected.'"
---
There was a fellow who applied for a job as a press aide for a politician. Not long after he submitted his application he received word from the official's office: "Your resume is full of exaggerations, distortions, half truths and lies. Can you start work on Monday?"Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Your email isn’t safe!!!
I came across this article on slashdot.org Government Has a Right to Read Your Email? which points to this article Lawsuit challenges government’s right to read your e-mail. The article covers the current lawsuit filed against the US Government by a seller (Steven Warshak) of the “natural male enhancement” products (Enzyte for those who haven’t seen the commercials). Basically Warshak is suing the government for reading his email without his permission, which (incidentally) is how they gathered evidence against him for their fraud case.
As the current laws stand the government must obtain a search warrant to go through an individual’s snail mail; however, email (it seems) is fair game. My personal opinion on this is that email should have the same protections as snail mail. I would go as far as to say that since it is illegal to intercept snail mail it should also be illegal to intercept email. By intercept I mean using any means to get a copy of an email as it travels through the system to it’s destination. The purpose of the laws protecting snail mail is to protect people’s right to privacy. People send the same sort of information through email as they do through snail mail: personal thoughts, ideas, etc. Those thoughts and ideas should be protected as they are private and generally meant to be seen only be the recipient.
As an example lets take a divorced couple with children, and the parent with primary custody chooses to keep his or her ex-spouse updated on the children’s well being by sending the other parent an email everyday letting him or her know how the kids are doing. That is private information and reading those emails is an invasion of privacy. You may try to make the argument that it is common knowledge that email is not a safe way to send sensitive or personal information. I am not arguing that point, only the point that the government should do everything in its power to make it a safe transport of information. You may also make the argument the person should use the phone instead as it is a more secure form of communication. Ok, in the event you didn't know, you can build a scanner to pick up phone conversations from cell phones etc; although I do believe this is illegal now, my point remains the same. The conversation can still be listened to.
In the end if the laws are not updated to keep up with the times we are destined to be stuck in a slower era. This is the computer age where everything is moving at the speed of light and information travels the globe in mere seconds. People should not have to depend on snail mail to get their sensitive information from one location to another.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Election Day - Please Vote
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Carry on Irak
I couldn't pass up blogging on this.. :) Whatever Kerry actually meant in his ever so famous speech I believe this response to his remarks is the best I have seen.
Washington Woman Unaware of Pregnancy Until Day Before Baby is Born
BELLEVUE, Wash. — Amanda Brisendine attributed the 30 pounds she gained in the past year to an abandoned smoking habit and rich food. So when she went to the hospital with sharp stomach pain, she wasn't expecting to leave with a newborn son.
"I don't know how I didn't know. I just didn't know," Brisendine said Tuesday from her bed at Overlake Medical Center's Birthing Center, where she delivered Alexander Joseph Britt by Caesarean section.
[/From article]
Talk about a surprise... Go to the hospital with abdominal pain and leave with a newborn. One must wonder if it is a cause to celebrate or show sympathy. I honestly do not know how I would react if that happened to me; well it can't happen to me (I am a guy) but to my significant other. Don't get me wrong, children are great. I love kids and wouldn't trade my three for anything in the world.
However, sometimes it takes time to adjust and to get used to the idea. It takes time to get prepared. Cloths and a crib must be bought among other things.
Really, could you imagine going to the hospital with stomach pains and walking out with a baby?Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Kids are great...
Hillary Clinton Joins Criticism of Kerry as Dems Call for Apology
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Kerry's..... Well, stupidity.
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," - KerryI want to know what Kerry was thinking. Could anyone tell me. A person can't make a comment such as that one and then refuse to apologize saying everyone mis-understood his "botched joke" and that he meant the people in the military no dis-respect. Well excuse me Mr. Kerry, but there is only one way to take that statement on first impression and that is at face value. So the real question is, do you feel that way about everyone in the military? UPDATE: I thought I should update this before I look stupid. :) Don't want to be put in the same class as Kerry you know... I do understand what Kerry meant to say. That is something along the lines of, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you send troops to Iraq where you find yourself stuck". Where I think he is a complete and utter moron is that, rather than clarify himself, he chose to refuse to apologize for the bad phrasing that confused so many people and simply say it was a "botched joke". As I said above most people will simply take his statement at face value, and at face value first impressions are that he is talking about the military. So what he just said was, "Hey, all of you idiots out there are morons for taking what I said wrong." Perhaps there may be some truth to that. Perhaps not, but being a political figure such as he is he can not afford to come across in such a manner. It reminds me of when my children come to me asking where "that" thing is. My first question is, of course, what thing? I spend time every day trying to teach my children to be clear about things they are trying to convey in conversation. Perhaps that is a skill Kerry never learned. And, while I will grant you I am not always understood myself I am also not a public figure nor do I ever have any intentions of running for any kind of public office.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Techdirt: Do Counterfeit DVDs Smell Different From Regular DVDs?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Al Qaeda and the Pope
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214318,00.html CAIRO, Egypt — Al Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam. . . . "You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so let me get this straight. The Pope quotes a "very" old document which described "some of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as 'evil and inhuman' and calling Islam a religion spread by the sword" And what do Muslims do about it? They act in a manner which supports what he said. Am I the only person that sees the irony in this. They are going to "continue [their] jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails [them] to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations."
I suppose that means they are going to keep up with the terror, killing innocent people, until they have taken over the world. And what is their plan for those who do not accept Islam? Well according to that particular Muslim they will chop off our heads. Sounds like a loving and accepting people to me.