S. 1867 National Defense Authorization Act

A controversial social network post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique on the internet could imprison one for life, without evidence or a trial. Could this really be? The New National Defense Authorization Act gives the government the right to unlimited wire tapping and warrant-less searches. It creates a permanent “police” state of martial law in the United States, and eradicates due process – the fundamental principle in which America’s constitution rests on. The bill authorizes world war against any nation where terrorism is suspected. Even worse, it authorizes torture, and allows American citizens, permanent residents, and foreigners to be detained in offshore prisons, such as Guantanamo Bay. This new bill in 2012 has been recently passed by the House and Senate, and is coming ever closer to becoming law. If the bill becomes law, it would essentially undermine the executive order signed by President Obama that bans the use of torture. Just as appalled as conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, President Obama has promised to veto the bill. However, regardless of an executive veto, it is possible for a Congressional override to take place. Also, according to Daphne Eviator of the Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program, “Whether he [Obama] will [veto the bill] is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that’s 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs.” Furthermore, vetoing would essentially put our military operations around the world on hold, and withholds their funding.

The ways of knowing and areas of knowledge include reason, emotion, and history. History and emotion in this case, are interrelated, which can be traced back to the September 11 Terrorist attacks as well as the War on Terror. Reason, however, is the most important way of knowing involved. While the senate, republicans, and too many democrats, including influential members such as Senator John McCain, are rooting for this legislation, outcries of opposition in response to the New National Defense Authorization Act is also prominent.

In the case of the defense bill, the opposition would raise key questions about basic legal concepts that have long buttressed guarantees of freedom in America, including the Habeas Corpus right to contest being jailed and the Posse Comitatus Act passed after the Civil War in 1878 to limit the military's role in law enforcement. The Obama Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision, for according to the White House, “….[it] would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

“If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge,” Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said in a statement Friday. “He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power. That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.”

"This is an asymmetric war. In asymmetric wars, you want to pit your greatest strength against the enemy's greatest weakness," Hutson said. "Our great strengths are our ideals and our system of justice."

"This constant push that everything has to be militarized – I don't think that creates a good country," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, argued. "Because we have values. And due process of law is one of those values. And so I object, I object to holding American citizens without trial. I do not believe that makes us more safe."

Meanwhile, the supporters of the new bill stand their grounds. Making the country safer from possible attack is exactly the point, counters Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer. “What the measure does,” Graham said, “is basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield. It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” Graham said. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

“Al Qaeda is at war with us,” said Senator Levin, “…This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.'"

John McCain, in response to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, states, “I think that as long as the individual, no matter who they are…if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat…and I think that’s the majority of the American public opinion, especially in light of the facts…27% of detainees who were released, got back into the fight, and were responsible for the death of Americans (FALSE ANALOGY). We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services”

Personally, I agree with the defense bill – "'Innocent until proven guilty' is essential to our legal system and American way of life,” says Mr. Bales. “The Senate Armed Services Committee's legislation violates fundamental values. It is unconstitutional and must be defeated. We cannot allow America to go further down the road of becoming a police state.” In this apparent struggle of balance between national security and individual freedom, I’d have to side with individual freedom. Frankly, immigrants from all over the world did not move to America to find themselves in a country just like theirs. Already, I feel a little nervous about going to college in America in less than eight months. As Hutson states, "I was dean in New Hampshire, where the motto is live free or die. The rest of that phrase, live free or die, is because there are things worse than death. This kind of dramatic change to who we are as a nation, who we are as people, is not something that you can just sort of rhetorically say, 'Well, it's going to save lives'...

"It's going to cost lives." he said, "It’s going to cost a way of life."

This issue of reasoning in national security verses individual freedom can be linked to other similar real-life cases in the past, such as in the measure of former President Franklin Roosevelt’s order in the incarceration of US citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

Sources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1203/Guantanamo-for-US-citizens-Senate-bill-raises-questions

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2011/12/02/senate-passes-national-defense-authorization-act-pa-sens-have-no-response-on-indefinite-incarceration-provision/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qPtwDhBWYJA#!

To Test or Not to Test (posted for AnnaK)

In states like Florida, citizens are required to take a drug test to determine their eligibility towards receiving welfare. If they fail they’re denied by welfare for a year, until they take another test. This policy is presented to prevent people like druggies to take advantage of the social welfare system and intake the drugs provided by the government. This idea is favored in many other states in America, and is considered being adopted by them. The welfare program isn’t the only policy that requires citizens to take a drug test before they can receive help from the government. According to Times, “an Ohio state senator, Tim Grendell, recently said he plans to introduce a bill to require the unemployed to take a drug test before they receive unemployment benefits,” for the same purpose. Authorities who are prone to making this policy legal tend to argue that there’s a large unit of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. But several studies have found no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. This kind of limiting law towards drug-testing is often touted as a tactic of saving tax dollars, or cutting down government expense. But the facts stated otherwise, in a study in Idaho recently, it is found that the cost for drug-testing exceeds any money saved. Despite the contradictory characteristics people hold if they agree with the policy, another question should be raised. Is this kind of policy morally correct or not?

This issue ultimately boils down to whether it is ethical to deny all just because some have problematic records. What if the unemployed drug users have desires to receive help yet he’s denied by the government’s systematic program? If they’ve been denied to receive help does it mean that they’re just let alone to live and die? Another ethical issue towards this program is personal privacy. This policy itself violates the Fourth Amendment right to what kind of searches the state can carry out, and drug searching is greatly limited in the constitution. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the drug testing was an unreasonable research. The state can impose drug test in exceptional cases, when there is a public safety need for them (e.g. if they were to ask for a job as a bus or train operator.)

This issue can also boil down to how the government should control a generalized situation: whether this druggie’s actions apply to other druggie’s action or not. Of course, it would take too much effort and time if the government applies a different document for every single case they receive. This kind of dilemma can be easily related to our school lives, when the teacher punishes the whole class for something only certain people did. The ones who actually did the wrongdoings would definitely get punished for what he had done and also dragging others along with him, but the innocents would probably end up inheriting a negative attitude towards the authority which can possibly lead to worse consequences.

Anna Rexia (posted for AnnaK)

ANNA REXIA
 It’s the end of the year, Halloween has just passed, and all kinds of bizarre costumes had showed up on the streets one by one as controversial costumes never ceases to shock the public. Recently there’s a hot costume, pun intended, the sexy Cookie Monster which a person literally dresses up as a cookie monster… with a short skirt and stockings. Just when we think the crazy costumes can’t get more inappropriate, another costume had come along to bring the absurdness to a whole new level, Anna Rexia. This costume features a black bodysuit style dress with glittery and fancy accessories including measuring tape belts and chokers. According to the National Eating Disorders Association, anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, and due to this clarification some stores took the costumes off their hangers. This costume induced opposing theories such as it makes a joke out of a deadly eating disorder.

According to psychiatrist Dr. Karen Ruskin, one way we can view it is that this costume showed how we’re insensitive to those who struggled through mental illness of any kind, or insensitive towards those who suffer anorexia or those who have someone they care about that have anorexia, and this boils down to that our understanding and sympathy towards mental illness haven’t gone that far. The other side would argue that the costume is simply addressing a sense of humor. We joke about everything and the word “anorexia” flows into our daily conversation quite easily and it hasn’t been taken seriously. Just like the word “depression,” how often times we say “I’m so depressed” but no one really jumps and accuse you of the insensitivity you have towards those who truly have depression. Anorexia is not a choice, but a serious mental illness that ultimately leads to physical incapability. This issue can be simplified as the debate between the morals in broadcasting other people’s misfortune and treat it as a joke, is it humorous or is it downright offensive?

Mental illness often times don’t appear to be obvious on a patient, we aren’t able to know right away if one suffers from anorexia, depression, bipolar disorder, and so on. We can easily offend someone by making fun of the disorders with an ignorant attitude. Also, this issue isn’t comparable to minorities in the world such as neither homosexuals nor those whose race has been discriminated, so it won’t be as easy for the people suffering from these mental disorders to simply embrace the rude comments and laugh at it. However, our opinion on whether something or some comment is offensive or not is a subjective matter. What are morals exactly? And, often times, when offensive comments come up, some people may argue that “this is a free country and I have the right to say whatever I want.” Is it really ok to say anything just because you can? There is no standardized scale out there for what is right or wrong if no one is physically hurt, there’s no legalized penalty for verbal abuse, and everyone’s opinion towards what’s offensive and what’s not is different. The way to judge these comments, or the product sold like Anna Rexia here will have to be depended on the people involved themselves, which in this case, each shop owner can decide whether they want to take the product off or not. However, it’s safer to watch out and be more sensitive for those who might get hurt in any way to prevent further harsh consequences.