|
Supreme Court 
Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:18:21 AM MDT
|
|
Yesterday was a bad day for the First Amendment. The Roberts Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the material support law was, under the strict scrutiny test, constitutional. At issue was whether human rights groups can provide educational services to groups designated as terrorist without being in legal danger themselves. The High Court found that there was sufficient State interest in this area to limit free speech protections and limit them severely.
The Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) were part of the legal team that brought the suit. They argued that the definitions of "material support" were overly broad and vague. Some of the words at issue were "expert advice", "training", "service" and personnel". These words can cover a lot of situations that have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with bringing terrorist groups into the political process and ending their terrorist activities.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 955 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:38:35 AM MDT
|
|
There is nothing about torture that is good or positive. The act itself is one of the most brutal and heinous that humans have ever committed. The affect on a society that condones torture is one of rising fear and brutality. The information (if it can be called that) gained under torture is so suspect as to be worthless. Perhaps the worst aspect is that torture, once accepted is used not only on enemies or bad people, but innocent victims as well.
On Monday the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of one such innocent victim of torture, Mr. Maher Arar, a Syrian born Canadian citizen. In 2002 he was returning to Canada from a trip abroad. At a stop over at JFK Airport he was detained by the US Government and held in solitary confinement for two weeks without access to an attorney. Mr. Arar was then deported, not to his nation of citizenship, Canada but, to Syria and put in the hands of the Syrian intelligence services, who are well known for their torture activities.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 904 words in story)
|
|
Wed May 19, 2010 at 10:03:13 AM MDT
|
|
I'm pleased that she recognized the problem. There is hope, but will there be change?
What do you all think?
See the article at Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon May 17, 2010 at 14:00:00 PM MDT
|
|
Justice is the elusive concept of balance. The idea that the damage which a crime inflicts on society it balanced by the fining or incarceration of the person convicted of the crime is one of the ways that we balance the scales. This too often lost on those who feel that incarceration is only for the purpose of punishment and that there should be no rehabilitation component.
This kind of thinking leads to ideas like three strike laws, which allow the sentence of imprisonment for life to be levied on anyone who commits three felonies. This is regardless of the nature of the third felony. It is because of these kinds of laws that we see convicted felons sentenced to life behind bars for the crime of stealing a bicycle.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling which does not address threes strikes laws, but does address the imposition of . In Graham v. Florida the SCOTUS was asked if it was unconstitutional for states to be able to sentence juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole, if their crimes did not involve a homicide.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 562 words in story)
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 12:21:10 PM MDT
|
|
There are a lot of reasons to be frothing at the mouth angry at the criminal Bush administration. One of the biggest is the way that they not only managed to overturn a half century of certainty about what torture is and the use of it, in doing so they have also extended the immunity of those committing torture in the name of national security. The use of the State Secrets privilege to quash cases brought by torture victims was the standard operating procedure in the Bush administration.
It has sadly continued in the Obama administration. Without letting our current Executive Branch off the hook at all, it is easy to understand how that happens. How many of us have ever been willing to give up privileges we have, even if we are fairly sure it is not a good idea for anyone to have them? Since no one, not even the former V.P. Dick Cheney is the villain in the movie of their life, everyone thinks they will use these powers only for good.
This is why we need groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights to fight against the expansion of governmental power and accountability for any illegal acts the government might commit.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 979 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:56:36 AM MDT
|
|
When I was a six or seven, I asked my Dad to explain what political conservative was (yes, I was just as big a politics nerd as a child as I am now, it must be genetic). It was harder than he thought but he came down on the definition that a conservative was someone that wanted to keep things as much the same as they were or are today as possible. Dad was great in that he did not attach any negative connotations to this desire, in fact he made a point to say that it was important to have folks like this, lest the nation make big mistakes. It is sad to say, but the definition Dad provided 30 plus years ago does not seem to apply anymore.
The actions of the current conservatives and the Republican Party where they make their home seems to be far more about turning back the clock then slowing the pace of change. The best example of this is their legal thinking. Any time there is a new law that they do not like, they run all the way back to the Constitution and say that it is not in that venerable 223 year old document.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 1160 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 07:43:30 AM MDT
|
|
A couple of days ago someone pointed out that I had two differing views on a topic in the same post. It came from my need to give some credence to the ideas that disagree with mine, but it is not the only time I find myself in conflict with myself. Take the situation with the incredibly vile and to my mind utterly worthless members of Westboro Baptist Church. These are the malignant and maleficent idiots that protest at military funerals with signs that say such warm and fluffy things as "Semper Fi Fags" and "God Hates You". They are protesting what they see as the over acceptance of homosexuality in America. They believe that God is punished the United States with 9/11 for our tolerance of our gay citizens.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 1182 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.
|
|
