I really just don't have any sympathy for the ten Americans who tried to take children across the Haitian Dominican Republic border. The claim to be doing a humanitarian deed by taking orphans over the border to the school the American missionaries have in the Dominican.
All kinds of red flags are raised in this case. First and foremost, the children didn't have the proper travel documents or passports. You know it, I know it, the American missionary workers more than likely know it. It's simple. You can't cross borders without proper documentation. So why are you taking orphans over the border without papers? To put up for adoption? Sell? Probably not but you just don't take kids over international borders without permission.
Then it turns out some of the kids have parents. It's another red flag. The missionaries stated originally the children were orphans going to an orphanage. Then it came out about living parents. The parents gave permission to take the kids because they believed the kids had a better chance with someone else. So why did the missionaries state the kids were orphans in the first place? It's already bad enough they had no passports for the children but then they lied and said they were orphans.
Maybe the was nothing nefarious going on and they were that stupid or arrogant to think they could just come and get away with it. I think they are charged with legitimate crimes. Although word is the judge is considering dropping charges at this time.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why Is This Still A Concern?
We all know the story of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and allies have since embarked on a War on Terrorism. The goal is to disrupt, destroy, kill or capture terrorists that threaten the U.S. and allies.
Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.
My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.
Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.
All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.
My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.
Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.
I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.
Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that
I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.
These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.
Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.
My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.
Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.
All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.
My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.
Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.
I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.
Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that
terror trials as a 'distraction' from the administration's domestic agenda, especially health care.
I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.
These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Drug Cartels Infiltrate
Amazingly the United States public and most politicians still appear clueless about the war going on south of the U.S. border.
There seems to be a feeling that the violence and corruption will not spill over into the U.S. Unfortunately they are deeply mistaken. National Geographic Explorer recently did a show on the problems of Mexico’s failed drug war and how it affects the U.S.
It is widely accepted fact that corruption permeates through the Mexican government at all levels. To believe that it can’t happen here is simply ignorant. The money at stake is high. Already there have been cases of police and sheriffs prosecuted for aiding drug shipments across South Texas.
MSNBC.com reports that the Mexican drug cartels are stepping up efforts to recruit and infiltrate U.S. customs and border law enforcement agencies.
The case of Luis F. Alarid highlights a battle within the war. Alarid on the surface appeared on the straight path and headed on career in law enforcement. He served in the military, in the Army and Marines, did two tours in Iraq and returned home to pursue his dreams of law enforcement. An investigation into his activities revealed within in months of becoming a border agent, he earned $200,000 for waving trucks through with drugs and illegal immigrants. Alarid received seven years in federal prison.
The article states a few more cases. In one, another agent received 15 years for her crimes. A friend with connections to the cartels enticed her to turncoat while she was still in the academy. A former customs inspector received 20 years for her crimes.
In all cases, the convicted agents knew or were related to drug smugglers. With the need for increased numbers after September 11th, 2001, not every recruit could be scrutinized closely. Even if they had, who was going to disqualify Luis Alarid? He had a clean criminal and military service record. No matter how tight requirements tighten up, someone will always slip through or corrupted. There is no easy solution.
The sentences for all three agents strike me as light given the degree of the crimes. Corruption, breaches of security, betrayal of public trust and allowing illegal drugs and immigrants into the country should carry heavier sentences. In Texas, a corrupt public servant convicted of first degree felony can face 2-99 years or life imprisonment. With the threat of drugs and national security, I see know reason the laws aren’t toughened up and heavier sentences handed out. Drug lords pay large amounts of ransom for cooperation so it should be fitting that the U.S. extract a heavy sum too for breaking the public trust and allowing criminals to breach our borders.
Chaos doesn’t rule the border completely but politicians and the general public need to wake up and take action soon. Once the system breaks down completely then it will take many more years, if ever, to fix it.
There seems to be a feeling that the violence and corruption will not spill over into the U.S. Unfortunately they are deeply mistaken. National Geographic Explorer recently did a show on the problems of Mexico’s failed drug war and how it affects the U.S.
It is widely accepted fact that corruption permeates through the Mexican government at all levels. To believe that it can’t happen here is simply ignorant. The money at stake is high. Already there have been cases of police and sheriffs prosecuted for aiding drug shipments across South Texas.
MSNBC.com reports that the Mexican drug cartels are stepping up efforts to recruit and infiltrate U.S. customs and border law enforcement agencies.
The case of Luis F. Alarid highlights a battle within the war. Alarid on the surface appeared on the straight path and headed on career in law enforcement. He served in the military, in the Army and Marines, did two tours in Iraq and returned home to pursue his dreams of law enforcement. An investigation into his activities revealed within in months of becoming a border agent, he earned $200,000 for waving trucks through with drugs and illegal immigrants. Alarid received seven years in federal prison.
The article states a few more cases. In one, another agent received 15 years for her crimes. A friend with connections to the cartels enticed her to turncoat while she was still in the academy. A former customs inspector received 20 years for her crimes.
In all cases, the convicted agents knew or were related to drug smugglers. With the need for increased numbers after September 11th, 2001, not every recruit could be scrutinized closely. Even if they had, who was going to disqualify Luis Alarid? He had a clean criminal and military service record. No matter how tight requirements tighten up, someone will always slip through or corrupted. There is no easy solution.
The sentences for all three agents strike me as light given the degree of the crimes. Corruption, breaches of security, betrayal of public trust and allowing illegal drugs and immigrants into the country should carry heavier sentences. In Texas, a corrupt public servant convicted of first degree felony can face 2-99 years or life imprisonment. With the threat of drugs and national security, I see know reason the laws aren’t toughened up and heavier sentences handed out. Drug lords pay large amounts of ransom for cooperation so it should be fitting that the U.S. extract a heavy sum too for breaking the public trust and allowing criminals to breach our borders.
Chaos doesn’t rule the border completely but politicians and the general public need to wake up and take action soon. Once the system breaks down completely then it will take many more years, if ever, to fix it.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Military, CIA and Blackwater used in Some Ops
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34372364/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/
The New York Times reports that Blackwater Worldwide security forces worked side by side with the CIA on some raids and special operations in Iraq. They also allege that Blackwater security helped transport detainees to the CIA's secret prison program. The article states that originally Blackwater personnel were hired to provide security to CIA agents and their bases.
Sources from former Blackwater and CIA operatives confirm that Blackwater forces did more that provide security.
Back when the war started in Afghanistan, I commented to a friend about the outsourcing of the war to the Northern Alliance. I had made an analogy to the Romans hiring mercenary armies toward the end of the Empire. Rome no longer used citizen soldiers for its army. My friend corrected me in my analysis. He said it was an interesting point but off the mark. Instead he believed it was a different scenario. The U.S. was aiding a local army fight its rebellion against a ruling regime. The U.S. wasn't really outsourcing the war but only aiding an ally. It just so happened that the ally's goals served the U.S.'s purpose. The U.S. ousted the Taliban with aid from the Northern Alliance. No mercenary army was hired. The Northern Alliance had a vested interest in ousting the Taliban.
After that point of view, I agreed with him for the most part. Still something bothered me about what I viewed as outsourcing.
On the surface, I don't see a problem with using a contractor for security. The CIA doesn't have a force to protect them in the field and the military is stretched around the world. I also don't see a problem using third parties for prisoner security and transportation.
According the Times article, former Blackwater employees said that "their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred."
The line blurring is what bothers me. Military, CIA and Special Ops forces
are trained specifically for the tasks at hand. Involving third party contractors into operations opens a whole can of worms. First of all, who do the contractors answer to? The military, CIA or corporate headquarters? How much influence do they have in planning missions? Sources are quoted saying that since Blackwater was involved with security they became involved in planning routes.
Another controversial point has been who are under whose legal system do they fall under? U.S, law or Iraqi or Afghan law? The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CIA falls under U.S. laws for the most part. Third parties are civilian contractors. They aren't afforded the same legal protections that military and other government officials are. Even CIA agents don't fall under complete U.S. protection. If they are caught as spies in another country, that country can legal prosecute them and punish them. Similarly armed third party security aren't afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Technically they could
be held and prosecuted as mercenaries. Mercenaries are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
On the other hand, it is not so cut and dry as some critics would like.
After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government had to act quick. In an instant the U.S. fight against terrorism changed. The intelligence community needed to expand rapidly. Translators, analysts and other technical experts were needed. It's not like the U.S. government had a stockpile of Pashtun speakers on staff. So while a plan was put in place to recruit for intelligence agencies for the long term, many slots needed to be field immediately. Thus came in the third party contractors.
The other part is we aren't on the ground with CIA and Special Ops. Who knows how bad the security situation is? Maybe occasionally it is permissible to use contractors to help in a mission. I prefer that they weren't but sometimes a situation may dictate that they are needed that way. Honestly we just don't know nor should we know everything that happens in the field.
The bottom line is that lives are at stake both on the frontlines and maybe here at home. Used wisely, third party contractors can be an asset. Steps must be taken though that the U.S. agencies and military don't become to dependant on them. If not careful, then maybe we are hiring mercenaries to fight our wars and starting to slip into a Roman like decline.
The New York Times reports that Blackwater Worldwide security forces worked side by side with the CIA on some raids and special operations in Iraq. They also allege that Blackwater security helped transport detainees to the CIA's secret prison program. The article states that originally Blackwater personnel were hired to provide security to CIA agents and their bases.
Sources from former Blackwater and CIA operatives confirm that Blackwater forces did more that provide security.
Back when the war started in Afghanistan, I commented to a friend about the outsourcing of the war to the Northern Alliance. I had made an analogy to the Romans hiring mercenary armies toward the end of the Empire. Rome no longer used citizen soldiers for its army. My friend corrected me in my analysis. He said it was an interesting point but off the mark. Instead he believed it was a different scenario. The U.S. was aiding a local army fight its rebellion against a ruling regime. The U.S. wasn't really outsourcing the war but only aiding an ally. It just so happened that the ally's goals served the U.S.'s purpose. The U.S. ousted the Taliban with aid from the Northern Alliance. No mercenary army was hired. The Northern Alliance had a vested interest in ousting the Taliban.
After that point of view, I agreed with him for the most part. Still something bothered me about what I viewed as outsourcing.
On the surface, I don't see a problem with using a contractor for security. The CIA doesn't have a force to protect them in the field and the military is stretched around the world. I also don't see a problem using third parties for prisoner security and transportation.
According the Times article, former Blackwater employees said that "their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred."
The line blurring is what bothers me. Military, CIA and Special Ops forces
are trained specifically for the tasks at hand. Involving third party contractors into operations opens a whole can of worms. First of all, who do the contractors answer to? The military, CIA or corporate headquarters? How much influence do they have in planning missions? Sources are quoted saying that since Blackwater was involved with security they became involved in planning routes.
Another controversial point has been who are under whose legal system do they fall under? U.S, law or Iraqi or Afghan law? The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CIA falls under U.S. laws for the most part. Third parties are civilian contractors. They aren't afforded the same legal protections that military and other government officials are. Even CIA agents don't fall under complete U.S. protection. If they are caught as spies in another country, that country can legal prosecute them and punish them. Similarly armed third party security aren't afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Technically they could
be held and prosecuted as mercenaries. Mercenaries are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
On the other hand, it is not so cut and dry as some critics would like.
After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government had to act quick. In an instant the U.S. fight against terrorism changed. The intelligence community needed to expand rapidly. Translators, analysts and other technical experts were needed. It's not like the U.S. government had a stockpile of Pashtun speakers on staff. So while a plan was put in place to recruit for intelligence agencies for the long term, many slots needed to be field immediately. Thus came in the third party contractors.
The other part is we aren't on the ground with CIA and Special Ops. Who knows how bad the security situation is? Maybe occasionally it is permissible to use contractors to help in a mission. I prefer that they weren't but sometimes a situation may dictate that they are needed that way. Honestly we just don't know nor should we know everything that happens in the field.
The bottom line is that lives are at stake both on the frontlines and maybe here at home. Used wisely, third party contractors can be an asset. Steps must be taken though that the U.S. agencies and military don't become to dependant on them. If not careful, then maybe we are hiring mercenaries to fight our wars and starting to slip into a Roman like decline.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Prison Escapee Caught, Mom Turns in Murder Suspect Son
The Escapee and the Gun
On December 1, 2009, convict Arcade Joseph Comeaux, Jr. escaped from a prison van while in transport from one prison unit to another one. He allegedly pulled a gun on the two officers transporting. He then stripped the officers and took the clothes for his disguise and weapons for his use.
Officials suspect a prison guard may have sneaked the gun into the prison for Comeaux.
He was finally caught by some workers at a flange factory.
Comeaux fooled prison officials he was wheelchair bound for ten years. Yet he was able to walk off during his escape.
One trouble spot seems to recur with in the Texas Correctional Department. Some prison guards supply contraband to inmates. Last year there was a scandal about cell phones smuggled into death row. In light of the cell phone smuggling, cries are starting to call for a shake up.
Both cases of smuggling are serious issues. Inmates are put in prison to not only punish but to protect society. When the jailers and guards are bringing contraband, the lives the public are a danger. One cell phone was used to threaten a family of a state Senator. Not only the inmates are responsible but so are the ones who facilitate life and smuggle items in for prisoners.
The only way to help remedy the situation is to come on down hard on those that receive the contraband but also on those that facilitate the smuggling harshly. When a prison guard takes the position he becomes a public servant of trust. The guard is entrusted to keep those on the inside locked up but also charged to keep the inmates influence outside to a minimum. Governments should just fire the guards but prosecute to the maximum the law allows. If for nothing else but betraying the public trust.
Scrupulous Mom
Over the week, a Galena Park teacher was stabbed, beaten and mutilated to death.
The amazing thing is the mother of the alleged suspect heard he was involved and called the police.
From the Houston Chronicle article linked above:
Good for Mom. She made a choice and decision over the nature of her son's alleged behavior. Maybe empathizing with the murdered teach and his family she called him in. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to do at all but she had the moral strength and judgment to do it. Congrats, Mom!
On December 1, 2009, convict Arcade Joseph Comeaux, Jr. escaped from a prison van while in transport from one prison unit to another one. He allegedly pulled a gun on the two officers transporting. He then stripped the officers and took the clothes for his disguise and weapons for his use.
Officials suspect a prison guard may have sneaked the gun into the prison for Comeaux.
He was finally caught by some workers at a flange factory.
Comeaux fooled prison officials he was wheelchair bound for ten years. Yet he was able to walk off during his escape.
One trouble spot seems to recur with in the Texas Correctional Department. Some prison guards supply contraband to inmates. Last year there was a scandal about cell phones smuggled into death row. In light of the cell phone smuggling, cries are starting to call for a shake up.
Both cases of smuggling are serious issues. Inmates are put in prison to not only punish but to protect society. When the jailers and guards are bringing contraband, the lives the public are a danger. One cell phone was used to threaten a family of a state Senator. Not only the inmates are responsible but so are the ones who facilitate life and smuggle items in for prisoners.
The only way to help remedy the situation is to come on down hard on those that receive the contraband but also on those that facilitate the smuggling harshly. When a prison guard takes the position he becomes a public servant of trust. The guard is entrusted to keep those on the inside locked up but also charged to keep the inmates influence outside to a minimum. Governments should just fire the guards but prosecute to the maximum the law allows. If for nothing else but betraying the public trust.
Scrupulous Mom
Over the week, a Galena Park teacher was stabbed, beaten and mutilated to death.
The amazing thing is the mother of the alleged suspect heard he was involved and called the police.
From the Houston Chronicle article linked above:
Vega, a Mexican citizen, is believed to be in Mexico, said a source close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Vega called his mother from Mexico and told her what he had done, and his mother then called police, the source said.
Good for Mom. She made a choice and decision over the nature of her son's alleged behavior. Maybe empathizing with the murdered teach and his family she called him in. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to do at all but she had the moral strength and judgment to do it. Congrats, Mom!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Highway Thievery?
We all know bank and financial service companies nickel and dime us to death. High interest rate, unreasonable fees, cutting credit lines for even people who pay on time and late fees despite the payment late on another card.
Basically banks look to make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.
Take my case for instance. I went to the dentist Monday morning. I paid $280 for the visit. Then the receptionist noticed I had a credit due to insurance payments. She asks me if I want to apply the $280 to future visits or refund to my debit card. Of course I decided for the refund.
I get home to check my balance. Sure enough the amount online showed the bank happily subtracted the amount from my checking account. They weren't so quick to refund my money. I called Chase and asked why they deducted but didn't refund. The customer service rep kindly told me that they didn't refund accounts right away. It took 3-5 business days for the credit to appear.
At first I left it at that. Then I started thinking about it. Basically the bank uses my money for free. The money never changed hands. It was refunded less than an hour from when it was deducted. The bank never paid it out. They have free access to my money to earn interest and what other evil things banks to do make money.
I'm a free market capitalist. I have no problem with banks, business and individuals making money. I only have one requirement and that is they make money honestly. Things like trade secrets and company information that's proprietary is fair to keep secret. A business is entitled to keep anything they discover or invent confidential.
What Chase has done to me is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You might think that $280 is no big deal or that it is. To me it's not the amount but how they handle it. The money is rightfully mine. The bank has no right to use it and not credit my account right away. That money is still with the bank. It's money I can't use to pay a bill, buy a book or rent a movie. It's money I can't invest or save. It's free money for the bank to use for 3-5 days. At least they could return some interest to me.
In the grand scheme of things, what is $280. For some people it's a huge amount. For others it's pocket change. But the money belongs to them and not the bank. Think also of how many times in a day, week, month and year a bank does this practice. My guess is that it amounts to millions of dollars if not billions that they are using dishonestly to make money.
Of course I sent off an email to Chase customer service. I was assured the bank would reply in one business day. It's been more than one business day. Not only are they dishonest in using my money but also lie on their website about how long they take to reply.
This is just a small fraction of practices the banks can use to earn dishonest profits.
Basically banks look to make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.
Take my case for instance. I went to the dentist Monday morning. I paid $280 for the visit. Then the receptionist noticed I had a credit due to insurance payments. She asks me if I want to apply the $280 to future visits or refund to my debit card. Of course I decided for the refund.
I get home to check my balance. Sure enough the amount online showed the bank happily subtracted the amount from my checking account. They weren't so quick to refund my money. I called Chase and asked why they deducted but didn't refund. The customer service rep kindly told me that they didn't refund accounts right away. It took 3-5 business days for the credit to appear.
At first I left it at that. Then I started thinking about it. Basically the bank uses my money for free. The money never changed hands. It was refunded less than an hour from when it was deducted. The bank never paid it out. They have free access to my money to earn interest and what other evil things banks to do make money.
I'm a free market capitalist. I have no problem with banks, business and individuals making money. I only have one requirement and that is they make money honestly. Things like trade secrets and company information that's proprietary is fair to keep secret. A business is entitled to keep anything they discover or invent confidential.
What Chase has done to me is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You might think that $280 is no big deal or that it is. To me it's not the amount but how they handle it. The money is rightfully mine. The bank has no right to use it and not credit my account right away. That money is still with the bank. It's money I can't use to pay a bill, buy a book or rent a movie. It's money I can't invest or save. It's free money for the bank to use for 3-5 days. At least they could return some interest to me.
In the grand scheme of things, what is $280. For some people it's a huge amount. For others it's pocket change. But the money belongs to them and not the bank. Think also of how many times in a day, week, month and year a bank does this practice. My guess is that it amounts to millions of dollars if not billions that they are using dishonestly to make money.
Of course I sent off an email to Chase customer service. I was assured the bank would reply in one business day. It's been more than one business day. Not only are they dishonest in using my money but also lie on their website about how long they take to reply.
This is just a small fraction of practices the banks can use to earn dishonest profits.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Yale University 0, Terrorists 1
Yale University Press decided not to reprint the cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in an upcoming book.
Now for the absurd part. The book is about the cartoons and the ensuing violence they allegedly caused.
"The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen explores the fallout that took place after the cartoons were published by a Danish newspaper.
The university honchos decided not to run the cartoons out of fear that violence and death would follow publication. Frankly it's a cowardly stance to take. The cartoons were published in 2005. Everyone who wanted to see them has already seen them. I'm almost positive that those who were insulted have burned and killed all they plan on doing. Events that happened in 2005 are dictating what is published today. The idiots and zealots who were enraged will riot over something else if the pictures aren't publish. If Yale withholds the cartoons, the fanatics will just wait for the next perceived insult to carry out their crazy acts of violence.
A university should be a place for free exchange of information. Hiding the cartoons stops that free flow. It also stifles debate on whether or not the cartoons are insulting.
In this case, the terrorists have won. Yale is a private institution and may choose what to publish. First Amendment rights and censorship laws don't apply to Yale. However Yale is allowing the past acts of terrorists to control what they publish. As a nation we should stand up to these threats and live our lives despite the
terrorists. We should show that yes we may be vigilant against attack but we will not allow terrorist acts to undermine our core values as a culture and nation.
Yale instead took the low road and decided that a group of terrorist may or may not carry out violence. In fear, Yale decided that the prospect of violence outweighed the American values of free speech and free flow of information. Yale allowed past terrorist acts to dictate policy.
Thank you Yale. Fear and intimidation won while Yale cratered.
Now for the absurd part. The book is about the cartoons and the ensuing violence they allegedly caused.
"The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen explores the fallout that took place after the cartoons were published by a Danish newspaper.
The university honchos decided not to run the cartoons out of fear that violence and death would follow publication. Frankly it's a cowardly stance to take. The cartoons were published in 2005. Everyone who wanted to see them has already seen them. I'm almost positive that those who were insulted have burned and killed all they plan on doing. Events that happened in 2005 are dictating what is published today. The idiots and zealots who were enraged will riot over something else if the pictures aren't publish. If Yale withholds the cartoons, the fanatics will just wait for the next perceived insult to carry out their crazy acts of violence.
A university should be a place for free exchange of information. Hiding the cartoons stops that free flow. It also stifles debate on whether or not the cartoons are insulting.
In this case, the terrorists have won. Yale is a private institution and may choose what to publish. First Amendment rights and censorship laws don't apply to Yale. However Yale is allowing the past acts of terrorists to control what they publish. As a nation we should stand up to these threats and live our lives despite the
terrorists. We should show that yes we may be vigilant against attack but we will not allow terrorist acts to undermine our core values as a culture and nation.
Yale instead took the low road and decided that a group of terrorist may or may not carry out violence. In fear, Yale decided that the prospect of violence outweighed the American values of free speech and free flow of information. Yale allowed past terrorist acts to dictate policy.
Thank you Yale. Fear and intimidation won while Yale cratered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
