Saddam is executed - Is Osama next?

Well, I continue to be amazed at world events. I didn't think there was any doubt that Saddam Hussein would be found guilty for his crimes against the Iraqi people over the past thirty years. What I am surprised about was the speed with which he was executed. I guess that I have been used to the American justice system of appeal after appeal for death row inmates (which should be there to make sure the innocent aren't executed). But that appeal process has taken years, not days in this case.

Three and a half years later, almost as many American soldiers have died in this war as people have died in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, over 20,000 American soldiers have been injured, almost a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed in the fighting, the world is better for having one less dictator in it. Does that mean the Iraq War is justified? I don't know. I only think we can answer that question in ten to twenty years when we see what happens to Iraq after we leave.

I hope that Saddam's death sends a chill up the spines of other dictators throughout the world. The message should NOT be that America is coming to get you, but that the world will hold you accountable. The Chilean people were ready to put their old military strongman, Augusto Pinochet, on trial, but he died earlier this fall before they put him on trial. They cannot rule with impunity forever. The dictator of Romania found out the hard way when the people rose up at the end of the Cold War. Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Serbia in the 1990s during the Bosnian and Kosovo wars that included ethnic cleansing of Muslims, has been convicted of his crimes. Even in Rwanda, some of those who lead the massacre of 800,000 have been brought to justice.

So, I was thinking about that other guy in the war on terror: OBL. Osama. You might be familiar with his work. So, last night, I'm wondering where he's been hiding the last five years, and this morning, I read this transcript of CNN's The Situation Room from yesterday (Ed Henry is the CNN anchor, Fran Townsend is the Homeland Security Advisor):

"HENRY: But now as 2006 ends, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Heading into 2007, how confident are you that he can be brought to justice this coming year?

TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question in my mind that he'll be brought to justice. The real question is whether or not it's going to be this year. I will tell you that I feel increasingly confident, you know, it was interesting. There's a recent poll and the American people said 71 percent of them were optimistic that we can protect the country. And I think they've got reason to be optimistic. We've made a lot of progress. They see the progress we've made. We've disrupted plots. We've made reforms in our system, in our security system. So on bin Laden, do I think we are going to get him? I absolutely know we're going to get him. The question is will it be this year. And I will tell you I think there's increased activity both the part of the CIA, JSOC and our partners, the Pakistanis.

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure."

The emphasis is mine. Wow. Can I spend salary I haven't earned yet? Sure, with credit cards, but it's not smart to do a lot of that. Can you guys count on As and Bs that haven't occurred yet? Of course not. Would colleges let you apply in your sophomore year and let you count As and Bs you know that you'll earn in your junior and senior years? Of course not. Can I retire now knowing that I will eventually work another 15-20 years?

I wonder how much effort is really being put forth to find this guy. Furthermore, does it really matter if we find him? I'm willing to bet that Al-Qaeda has had now over five years to prepare for his eventual capture/demise and has replacements in line for when he is gone. So his capture or death really won't impact Al-Qaeda; what it will do is probably make him a martyr among his many radical Islamist supporters.

Comments?

These are my thoughts, not yours. Peace in the new year!
Mr. Wickersham

P.S. - If you don't believe she actually said this, go to CNN's transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/28/sitroom.03.html

Should the Scopes Trial be one of the Top 10 Unexpected Moments?

Today in class we watched a movie on the Scopes Trial. Why do you think that The History Channel picked this as one of the 10 Days that changed America? How do you think this has changed America? And what affect does it have on us today?

Josh St.

Below is a link to a site on the Scopes Trial from the University of Missouri at Kansas City: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scopes/scopes.htm

You may have also seen this picture in some of the readings or pictures of the Scopes trial. Here's a quote from T.T. Martin's book, Hell and the High School: "The Germans who poisoned the wells and springs of northern France and Belgium and fed little children poisoned candy were angels compared to the teachers, paid by our taxes, who feed our children's minds with the deadly, soul-destroying poison of Evolution....Evolution and the teaching of Evolution in tax-supported schools is the greatest curse that ever fell upon this earth."

A Court TV website dedicated to the Scopes Trial: http://www.courttv.com/archive/greatesttrials/scopes/

A CNN.com archive of a July 2000 article revisiting the trial on its 75th anniversary. Very detailed with related articles and links at the bottom of the page. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/

Even more stuff on evolution or creation: http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 The Grand Canyon National Park is not allowed to speculate on how old the canyon is b/c it might violate the sacred concept of creation. In fact, at the NPS gift store there, they began selling a book in 2003 called Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail which essentially gives a biblical timeframe for the formation of the Grand Canyon (Noah's flood caused it) instead of geolgical forces.

The legality of Prohibition

Lauren T. asks:

In class today we talked about Prohibition and how the government stopped the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of alcohol. Do you think it was right of the government to pass all of these laws to stop alcohol consumption? Do you think they should have done what they did, (passing the 18th Amendment and all that came along with it), or should they have just tried to reduce the amount of alcohol you consumed, or put a limit on how much you drank?

Also, do you think it was right for civilians to import alcohol illegally?

"There is nothing more oppressive...than a democracy gone mad."

I bring up the dual issues of censorship of ideas and censorship of the press during wartime because it came up during the talk on the Espionage and Sedition Acts during the Great War. Under these acts, a person can be fined up to a max of $10 grand and given a 20 year sentence for interfering with the sale of war bonds or the draft, or saying anything profane, disloyal, or abusive about the government. Obviously, these laws violate the 1st Amendment.

During wartime, there is a feeling that certain ideas may be considered dangerous, traitorous, or even downright unpatriotic. Many have been accused of such things when criticizing their government during times of war, and our history book mentions some of them. Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist Party leader and candidate for the Presidency, was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined $10,000 for "speaking out against the war and the draft" (Danzer, et. al. 392). Anarchist Emma Goldman was convicted and sentenced for creating a No Conscription League and then was deported to Russia after two years in jail.

The legal reasoning backing these cases up was set in cases like Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Eminent justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. stated that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes went on comparing protecting free speech of the guy who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Holmes implied that Mr. Schenck's wartime leaflets were that kind of clear and present danger and therefore needed to be censured. Is Justice Holmes correct when he compares the two? Or should there be freedom of expression even during times of war?

Then there's the case of the press. Should the press have access to everything as if there wasn't a war going on? What if the war had secret information? Should they publish or release the info to the public? How much censorship is too much? How much is too little?

Idealog website

Check in to Idealog.org, a self test website to find out whether you're a libertarian, liberal, conservative, or communitarian (communist).

http://www.idealog.org/ideaflash.asp?ClassID=366589

This link should take you there for our class. You'll have to enter your email address before taking the test. Enjoy.

Please finish before class on Thursday morning. This exercise will help us determine who should be a Democrat or Republican in our Treaty of Versailles debate.

Twain or Hemingway?

Which writer do you like best: Mark Twain or Ernest Hemingway?

I like Ernest Hemingway better because I understand it better, and I like most of his stories. Ernest writes stories that can help you make better choices but one thing I don't like is some of his stories he doesn't give enough details on what he is talking about so he makes it confusing. As we talk about it in class I understand it better. I don't like Mark Twain's writing because it can affect people and it's hard to read.

Anita H.

Dan asks about "Hills Like White Elephants"

In the story "Hills Like White Elephants" the man and woman, husband and wife, are not sure whether or not to have an abortion. The couple enjoy, and frequently travel around the world. The woman is pregnant and needs to make a choice, on one hand she would like to have the child and settle down, on the other she knows that if she decides to go through with the baby, the expeditions would need to come to an end.

In this case do you think it is acceptable to have an abortion?

Dan E.