Retort to Abortion article

ahhh.. Abortion. My fellow classmate is right about one thing for sure. "Heated with passion and religious beliefs abortion never makes for a dull topic to discuss." I'm Pro- Choice and not afraid to admit it. I think that Texas along with many other Southern states that are more conservative, have strong Anti-Abortion feelings. I had an English class last semester that we had to read an article on Abortion and write a response saying whether we agreed or disagreed with the writers statements. I was one of two students that said Abortion should be allowed. Everyone else called women that have had abortions "baby killers" and other random nasty names. I think that abortions should be handled carefully though. There should be counselings that the candidate must go through along with the other obvious screenings that should occur. It shouldnt be an easy decision to make. I'll admit that there should be some re-vamping of how abortions are handled, but i dont believe that they should be outlawed. There are so many scenarios that happen everyday to women that the general public doesnt see. I dont believe that a woman that has been raped or a young girl that had been molested should have to carry and raise a child that they dont want. As a healthcare worker, i know what goes on behind the scenes and im still pro choice. Here's the link to the article.
http://centralparkdemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/11/pro-choice-or-pro-life.html

Death Penalty

So this week, New jersey is getting rid of their death penatly. Which quite honestly kinda sucks. I hope that the other states that are pro death penalty dont follow suit off of Jersey's lame example. New Jersey re-enstated the death penalty in 1982, after the supreme court allowed states to resume executions, but Jersey hasnt executed anyone since 1963. There are currently 8 men on New Jersey's death row, and this bill that the Governer is soon to sign will spare them their lives. One of the men on NJ's death row is the man whose case sparked Megan's Law. I support the death penalty. I'm sure it sounds bad, but hell yeah i believe in an eye for an eye. Not random killings though. I dont think that people should be able to execute their own justice as they see fit. As long as it's done in the right way i support it. But i do believe that if you kill someone intentionally you should be put to death. The second part of this issue is how Jersey thinks that they are saving their tax payers money. I honestly cant believe that it costs more to put someone to death, than it does to house, clothe, feed, and entertain them for 60 + years. I would figure that the cost of a needle and some poison is well worth paying, considering the pain and suffering of the victims families.

Blackwater Retort

One of my classmate's has posted a blog on Blackwater and their killings. I find it interesting, so im going to comment on it. http://aliengov715.blogspot.com/2007/11/blackwater-bodyguards-were-given.html

What I find most interesting about this post is how the author thinks that Blackwater employees have any restrictions on them whatsoever. As a former Army soldier, I am not a huge fan of Blackwater and other Mercenaries employed by the government and working in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have some news for you. It's not just blackwater. Blackwater is an American company, but there are companies from all over the world there. The big ones are England and Australia. The problem with companies like these is that we've never had to deal with anything like that before. We've never had "contract mercenaries" to make laws about. They make their own rules and do what they want. American soldiers deployed to Iraq have rules and regulations to follow while in Country, Blackwater and companies like it, have none. If they hurt someone on the road, they dont have to stop and help like American convoys do. I hear you when you say that they should pay, but if there are no rules for them, then there are no rules for them to break. Thats the biggest part of the trial issue. Now onto the murder issue.

And as far as them klling innocent people. I not a fan of random murder, please keep that in mind, but i've seen way too many American soldiers, innocent AMERICAN soldiers getting killed for no reason, and quite honestly i have never seen an iraqi trial. Why should we as American soldiers follow the Geneva Conventions when no one else does? We have to help injured insurgents, but they can slice our heads off? We have to treat them fairly while they are detained, but they can torture and maim us? How is that fair? Please justify that to me. I'm not defending the Blackwater agency, nor am i defending the killing of innocent people, i just want you to think about the other side of the issue. When it's you over there, afraid for your life, with someone shooting at you, having to make a split second decision, are you going to stop and think "should i kill this person? They might be an innocent civilian." It's war my dear friend. In war there are casualties. It's a sad realization, but a true one.

Late Original Commentary

I try really hard to not read the news articles. As silly as that sounds, it's something that i have to do. Although lately for this class I am having to read them. The more and more i read, the more i get angry about what reporters and journalists are reporting as the truth. I read stories of local iraqi's and American Soldiers who have died in "roadside bombs", military operations gone wrong, random killings. Honestly, It makes me sick. Mainly because who are these journalists? Have they been there? Did they see it happen? Or are they reading about a story, that was told from someone who had a cousin who was near where it happened? I think what im trying to say here is that stuff happens. Sometimes bad stuff happens. But we are fighting a war people, and if you think that our war is going to be casualty-less (if thats even a word), you are quite honestly horribly mistaken. I read an article recently that had a picture showing President Bush embracing a KIA soldiers mother. The article was shining a negative light on President Bush. Saying that he hasnt done enough for the families of soldiers that were killed in action. What do we want him to do? Call every single family member and express his deepest sorrows? I mean come on people! Be Realistic. He didnt know your family member, he didnt care. I'm sure there is a part of him that feels guilty when a soldier dies, but honestly that is their job. It's what they signed up to do. Everyday when i woke up in Iraq i knew it was possible that it would be my last, but it's what i signed up for. Please! Dont get me wrong. I dont support Bush, but i dont hate him either. He did what he thought necesarry to fight this "war on Terror". Unfortunately i had to go to Iraq because of his decision. But i will tell you this, that deployment made me grow up in a way that nothing else ever could have or will. Americans think that being deployed is all bad. I'm here to tell you it's not. There is a lot of stuff going on over there other than killing. A lot of good is happening over there as well. Every couple weeks, my batallion did a Medical Operation in Samarra. We went out and walked the streets of the city with Medical supplies and gave check-ups to families that wanted them. They were long, hot days, but they were good days. Every Tuesday and Thursday soldiers from the Iraqi battalion that were grouped with would come to our operating base and we would teach them medical skills. It wasnt easy. Sometimes it was frustrating, and annoying. Let me tell you language barriers really suck. :) But the next time those medics brought a casualty to us, and the limb was bandaged correctly, or bleeding was controlled, it made my job easier, and it made me proud to have taught them something that they will be able to use forever. This war isnt going to end anytime soon. We better get used to it, and start seeing some of the good coming out of it. Accept it for what it is. Support your troops in other ways then bashing the president and writing letters to your congressmen. There are websites that deal with care packages for soldiers, pen pals, there are other ways to show you care. Rant ended.

Candidate Colbert?

This article was in the NY Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/candidate-colbert/

Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" host is apparently running for president! How crazy is that? Some people are not taking his announcement to run for President seriously. I say let him run. What could it hurt? I mean look at what's going on in our government now. More war, more poverty, still no government healthcare for every citizen. What could one comic running for President ruin? On his show, Stephen Colbert uses satire to let the people know what's going on in politics. Generally, Colbert focuses on what people actually want to hear, and if while running he keeps that up, i believe he might come close to winning. His honest and un-biased opinions are refreshing especially after listening to all the crap that most of the media focuses on in today's world. He succeeds in making millions of Americans pay attention to whats going on in the news by making it entertaining, and if he can make that many people pay attention to Politics, what might he do if elected President.

Colbert is planning on campaigning in South Carolina, and is wanting to get on both Republican and Democrat ballots.

I see nothing wrong with a comedian that is also interested, and willing to take part in politics in running for President. If he can meet all the requirements to gain backing from the Republicans and/or the Democrats, i say ROCK ON COLBERT, BRING THE WITTY-NESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE!

Torture

This article was in the NY Times on October 3rd. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?ex=1349236800&en=7a5c398ea076132f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Torture. Everyone has opinions about torture. Unfortunately, not many people actually think about what would they do if someone had information they desperately wanted. I think there are two sides to the torture issue. This article focuses on the secret torture documents that the Bush administration drafted up. Thats not what i am going to focus on. What was done is done. I find the whole torture debate much more interesting.

Personally, i think the U.S. should be able to torture people who are suspected/known to have ties with terrorists, but The United States has an "official" stand on the treatment of Prisoners during wartime, called the Geneva Conventions. In the Geneva Conventions, it states “To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above mentioned persons: (A) Violence to life and person, In particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…” Basically it states that even if the enemy tortures you and your people, the minute you catch them, there has to be humane and decent treatment.

What im wondering is where is the fairness in that? People that oppose torture used in the Middle East irritate me. In the year i spent in Iraq, I saw a lot of people die. Acquaintances, fellow soldiers, enemy soldiers and innocent civilians. I have felt that hatred that comes from seeing someone close to you hurt by someone. I have felt the hatred of seeing someone who i didnt even know hurt by someone. There were times where i wished that as a soldier i didnt have to follow that rule, because there are a lot of people who shouldnt have gone free, that shouldnt have been treated so fairly. I bet there were a lot of people who had information that could have been very valuable to the US let go. The people that oppose torture and say that it's inhumane to treat someone that way seem very strong to me. I wonder if it was their best friend, if it was there child, husband or wife, if they would be able to sit there and treat that person that just killed their loved one decently. I'm not sure i could.

Attorney General

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/washington/24mukasey.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

This is an article from the NY Times about Bush's third attorney general nominee. Judge Michael B. Mukasey ordered an indefinate detention of Arab Americans after the 9/11 attack as material witnesses. The article tells of Osama Awadallah a college student in California, with no criminal backgroud, and how he was detained and allegedly beaten after 9/11. Osama told his lawyer about his treatment in a federal Manhattan detention center and the lawyer told Judge Michael B. Mukasey who responded non-chalantly, saying "He looks fine to me."

The article goes on to explain that Judge Michael B. Mukasey and the Justice Department violated the 1984 material witness law, by holding terrorist suspects indefinately without accusing them of a crime, and denying them access to public defenders. The material witness law was written and intended for use in criminal cases to prevent witness from fleeing the country before they could testify.

I think it's important for people to read this article, because it shows the flaws in the systems. It's completely un-constitutional for a person to be imprisoned and held for months on end because of racial profiling. It shows a flaw in our judicial system, and i find it hard to believe that Bush would appoint a former judge who so obviously had no problem violating the liberties of many people to be his Attorney General.