Is torture on suspected terrorists ever justified?

     America has a history of torturing terrorists.  Whether it be in the very controversial Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq, or in the infamous Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  Tactics used range anywhere from waterboarding to physical abuse in order to try and get answers out of the suspected terrorists held at these awful prisons.  The moral question of this issue is whether or not the torture enacted upon suspected terrorists is ever justifiable. 

     The moral arguments with the torture of terrorists is whether it is worth torturing one person in order to hypothetically save 1000 other people.  The specific terrorist action had not happened yet so there is no proof that there was even any good done by torturing the terrorist.  The torturing of people violates the Geneva Convention signed in 1949.  There are specific clauses in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention that directly say that torture is a direct violation of human rights and the humane treatment of prisoners.  The American government believes that torture has helped them acquire information to help stop terroristic threats and actions.  The cons against torture are that it violates human rights, terrorists often will lie to help the torture stop, and torture has never proven to be more effective than other ways of getting answers from the terrorists.

     There have been many famous cases of the overreach of American power by using inhumane torture and awful methods to try and get answers.  The most famous case was in the Iraqi-prison Abu-Ghraib where the prison guards used horrible techniques such as sexual abuse and physical beatings to try and break the prisoners into talking.  After the awful doings at Abu-Ghraib were uncovered, only two low-level prison guards that were caught in many pictures were actually arrested for their actions.  Other horrible torture techniques were used on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  This is the offshore prison that the American government used to hold suspected terrorists in order to not have to give them rights given to typical U.S. citizens.

     The torture of terrorists is a huge moral issue that must be looked at by the U.S. government and human rights organization.  No human should be treated like animals, no matter the circumstances.   

Public Policy in Biking Safety

     There is a problem in our society in which many bikers do not feel safe on roads or do not feel safe riding at all.  This fear is caused by poor/reckless driving from car-owners and from failure of large cities to provide necessary room and lanes for bikers to feel safe enough to ride their bikes.  A clear place where change is occurring is in the City of Chicago.  Bikers that would like to bike in the South and West parts of town have expressed their concerns through a petition that wants the city to provide safer bike lanes in these parts of Chicago.  A study by an avid cyclist in Chicago showed that only 38 percent of suggested bike routes in the City of Chicago are protected from or separated from traffic.  The other 62 percent of bike routes can be a danger to bikers in the city that would just like to enjoy their hobby without the danger.  

     Another case of cycling safety occurred in Lubbock, Texas.  A girl in Lubbock has gotten hit twice by cars while riding her bike and now her dad, Tim Phiffer, has taken his complaint to the Lubbock Board of Health.  These people are advocating for safer bike lanes and more rights for the cyclists in order to make it safer for these cyclists.  If biking becomes safer in these area, then more people would go biking in the city of Lubbock.  Another case of bicycle safety in local governments occurred in Winona, Minnesota.  The local citizens would like the city to provide the area with safer paths as well.  The three main streets in Winona are looking to be changed and the city council is currently taking ideas for improvements to these bike paths.  All of these changes in these areas are perfect examples of how citizens can influence and help create public policy in government.  In Chicago, they used their power to petition to get the city’s attention, while other areas went directly to the government with complaints.  Public policy can be influenced heavily through the use of citizen’s ideas and the voice of the people. Biking safety has become a large issue in many big cities and the citizens have the right to demand the government to change areas/streets to make the bike paths safer for all cyclists.   

Sources:  

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/safer-streets-solutions-for-pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety-aired-at/article_244b7fe7-f65e-5209-81b7-a13abb5749b2.html

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2015-04-17/lubbock-board-health-hears-argument-more-safer-bike-lanes

http://depauliaonline.com/news/2015/05/10/chicago-bikers-petition-for-safer-lanes-on-south-and-west-sides/

Supreme Court Case on North Carolina Redistricting

               In 2014, a North Carolina Supreme Court Case came to a controversial end.  The Supreme Court voted that state legislators did not consider race too heavily when drawing and declaring the district lines, in which many people considered a bad race-based case of gerrymandering.  The Republicans secured 10 of the 13 congressional seats from North Carolina after their re-drawing of the district lines in North Carolina.  The case was taken to the Supreme Court on grounds that the Republicans aimed to draw lines in order to make sure minorities’ opinion could be less powerful. 

                

               The Supreme Court made a decision recently based on the recent outcomes of another case, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus vs. Alabama.  This case also concerned legislators drawing voting lines to diminish the power of the black and minority votes in Alabama.  The case overturned a ruling by a lower court saying that the drawing of the district lines was “legally erroneous”.  This means that the court agreed that the act was wrong but it was legal the way in which they performed the act.  The current Supreme Court voted that the North Carolina Supreme Court should go back and reconsider the decision based on recent findings in the Alabama case also involving the drawing of district lines involving race. 

                The decision to give the power back to a lower court was a very conservative decision to make it possible for them to not make a true decision on it.  It was a clear example of judicial restraint as the court did not go out and change anything.  The courts could have made an example of the North Carolina legislative lines and made sure nobody else would do it, but instead they made a decision for it to be reexamined by a lower court.  Also, the court really did not use strict or loose constructionist methods when making this decision, they just decided whether or not they wanted to vote on it.  No constitutional rights or privileges were impacted or taken into consideration through this process to get to the decision.  The Supreme Court made a smart decision to put the power in the lower courts in a lower courts hands in order to move on to other cases like the cases on gay rights that are currently circulating through the highest court in America.       

Sources:

http://www.wral.com/supreme-court-orders-review-of-north-carolina-redistricting/14593190/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/supreme-court-redistricting-_n_7100122.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-revives-challenge-to-north-carolina-redistricting-1429541094

The Iran Nuclear Deal

          President Obama is currently negotiating with the United Nations concerning the current situation in Iran and if the Iran nuclear deal should pass or not.  Basically, the 6 strongest governments in the country are deciding whether or not Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program.  Obama does not need Congress support for the decision he is going to make on the issue, but he is looking for help from Congress on the issue.  Politicians across the country believe that Congress should have a bigger say on this huge issue and should vote on what they believe should happen with Iran.  Negotiations are taking place on a case in which Congress can decide what the punishment against Iran would be if they did not follow the rules of the agreement.  The Obama Administration has been pushing hard for the support from Congress and the general public on coming to a peaceful deal with Iran instead of the use of military force to get our way.  Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey stated that he believes Congress should have to review any nuclear deal that could be made with Iran. 

President Obama and Hassan Rouhani, current President of Iran.

          John Boehner, the current Speaker of the House, believes that the United Nations will have a very hard time coming up with a mutual agreement on what to do with the oil powerhouse and growing nuclear threat Iran.  Boehner stated that if the current nuclear deal with Iran fails or falls apart, then the US Congress will be quick to apply new sanctions to limit the power of the Iranian government.  He also came out saying that if the US would have never loosened the old sanctions on Iran, then this current Iran nuclear deal and the situation with Iran would have never happened.  Congress and America in a whole is in a bit of a pickle because they need to come to an agreement with Iran in order to keep our country and many other countries safe from the nuclear threats that Iran poses.  The only other option if an agreement cannot be figured out, would be to take force to Iran and physically force a shutdown of the Iranian nuclear program.  This would be a lot of bombing and troops that would most likely come off as controversial in America, noting how America has reacted to past military expenditures in the Middle East.  This deal could have serious implications on our current military standing, economical trade and oil trade standings, and the deal will be a very serious issue in the upcoming election.  Many debates will take place questioning whether it is a good idea to bomb Iran and use force to destroy their nuclear program or if a peaceful agreement is the way to go, even if the Iranian leadership is a little shaky and hard to trust.   

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/29/boehner-expresses-doubts-about-reaching-nuke-deal-with-iran-vows-sanctions-will/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-oversight/2015/03/30/id/635257/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-29/menendez-says-congress-must-review-any-nuclear-deal-with-iran-i7ummog8

Impeaching Obama

President Obama has had a quite controversial presidency and the Republican Party is livid about some of his actions.  There has been a lot of talk in the Republican Party about trying to impeach Obama on many separate charges.  The Republicans have been upset with Obama ever since he was voted into office and they have been trying to come up with reasons to impeach Obama since the beginning.  There are many pros and many cons of impeaching Obama for the Republicans.

     First of all, let’s start on why the Republicans want to impeach Obama and what grounds they are going to have on to impeach him.  In recent news, Obama has been the first president to ever cross the federal law by negotiating with terrorists.  When news came to America that there was an American soldier being held captive by an Afghan terrorist group.  Obama broke American foreign policy by negotiating with terrorists and he traded 5 high-ranking Taliban terrorist members for the American soldier.  The Republicans have called these acts by the President to be high crimes and misdemeanors and should be grounds for impeachment.  In another case, Obama has granted legal relief to approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants.  This has angered the Republican Party to no end and they have stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not give the President the power to give undocumented aliens the right to legal relief. 

     There are several pros and cons to impeaching the President, especially differing from separate political party views.  First of all, the republicans believe that they should impeach Obama for the acts that he has committed.  The road to impeachment is just how Congress sees Obama’s crimes and if they are considered high crimes and misdemeanors in the member’s eyes.  The main pros to impeaching the President is purely justice for his unconstitutional acts.  The problem is impeaching Obama could also end up blowing up in the Republican’s faces.  The successor of Obama’s office would be Joe Biden, and putting Joe Biden in office would be a nightmare for the conservative Republicans.  Joe Biden is as liberal as it gets and the conservative-majority Congress would never be able to get anything done with laws continually getting shot down by the new President.  I believe Obama has done acts that are grounds for impeachment, but impeaching Obama would be a mistake because it would make things harder for the Republicans to get things done.  Also, the Republicans would never be able to get enough votes to actually impeach President Barack Obama. 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/opinion/the-impeachment-of-obama-on-immigration-may-be-legal-but-its-wrong.html

http://www.westernjournalism.com/calls-obamas-impeachment-well-grow-louder-armys-decision-charge-bergdahl/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/12/08/impeachment-of-obama-would-do-serious-damage-to-republicans/

Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech in Washington D.C.

Benjamin Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel and he is currently in Washington D.C. to address a session of Congress about U.S. ties with Iran in a nuclear power deal that Israel and Netanyahu think would be a very bad deal if the U.S. goes through on it.  Current Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on this pressing issue but he did not go through the White House when inviting him.  This has caused quite a stir in the Obama administration because this is the first time somebody has ever been invited to speak for Congress without the consent of the current president. 

                This issue is very pressing in Israel as voters prepare to make their decision on whether or not to re-elect Netanyahu as their prime minister.  Many people in believe that they need to maintain their current “special relationship” that the Israelis have with the United States of America.  Many Obama-supporters are also quite outraged about this special invitation by John Boehner.  The invitation breaks a U.S. policy that states that Congress will not host a foreign political figure that is currently up for election in their respectable country.  Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are both in very bad holdings as they are disagreeing on how the U.S. should handle Iran and their nuclear weapons program.  Obama stated: ”This is not a personal issue.  I think that it is important for every country in its relationship with the United States to recognize that the U.S. has a process of making policy.” earlier in the week.  Obama has made several statements angry about Netanyahu’s claims about what must happen with Iran and Obama states that none of his predictions have come true.  Nobody would like to see the U.S. and Israel’s current state come to an end, therefore they are trying to let this whole controversy blow over as the two leaders of each respectable country disagree on a very important issue in the world.  Netanyahu is set to address Congress on March 3.

Sources:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/white-house-and-netanyahu-aipac-conference.html?_r=0

2. http://time.com/3729230/israel-netanyahu-address-congress/

3. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/02/390132671/netanyahu-s-speech-to-congress-is-already-controversial

  

Margin of Error in Polling

                The margin of error in polling is a very controversial topic.  A margin of error in polling is how wrong or how varied the poll could be from the actual opinion of the group.  The margin of error can be decreased with a larger random sample.  The introduction and large use of online polling has caused a huge problem with coming up with and how accurate a margin of error is.  Since our society so heavily demands this statistic when shown a poll, the people taking the poll must work hard to come up with their best estimate on how big it is.  The problem is that in order for a margin of error to be accurate, it must have a truly random sample and all the characteristics of a truly scientific poll.  An online poll does not allow for this to occur because the whole population is not available for polling and the people that do take the poll are not at random. 

                Arguments are taking place that the online surveys should not have to include the margin of error in them because they are not a truly scientific and random poll to begin with.  Annie Petit, writer for the Huffington Post, stated that people should stop having to ask for the margin of error, especially in online polls.  She believes that the margin of error has encompassed the study and the media/people are too worried about the margin of error than the actual data found in the polling process.  I side with her on this because often times people will try and discredit/disregard a poll or not believe it when it has such a large margin of error.  The AAPOR or American Association for Public Opinion Research has recommended to many polls that they should leave out the polling error whenever dealing with opt-in polls like online polls.  Huffington Post has stated that they are in a bit of a pickle because they would be going against the AAPOR if they provided the margin of error.  But then again, if they fail to do so then the general public could be angry that they cannot see how accurate the data provided is.  

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/margin-of-error-debate_n_6565788.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annie-pettit/stop-asking-for-margin-of_b_6579466.html

The Banking of Marijuana Sales

                Marijuana legalization is a huge issue in current American politics, as multiple states have passed laws allowing for the recreational sale and usage of the drug.  There is one very big problem with these laws.  Federal law states that the narcotic marijuana is illegal, while some states have laws that say otherwise.  The marijuana is bringing in large amounts of money but they have nowhere to keep this money except in cash.  The banking business is a federally-run organization and they do not allow for the marijuana businesses to put large amounts of drug money into the bank.  If dealers would try to deposit their money, the dealer would lose their money and the bank would get in trouble.  There is a huge debate about what the federal government should do about this problem and marijuana dealers are outraged because having large amounts of cash is very dangerous. 

                The public view of the narcotic is starting to shift, as states like Colorado and Washington continue to see benefits from their decisions to legalize marijuana.  Also, some banks are beginning to warm up to the idea of banking marijuana money.  The First Security Bank of Nevada is the first bank to publicly and freely accept money acquired in the cannabis industry.  They have already seen close to 35 Million dollars in deposits from industries alone.  Establishing a banking business for the marijuana money would greatly benefit all suppliers of marijuana products and most of all, banks.  The marijuana business was equal to 1.5 billion dollars in 2013 and it is only growing as our society is changing.

                Highly influential members of the business have started notions to try and get their own banking system.  The Federal Reserve was contacted by Mark Mason, who just wants a place to keep his large amounts of money instead of having them guarded by security and guards all the time.  Having a bank in which to store his money would save him a fortune and he would be able to stop dealing in cash.  Mr. Mason and a few other influential pot enthusiasts filed to the Federal Reserve for a “master” account.  Normally, these requests are granted in no time, but their request was sent almost 3 months ago.  They are currently waiting on the Feds to help them with their large monetary problem the cannabis business has caused.

                Overall, the states and cannabis businesses are in a debate about selective incorporation and whether these states should have to follow the federal ban of marijuana or if they override this ban.  Many people think that marijuana should be legal everywhere due to its large monetary benefits but it just needs to find a banking system to support it.

Sources:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/business/marijuana-industry-in-colorado-eager-for-its-own-bank-waits-on-the-fed.html?_r=0
2. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-marijuana-banking-20141128-story.html#page=1
3. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102186623#