Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Time To Move On America

-
 photo George_Zimmerman_Mugshot.jpgBy now, we've all heard about the tragic encounter which took place on the night of 02/26/2012.  Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student, was followed, shot, and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator.

Police arrived within two minutes of the gunshot capped scuffle and took Zimmerman into custody  After being treated for head injuries, Zimmerman was questioned for five hours, but eventually released under the theory the shooting had been in self-defense.

Six weeks, and one media blitz, later, Zimmerman was charged with murder. On July 13, 2013, Zimmerman was found not guilty on all counts, including second-degree murder and manslaughter.

Commentators and civil rights leaders have dominated the airwaves, since the verdict was handed down, trying to make some sense of the outcome.   Some blame Rachel Jeantel's slang heavy testimony for stealing credibility from the prosecution's case.   Others are simply content to write the jurors off as being ignorant racists who blame Trayvon's mode of dress for the incident.

Like many people, I saw bits and pieces of the trial, on MSNBC, while drinking my morning coffee.  While I personally think Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, having watched bits of testimony here and a trial motion there, I don't feel as though I saw enough of the proceedings to be able to second guess the jury.

I didn't see the evidence which led the jury to their conclusion, so I don't know whether they got it right.  What I do know is that ongoing public speculation of racism, and/or botched testimony, can only serve to create bitter feelings and divide people.

If the federal government can make a civil rights case against Zimmerman, more power to them.  If law & sociology professors can glean lessons from these events, I think that's great.  However, the media and public need to move on.  Let's focus on issues which NEED to be addressed, including cabinet seats which remain unfilled, immigration, the military's policy regarding sexual assault, etc...
-
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States  and is in the public domain under U.S. law. 
-

Sunday, July 14, 2013

American Secret Court – Necessity Or Travesty?

-

Lately, the press has been abuzz with the revelation that a "secret court" has been approving surveillance warrants for the NSA, without hearing counter arguments or opening proceedings to public scrutiny.

The existence of the program came to light when now-retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2002 to 2005, blew the proverbial whistle.  According to Robertson, the court hears only the government's side when secretly deciding whether to approve search warrants and surveillance requests.

Being a card carrying liberal, I typically fall in line with those outraged by such news, and part of me has.  The problem is that I find myself torn on this particular issue.

On the one hand, there's a tiny lawyer in the back of my head giving a fevered lecture on the idea that our judicial system can't maintain a justifiable air of integrity unless its adversarial structure remains intact.  A tribunal, functioning as a "rubber stamp" for the state, isn't truly an impartial court of law, but is an extra-constitutional extension of the executive branch.  The presence of such an unchecked extension flies in the face of the very concept checks & balances.

I get that, and I can easily stand behind such an argument.  The dilemma becomes apparent though, when trying to conceive of a realistic alternative to the covert warranting process.

No, we don't want a government that can spy on anyone who touts an offbeat political view, or detain any citizen wearing a turban.  Yet, we also can't expect government agencies to tip their hand, by notifying a suspect's legal representative, every time they think they've caught wind of a terrorist cell.  Notifications, allowing legal challenges to potential warrants, could conceivably force suspects further underground.  Worse yet, such notifications could coax cells into executing terrorist acts before they otherwise would have.

We all know Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  However, he lived in a day when global communications took months, rather than nano-seconds, and a single act of terror couldn't kill 2,977 innocent people on a sunny September morning.

Should we sacrifice a certain level of  privacy, in order to feel safe, and trust the government not to abuse that sacrifice, or was Franklin still right?  Is the constant threat of mass murder a justifiable price to pay to assure individual privacy and freedom?   

I don't know.  What do you think?

-
Source = Former FISA judge sees problems in secret court – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States  and is in the public domain under U.S. law. 
-

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

A Quick Thought For Our Nation's Birthday - Micro Blog

-
In honor of July 4th, our nation's birthday, I leave you with the following thought from our first President.

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” ~ George Washington

Think about it
-