Federal Judge Orders that War Photos be Released

A major concern of many who follow the U.S. involvement in the Middle East is the treatment of prisoners and refugees by the American soldiers.  The military and the government is now pressured with the decision of whether or not to release an estimated 2100 pictures depicting military abuse of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.  U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered that the pictures must be released, and now the government has 60 days to decide whether they will release the photos or appeal the decision made by Hellerstein.

This is not the first time a case like this has made the news.  Similarly, in 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pleaded, and eventually sued, for the release of pictures depicting military violence. The ACLU argued that the photos had to be released under the Freedom of Information Act.  These disturbing photos, some of which were never actually released to the public, depicted heinous acts by the American soldiers, including piles of naked bodies, prisoners being held on leashes, and even one female soldier pretending to sodomize a naked prisoner with a broom.  There are many supporters of this group, and even the Obama Administration has long been in support of the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's "torture report".  Arguments against the release of these photos and this valuable information about American soldiers overseas say that some disturbing photographs could further encourage attacks against the U.S.  They say that the photos will be used by terrorist groups, such as ISIS, as propaganda to encourage members to join the group.

Hellerstein has been in charge of making a ruling on the case since 2004.  He first stated that the pictures had to be released in 2005, but no action was taken because of deteriorating conditions in Iraq, and a request from Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to stop the release of the images to avoid further destabilization in the middle east.  After this request, the U.S. gave Secretary of Defense Robert Gates the power to withhold these images for a maximum of three years, if he thought their release could endanger American lives.  This power has continually been used by the Secretary of Defense, until this new ruling was just made by Hellerstein.  The District Judge wants an exact explanation of how each individual picture could endanger American lives, or else he will again order the release of the photos.

Personally, I believe that at this time it is not in the best interests of the U.S. government to release these photos.  With the growing turmoil in many countries in the middle east and the rising power of ISIS, I do think that these images could endanger American lives.  What do you think?  Should the U.S. government have to release these disturbing photos? Do you agree with Alvin Hellerstein's ruling?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/world/federal-judge-orders-us-government-to-release-photos-of-abu-ghraib-abuse.html
http://www.newsweek.com/government-ordered-release-2100-pictures-detainee-abuse-315680

Indiana to Legalize Discrimination Against Gays Under "Religious Freedom" Law

This week, Indiana Governor Mike Pence is expected to sign a bill this Thursday allowing business to refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers under the justification of "religious freedom." The state's Republican legislature passed the measure after an unsuccessful 2014 attempt to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Proponents of Senate Bill 101 claim that the legislation is aimed at protecting private businesses and individuals from government oppression by allowing them to exercise their religious freedom to refuse gays and lesbians service. The text of the bill prevents state and local governments from "substantially burdening" a business owner's exercise of religion unless the government can prove it has a "compelling interest" and is doing so in the "least restrictive" means.

The bill's provisions echo the wording of the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, which protected a closely-held, private corporation's right to refuse its employees birth control coverage on religious grounds. Additionally, it is speculated that the legislature passed SB 101 in anticipation of the Supreme Court's much-anticipated June ruling on same-sex marriage, which could profoundly impact LGBT rights across the United States. If Gov. Pence signs off on the bill, Indiana will join 18 other states with similar legislation in place legalizing discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The governor issued the following statement: "[This bill] is about respecting and reassuring Hoosiers that their religious freedoms are intact. I strongly support the legislation and applaud the members of the General Assembly for their work on this important issue."

Supporters of LGBT rights are intensely pressuring Gov. Pence to change his mind and veto the bill, which they see as a violation of constitutional rights. The bill's opponents are hopeful the governor will follow Jan Brewer, the Republican Arizona governor who ultimately vetoed a similar bill in 2014, fearing the bill "could divide Arizona in ways that we could not even imagine and no one would ever want."

Interestingly, there has been a sharp outcry against the bill from the business community. Adrian Swartout, the owner of Gen Con, one of the largest gaming conventions in the country, has threatened to move the convention from its current location if the bill is passed. In recent years, Gen Con has attracted over 56,000 attendees and contributed $50 million in economic activity to the state of Illinois.

Swartout wrote in an open letter: "Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention."

Furthermore, the NCAA's Final Four is due to be held in the state in two weeks. Jason Collins, the first openly gay active NBA player, tweeted the governor asking whether it was "going to be legal for someone to discriminate against me & others when we come" for the athletic event. The NCAA reported they were examining the content of the bill and reconsidering their ties with the state. Additionally, the Christian Church declared it would cancel its 2017 Indianapolis convention should the bill pass.

Finally, the chief executive of tech corporation Salesforce warned the governor that his company, which bought Indianapolis-based Exact Target for in 2013 for $2.5 billion, would pull out of state if he signed the bill. The Republican mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, has come out against the bill, saying: "Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents. We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."

What do you think? Should Gov. Pence sign or veto the bill? Is this a bill about protecting religious freedom or legalizing discrimination? Is such legislation even constitutional?

Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/gen-con-threatens-move-convention-gov-mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/70393474/

President Obama Floats Idea of Mandatory Voting

On Wednesday, March 18th, President Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting while he was speaking to a Civic Group in Cleveland. Obama was originally asked a question involving the influence money has on U.S. elections in which he then digressed to the topic of voting rights and he said the U.S. should be making it easier to vote. President Obama even mentioned Australia by saying, "Just ask Australia, the citizens have no choice but to vote. Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states. At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison. Obama used these other countries as examples when he was vouching for mandatory voting laws in front of the media. He claimed it would be transformative if everyone voted.

I thought this was an interesting topic because of how much time we have spent in class discussing this issue. We have talked a lot about the poor turnout rate to the polls for younger Americans and voting turnout rates have become more and more of an issue in our country. Although the problem of voting turnout rates would be resolved with mandatory voting, I’m not sure if that will actually put the right person into office. This would lead to a lot of uneducated people being forced to the polls who most likely wont want to be there and won’t be making the best decisions for our country as a whole.

Do you guys think there should be mandatory voting in the U.S.? Why do u think Obama is such an advocate for mandatory voting? Will mandatory voting diminish the democratic experience for those who take the time to think through the issues and vote accordingly?

Obama Issues Executive Order on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On Thursday, March 19, 2015, President Obama issued an executive order pertaining to new goals for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions of the federal agencies. This new order mandates that federal agencies must cut their emissions by 40%  over the next ten years. Moreover, the directive orders that the agencies must increase their usage of renewable resources by at least 30. This executive order is reflective  of the  global warming agreement Obama made with China in November. The agreement Obama promised that the United States would reduce its carbon emissions by about 27% below the nation’s emissions in 2005, by 2025. Furthermore, the president’s order does not come as a shock, as it is an elaboration on Obama’s 2008 executive order that mandated that the government cut their carbon emissions by 28% by 2020. Moreover, Obama’s decision to issue this executive agreement seems  to be in line with his new style as Chief Legislature. To illustrate, as of late, the president has been using an “expansive interpretation” of his presidential powers in order to push legislation through a gridlocked Republican Congress.

However,  in reality, Obama’s executive decision may be more of just a gesture that America is willing to lead the world by example, as the order itself is unlikely to have a big impact on America’s carbon emissions. To illustrate, the federal government is responsible for less than 1% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, since the agencies are the biggest consumers of energy in the United States, there is hope that by reducing the federal government’s usage of nonrenewable resources, other large industries will be inspired to reduce their own carbon emissions.

Furthermore, in addition to the directive, the White House has released a “score card” that permits federal suppliers to keep track of their reductions and disclose their emissions. As a result of this new order, several companies (including I.B.M, G.E.,  and Honeywell) have declared that they will set their own greenhouse gas reduction goals as well. The executive order not only will help hinder global warming, but will also benefit the taxpayers as well as the economy. To demonstrate,  by cutting down on the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions, it is estimated that the government could save up to $18 billion over the next decade. In addition, senior White House aide, Brian Desse, has pointed out that, “If [the agencies] can consume less energy or they can consume renewable energy that is cheaper, more reliable or more sustainable, then they can achieve their environmental goals while they are saving money.”

What do you think of Obama’s executive order? Do you think that the directive was justified or that Obama is abusing his powers as president by trying to act unilaterally to bring about climate change? Furthermore, do you believe that the executive order will actually inspire American companies and the American people in general to reduce their carbon emissions? Energy interest groups, like Koch Industries, are key supporters of the GOP, donating millions of dollars to the Republican Party; how do you think Republicans will respond to this executive order? Will there be any political consequences for the president?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/us/politics/obama-order-to-cut-federal-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/19/obama-issue-executive-order-cutting-federal-govern/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/19/obama-to-cut-federal-governments-carbon-emissions/

Clinton Makes Another Comeback

After an awkward and embarrassing drama involving Hilary Clinton's private e-mail and its contents, Clinton seems to be back on her feet. The incident did not seem to to have much of an impact on Clinton in the eyes of the public, as a CNN poll recently showed that she was "miles ahead of any potential Democratic challenger, and would beat all potential Republican candidates by at least 10 points." Clinton's approval ratings seem to be around 53%, and while this is the result of a slight decline, the timing coincides with her re-entry to partisan politics. This shows that the e-mail issue may not have altered the public's opinion of Clinton very much at all.

The poll also showed that only 1% of those who participated in the poll had never heard of Clinton. This is a testament to her visibility and exposure to the public, which at this point seems to be helping her where it could be potentially harming her. Her large voter population seems disinterested in stories such as the email scandal but more interested on Clinton's campaign and stance on more pertinent issues such as student loans. Young voters who may not remember past scandals in the Clinton family, and who supported Obama in past elections will be present as continual support for Clinton as well. Her loyal voters and great exposure seem to working hand in hand in Clinton's effort to move past the email scandal and focus on the future.

On the contrary, many republicans believe that the issue of the email makes Clinton look secretive and apt to blur the rules. I personally think that Clinton's ability to move past the scandal and not allow it to threaten or worry her to a great extent shows her perseverance and poise in the political light. While it may not have helped her, I believe it shows voters her focus and ambition to accomplish as much as possible as opposed to letting personal scandals get in the way and slow her down. What do you think? Will the email scandal harm Clinton's chances at a future election? Will it have a significant impact on her voters opinions of her? If so why?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/hillary-clinton-election-2016-emails/index.html

Republican Budget Plan to Cut Obamacare

The ten year blueprint for taxes and spending the House Republicans have proposed could balance the federal budget, even promising a surplus by 2024. Without relying on tax increases, the budget writers were forced to balance the budget while increasing military spending. Nearly $40 billion in “emergency” war funding was added to the defense budget for next year, raising military spending without breaking caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The budget will also make “the Pell Grant program permanently sustainable.” 

But it comes at a price: the budget demands the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the tax increases to finance it. Spending on Medicaid may fall $913 billion over ten years once the health program is turned to block grants to the states, but as House Republicans put it, “Our budget realigns the relationship the federal government has with states and local communities by respecting and restoring the principle of federalism.” Billions would also be cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. Domestic programs would be cut $519 billion below the already restrictive caps set in 2011. White House officials estimated that 37 million people would lose health insurance between the Affordable Care Act repeal and Medicaid cuts; this more than doubles the ranks of the uninsured.

“What we’re seeing right now is a failure to invest in education, infrastructure, research and national defense. All the things that we need to grow, need to create jobs, to stay at the forefront of innovation and to keep our country safe,” President Obama commented.

I believe that a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act would benefit the Americans more than a raise in military spending. In addition, I am uncertain that the budget will be balanced in such a short amount of time, and that it would require more than ten years to do so. What do you think? How do you feel about the changes in the budget? How will the American citizens be affected by these changes?

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/us/politics/house-republican-budget-overhauls-medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html

The CIA Accidentally Funded Al Qaeda

A number of letters between Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda officials were unearthed in the recent Brooklyn trial of Abid Naseer, a man convicted of plotting to bomb a British shopping mall. Not surprisingly many of these documents discussed the United States. What was shocking, however, was what one correspondence between Bin Laden and a top Al Qaeda commander, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, revealed to be US contributions to Al Qaeda. 

In 2010, Afghan officials negotiated a $5 million dollar release of an Afghan diplomat held hostage by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Afghan security officials struggled to pay the steep price on their own, so they drew from money that they had saved from a secret fund. This treasury was, according to Afghan officials, financed by monthly cash payments from the CIA to Kabul’s presidential palace. Over the course of several years, Afghan officials had “squirreled away” nearly $1 million from the fund, and in 2010 handed that money to Al Qaeda in exchange for their diplomat.

            Al Qaeda has since used this $1 million in CIA money, as well as the $4 million drawn from other countries, to replenish its resources. Unfortunately, this money undermined the CIA’s efforts to deplete the organization’s treasury, namely their relentless campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan. In fact, had Al Qaeda not received such funding, they would have suffered immensely from the decimation of the upper military ranks. However, since “God blessed [them] with a good amount of money,” according to al-Rahman, they were able to stockpile weapons and fund other operational needs.

            Now what is possibly most disturbing about this whole situation is that the CIA didn’t know it was happening. Although Osama Bin Laden, who was alive at the time, feared that “there [was] a possibility…that the Americans [were] aware of the money delivery…and that they accepted the arrangement of the payment on the basis that the money [would] be moving under air surveillance,” the United States was relatively ignorant. In fact, the CIA continued dropping off cash amounts, which ranged from a few hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million, at the presidential palace in Kabul until last year. They stopped when President Hamid Karzai stepped down.

            Since news of the event has broken, the CIA has declined to comment.

            Now, this story raises quite a few questions, the most obvious being how could the CIA have been unaware that American dollars were being used to fund terrorist organizations? Perhaps it is more important, however, to ask why the CIA was even delivering these secret funds to Afghanistan in the first place. According to the NYT, the money was used to buy the loyalty of warlords, legislators, and other Afghans and to create a patronage network that secured President Karzai’s power base. One Afghan official commented that there are little to no American constraints on such contributions and “once [the cash is] at the palace, [the CIA] can’t do a thing about how it gets spent.”

            Personally, I’m furious to learn that not only has the CIA inadvertently been funding Al Qaeda but also that they are so willingly to give money that they do not even enforce guidelines on how it must be spent. They are so concerned with buying loyalty that they fail to read the fine print of their arrangements. But, what do you think about this situation; what does the CIA’s accidental contributions to Al Qaeda say about the American government? Should the CIA be held accountable for their actions? Moreover, should we reassess how we attempt to influence Middle Eastern policies because, at least based on the evidence of the past few years, our efforts seem to be doing more harm than good?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/14/nyt-cia-paid-ransom-to-osama-bin-laden/24772485/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/karzais-afghan-legacy-rests-on-fragile-unity-1411945500

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/abid-naseer-terror-suspect-found-guilty-on-all-counts-in-2009-bomb-plot.html