Should We Fear Iran?

On Wednesday, October 7, Iran’s Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khanmenei prevented direct negotiations with the United States because he fears US interference in Iranian affairs concerning the nuclear program. In July, the Iran Deal was put into effect; it reduced the nuclear program, but lifted sanctions. It is still controversial whether or not Iran will abide by the deal especially with their new economic freedom. Also, the deal has been criticized for just benefiting Iran and not having any benefits for the United States. Khanmenei has even been called the “architect of the Iran deal” for this reason. Khanmenei said that he does not want any negotiation because he feels that it is not advantageous for Iran to have the United States imposing on Iran. In the past, he has criticized the United States in order to maintain ultra conservative values of Islam in his own country. Furthermore, he is a strong ally with Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad and supports the Syrian government with military power against the rebels (our allies). Iran financially supports the Hezbollah terrorist group and the rebels in Yemen; Iranian leaders also threaten to destroy Israel. Unfortunately, the lifting of sanctions by the Iran Deal could play to Iran's benefits and its allies' benefits more than ours.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-supreme-leader-bars-further-talks-with-u-s-1444220022

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/middleeast/iran-leader-us-talks.html 

Should the United States be concerned with Iran’s affairs at this point? Is the trust that has been given to the Iranian government through the Iran deal a mistake? What do you think Khanmenei’s motives are for restricting negotiation with the United States? What should the United States do to protect its allies (if at all)? 

Obama Apology: The Bombing of Doctors Without Borders Hospital

Obama has personally apologized to the head of Doctors Without Borders for the United States bombing of its hospital in Afghanistan.

At least 22 people were killed in the airstrike that occurred this past Saturday, October 3. The U.S. said it was a mistake made during fighting between Afghan forces and the Taliban.

Obama told the organization that an ongoing Pentagon investigation would "provide a transparent, thorough and objective accounting of the facts and circumstances of the incident." Joanne Liu, the international president of Doctors Without Borders stated that the apology had been received but wanted to establish "what happened in Kunduz, how it happened and why it happened." Liu stated the organizations goal is to establish facts about the incident and the chain of command.

Liu is upset as thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most!

Direct presidential apologies to victims of American actions abroad are rare, but not unheard of. In 2012, Obama wrote a letter of apology to the Afghanistan President after several copies of the Quran were burned by the American military personnel, which lead to violent protests across their country. In 2004, President George W. Bush apologized for the treatment of Iraqi prisoned at the Abu Gharib military prison, stating he was "sorry for the humiliation." 

In addition to the presidential apology, how should the United States react to this situation? What is a probable solution? 
Should the United States help the Doctors Without Borders organization rebuild another hospital? 
If you were Joanne Liu, the international president of Doctors Without Borders, how would you want the United States to take action? 

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/asia/obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/10/07/doctors-without-border-seeks-international-probe-us-air-strike/73503106/

Death to the Death Penalty... Or Will It Live On?

Earlier this year, throughout April and June, the Supreme Court debated the use of lethal injection in the case of Glossip v. Gross that regarded the failure of lethal injections three times in Oklahoma. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer spoke out against the use of these injections and questioned the use of the death penalty as a whole. Breyer went so far as to say that the death penalty, especially after its multiple failings, may violate Article 8 of the constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. The case of Glossip v. Gross ended ruling in favor of the use of lethal injections despite uproar from not only Breyer and Ginsberg, but many citizens as well.

More recently, two cases of capital murder have been brought to the Supreme Court. The first is the case of two brothers, Johnathan and Reginald Carr, who murdered, raped, and abused five victims in Wichita, Kansas (where the death penalty is legal) in December 2000. The victims were taken a snowy field and shot execution style, along with other gory details. Although the crime was committed many years ago, the conviction process has taken a while. Initially, the state ruled for death penalty to both brothers; however, they appealed on the grounds that the jury had not been informed that mitigated factors (i.e. home environment when young) do not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that this swayed their decision. Additionally, the brothers' lawyer argues that the brothers should have been tried separately instead of under the same trial. After their appeal the sentence changed from death penalty to life in prison. Justice Breyer argued that the issue of having separate trials was a slippery slope, especially when considering the conviction of gang members. Breyer believes that the brothers should be tried as one, and his fellow Justice agreed. The younger brother, Johnathan, argued that his older brother had pressured him into the crime and that this was a mitigating factor that called for a separate trial. Justice Kagan said "Given the kind of evidence that was presented in this case the idea that somebody was a lousy big brother seems pretty small in the scale of things."

Currently, the Kansas Supreme Court is working to reinstate the sentence of death penalty on these murderers, and Justice Scalia agrees. Although there are many cases that contribute to the decision of whether or not the death penalty is constitutional, many say that this case of capital murder was so atrocious that the death penalty only seems fitting. In fact, Justice Alito was quoted saying that these murders, "involve some of the most horrendous murders that I have seen in my ten years here."

This case, along with Glossip v. Gross presented in the spring concerning lethal injections, give rise to questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty. 
Does the possible failure of lethal injections make the death penalty violate the law of no cruel or unusual punishment?
In cases as gruesome as this is life in prison enough, or do the culprits deserve a more severe sentence for their felonies?
Did the brothers deserve separate trial due to different mitigating factors or are they equally responsible for the crime committed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/politics/justices-hear-cases-on-death-penalty-without-the-bitterness-of-june.html?ref=politics

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/07/supreme-court-death-penalty-murder-kansas/73521982/

Did the U.S. violate the Geneva Conventions?

Saturday the afghan city Kunduz was targeted in a U.S. airstrike. The airstrike struck the city's main hospital killing 12 medical staff members and 10 patients (37 more were wounded). Although the pentagon is calling the event an accident, new evidence is surfacing that suggests the hospital was strategically targeted by the U.S. government which would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. The aid group "Doctors without borders" has released a public statement regarding the attack saying "Their description of the attack keeps changing -- from collateral damage, to a tragic incident, to now attempting to pass responsibility to the Afghanistan government". In July the aid group condemned a violent assault on the hospital by afghan special forces where the forces forcefully entered the hospital (which has a strict no weapons policy), assaulted staff members, and arrested three patients. There reasoning was that intelligence revealed the possibility of Taliban members being sheltered in the hospital. This has many suspicious that the government purposely targeted the hospital. Doctors without borders has condemned it a war crime by the U.S. government. 

What do you think about this? Is the U.S. government guilty? And if so what will the consequences be?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/asia/doctors-without-borders-afghanistan-airstrike/index.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/doctors-without-borders-bombing-no-advance-warning-aid-charity-says
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-hospital-airstrike-us-rules-of-engagement/

Ben Carson's Statements on Gun Control

“I would not just stand there and let him shoot me, I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’ ”

This is the statement that Ben Carson  made in response to the recent school shooting in Oregon which left nine people dead, ranging in ages from 18 to 67.
He made this statement because he was defending gun rights, stating that the second amendment was sacred and does not in fact cause spilled blood. He claimed that it was in fact the victims themselves who do not have the courage to stand up to their attacker, which is not only lacking in sympathy but also highly in correct. 
He blamed Obama for politicizing the event by embracing the families of the deceased, yet this was and inevitability of such a tragedy. An event like this is bound to have a drastic impact on policy and politics, especially due to the constant debate over gun control and the governments role in restricting it. Therefore, he made the above statement saying that he would have fought back in a situation like this.
He then went even further as to say that he believes that arming the "good guys" is the answer. Once of Carson's solutions was to have the NRA train kindergarden teachers in weaponry. Saying that it would instill a sense of comfort in the class room... which is quite paradoxical. 
Carson is not the only one to struggle with mustering sympathy towards these mass shootings when discussing gun control. Jeb Bush was criticized for saying that "stuff happens" when asked about gun controls and the affect is has on mass shootings. Republicans have argued over and over again about how gun control is out the the federal governments control.
Do you think that gun control is within the scope of the federal governments powers? Do you believe that it should be restricted? How long to you think it will be before they begin to seriously act? And how should presidential candidates react to gun control and mass shootings?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/06/ben-carson-says-he-would-have-been-more-aggressive-against-oregon-gunman/?ref=politics

Controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Awaits Congress Approval

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, trade deal has been in the making for years and is very controversial. It consists of the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Brunei. These 12 countries account for about 40% of the world’s economy. The deal would essentially create a free trade zone around the Pacific, including the lifting of tariffs and import quotas on products such as beef and butter; however, this deal intentionally leaves out the world’s second largest economy: China.

One hope for the TPP is that it will reduce China’s power in the global market, which would give smaller countries an opportunity to take their place in parts of the export market. In addition to U.S. hopes of slowing or negating China’s recent rapid rise, the U.S. hopes that the deal will help it to extend its influence in East Asia.

The deal is very controversial, and it was difficult for President Obama to even try to negotiate the deal. Critics of the deal says that TPP will cause unfair competition for U.S. made goods because it is impossible to be more economically efficient than companies that use low-wage workers overseas. A major opponent, the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that a similar trade agreement, NAFTA, cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs in its beginning 20 years, and TPP will do the same. Another point of criticism is that allows foreign companies to challenge another nation’s laws that impact them competing in their market. Critics say this will let companies from other countries to nullify U.S. safety rules and regulations. Even Democrats are afraid that the TPP will cost American manufacturing jobs and weaken environmental laws.

While it has opposition, the deal also has its support. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that 5 million U.S. jobs are connected to NAFTA, thus concluding that TPP will increase exports and support domestic jobs. TPP may also mean lower prices for consumer as and businesses. Economists argue that free trade will ultimately improve a nation’s wealth at the cost of some jobs being lost overseas. Most importantly, supporters emphasize the fact that TPP will ensure that the U.S. has a presence in the growing East Asian markets.

If the deal is passed, it will be very important to Obama’s legacy. However, it will be fiercely debated in Congress and also a topic of discussion in the upcoming election. Some candidates including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have opposed it. Democrat Bernie Sanders sent out a tweet: “"In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat the TPP agreement.” Hillary Clinton has not spoken about it yet.

While it’s difficult to tell if TPP will help or hurt American jobs as there is differing data, I do think it’s important for the trade agreement to be passed, for it will aid in the curbing of China, which is the second largest economy in the world and is quickly growing. I also think it’s important for America to have a presence in the region. It also will help to strengthen alliances with nations such as Japan and potential allies such as Vietnam.

What do you think? Do you think the deal will help or hurt America’s economy? Is it important for America to be involved in the market in the Pacific or should we stay out of it? How will this impact Obama’s legacy? How will this impact the election?

Sources:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/news/economy/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-two-minutes/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-trade-tpp-idUSKCN0RZ0ZV20151006

http://time.com/4061197/tpp-obama-legacy/

Human Rights or a Waste of Government Money?

Recently, Bernie Sanders comments on his beliefs for college and health care have gained a lot of public attention.  He believes that free college and universal health care are not only a good idea but rather a human right.  Since many other posts today have focused on Sanders platform and his chances at the Presidency, this post will instead focus entirely on the issues he has brought to light.  

These are both very serious issues that continue to become a bigger deal.  Since 1980, health care prices have increased by 4 times what it was and the cost of college has multiplied by 8.  

I think when looking at the idea of universal health care, there are three options, the system we currently have, a private but closely regulated system, or a purely public system.  Around the world, most first-world countries offer free health care, with countries such as Great Britain having free public health care and countries such as Germany having closely regulated private health care.  Citizens in these countries have enjoyed a longer life span than Americans, which can partially be contributed to this but the main reason is likely the obesity problem that exists in this country.  Personally, I believe a system in which we have a private system for almost everyone, except those who really can not afford it that is closely regulated is the best system.  The current system is failing the people but at the same time having a purely public system would go against American ideals and be a major financial cost for the government.  This system is best, because it allows the people to be protected while at the same time not increasing taxes or putting the country even more in debt.  

When it comes to the issue of the price of college, despite the seriousness of the rising cost of college, I do not think the government can afford to make college free for everyone.  The fact remains that we are a nation in serious debt and for this reason we do not have the luxury to make college free for everyone.  I do think the government should definitely help lower the cost for public colleges which would in turn lower the cost for private colleges as well.  I think there should be an initiative to help those pursuing a law or medical degree.  These degrees require significant years of schooling and therefore significant costs and the truth is that many who would pursue these great professions simply cannot.  We have a massive shortage on both doctors and lawyers.  Also, helping remove the amount of student loan debt would actually help lower the cost of health care because doctors would not need to make as much in order to pay off their debt.

I leave you all with these questions:

Do you believe that as Bernie Sanders put it, universal health care and free college are human rights?

What do you think is the most plausible yet efficient system going forward?  What are potential consequences of other platforms?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/universal-health-care.html

http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-critics-free-college-health-care-not-controversial/