U.S. Avoids Confronting Putin, Hoping to Keep Tensions Low

Even after Russia has sent their missiles and jets flying over Syria, President Obama continues to support a patient response to avoid conflict with Russia. Although he calls it patience, many critics think that he is scared to make a bold move against Russia. If this is true, it comes with good reason since he is dealing with a leader like Putin.

At this point, there is very little that the U.S. could do without sparking Russia to escalate tensions. Although Obama is preparing for meetings in coming days, he does not have a new plan to deal with Russia, Putin, or the Islamic State. Although the U.S. wants to help the Syrian opposition allies, it will not provide them with arms. This leads Obama to believe that not much can be done about the issue right now, and that most of the help that the U.S. can provide will be given after the fact. This is especially true because of where this is taking place; the Middle East, where one political or military move could erupt a whole new issue. As a result, the U.S. government believes that all it can do right now is sit back and wait out Russia's intervention, while still keeping a close eye on the issue.

Although it is unsure what can be done in our relations with Russia without angering them, we know that it might not take much to make Putin do something rash. Many think that the Obama administration is being too reserved, and that if we want to come to an agreement with Russia, we must take action. They say it is wishful thinking to believe that Russia will be reasonable if we just sit back and do nothing. However, if we do do something, we have no idea what Russia will do,

What do you think the Obama administration should do? Is the U.S. being too conservative or is it being smart? Does the U.S. even have a responsibility in this issue?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/wary-of-escalation-the-us-is-waiting-out-putins-moves.html

Should the Federal Government Ban the Confederate Flag?

On June 17th in Charleston, South Carolina, nine African- American church goers were murdered. This massacre led to the removal of the Confederate Flag from the state capitol because the shooter had a Confederate license plate. The flag was removed in respect for the people who were murdered, and will be moved to the state military museum to be exhibited. The removal of the flag has sparked controversy because many people believe the flag is a representation of racism, and white supremacy. However, others believe the flag is not intended to be racist, rather just a symbol of Southern pride and their history. 

What I find interesting about the argument in favor of the Confederate flag is Robert E. Lee did not even support flying the flag after the Civil War. Following the war, Lee rejected the use of the flag and actually asked his men to put the flag away. The Confederate Battle Flag that we are all familiar with was never actually the official flag of the Confederacy. "The flag was rejected for use as the Confederacy’s official emblem, although it was incorporated into the two later flags as a canton. It only came to be the flag most prominently associated with the Confederacy after the South lost the war". Lee even refused to be buried in his confederate uniform, and did not want anyone dressed in the Confederate union to attend his funeral. After the war ended he took an oath to support the Constitution and believed that continuing to represent the confederate flag would be a symbol of treason. He is quoted for writing "I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavoured to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered". Lee wanted people to return to a peaceful state after the war and did not want to hold any resentful feelings.

How do you feel about the Confederate flag being banned? Do you think the government should get involved and ban the flag? Do you agree that the flag is a symbol of "treason", or racism? 

Sources:

http://wnep.com/2015/07/10/confederate-flag-comes-down-at-south-carolina-capitol/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/us/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/8-things-didnt-know-confederate-flag/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clyburn-confederate-flag-robert-e-lee

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/even-robert-e-lee-wanted-the-confederate-flag-gone.html

Kevin McCarthy Drops Bid for House Speaker

To add to the GOP chaos of the past few months, Kevin McCarthy, the House Majority Leader, dropped his bid as speaker of the House. In September, John Boehner announced he would be leaving the position on October 30th. Kevin McCarthy had his name in the running, but suddenly announced today he would no longer be running. According to CNN, McCarthy told reporters on the scene "I think I shocked some of you, huh?” (Kopan). When questioned further on the matter, CNN reported McCarthy said "If we're going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to do that.” McCarthy also added “that he did not want to win the race on the House floor with only enough votes to squeak by” (Kopan). McCarthy dropping out comes with many more implications

Kevin McCarthy has been a strong GOP presence in the House for a long time, and his dropping out of the bid might lead to serious consequences for the GOP. Many republican presidential candidates aren’t too worried about the speaker position. Jeb Bush reportedly just said he was surprised that the California representative had dropped out of the race, but he promoted Florida representative Daniel Webster. Of course, Donald Trump weighed in on Twitte with, “Great, Kevin McCarthy drops out of SPEAKER race. We need a really smart and really tough person to take over this important job!” Ben Carson said McCarthy deserved “Kudos for putting others before himself.” (Rafferty).

The house speaker will most likely be a Republican, as they are the majority of the House. MSNBC reported “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi simply said it is ‘up to House Republicans to choose the next Speaker,’ seeming to throw cold water on the idea that the parties could compromise on finding a speaker that would be chosen with votes from both parties (Rafferty). 

What do you think? 

Who will get to be the next Speaker of the House? 

Does this affect the Republican race at all? 

Will Democrats and Republicans be able to come to a compromise on the next speaker of the house? 

Will the next speaker affect any shutdowns that may happen over gun control or contraception issues?

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/08/house-majority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-drops-out-of-race-for-house-speaker/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/house-speaker-republican-vote-mccarthy-webster-chaffetz/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/house-of-representatives_n_2038790.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-shocked-kevin-mccarthy-decision

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/