Headline from The New York Times: "China Says U.S. Criticism of Its Internet Policy Harms Ties."
That statement has been used by China so much. They really like to shirk responsibility. That statement has been used many times with slightly different wording. The form is still the same: China says [country] criticism of its [particular policy] harms ties. It's never that China's policy harms ties -- it's the criticism of that policy that harms ties. China is not harming international ties by censoring political content on the internet, instead countries like the U.S. are harming ties by daring to criticize those policies. China did not harm international ties by executing a U.K. citizen unjustly, instead the U.K. harmed ties by criticizing China for executing a U.K. citizen unjustly. When will other countries learn?! China is right, you are wrong. (Full Story)
Update: Initially it was believed that this decision was already reached. However, this was only a recommendation made by a Justice Department task force. Obama does not have to accept the recommendation. I don't believe he has made a decision yet.
The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 Guantanamo detainees. This decision was reached after a high-level task force concluded that these detainees are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release. Officials fear trials of these detainees could compromise intelligence-gathering and that these detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion (read between the lines: torture). The administration has also decided that nearly 40 other detainees should be prosecuted for terrorism or war crimes, and the remaining 110 prisoners will be repatriated or transferred to other countries for possible release. Those are the remaining detainees left at Guantanamo detention center (just under 200). (Full Story)
I think it's good they're working to close down Guantanamo and dealing with these detainees appropriately (trying them or releasing them). But I'm not happy about these 50 detainees that are going to be held indefinitely and not tried. This is a remnant of the Bush-era policies. If these people are being detained, there should be some evidence as to why they are being detained. There should be evidence that they are a terrorist or have terrorist ties. If you have that evidence, there should be no problem in trying them. If you don't have that evidence, why are they even being held in the first place? If there is a fear that very sensitive information will be brought up at the trial that could affect intelligence-gathering, then prosecute that detainee in a closed military court. If these detainees are considered "too dangerous for release" -- there must be some evidence to indicate why this person is so dangerous. I understand terrorism is a very serious thing. There is the fear that if you release a detainee, this will come back to haunt you, and they will be involved in some future terrorist attack. I'm not in favor of letting terrorists go. But that's my point, if they are terrorists, they won't be let go. People should not be held indefinitely with no trial or conviction. Are we just going to hold these 50 people beyond the reach of the law forever? Couldn't we set up a provisional court specifically to deal with these 50. Something along the lines of a special terror court where evidence can still be kept protected, but that would at least give a process by which their guilt or innocence could be ascertained.
The Supreme Court has dealt a blow. "A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns...The decision shakes the foundation of corporate limitations on federal and state elections that stretch back a century." The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned a law that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries on ads that advocate the election or defeat of candidates running for president or Congress (and the ads are produced independently and not coordinated with the candidate's campaign). Before, corporations could not use their profits to endorse or oppose candidates. Corporations can now spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates through political ads.
The Court also overturned the provision in the McCain-Feingold Act that barred issue-oriented ads paid for by corporations or unions from being aired 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Now, ads can run right up to the election. However, the Court did keep in place a provision from the McCain-Feingold Act which requires corporations to disclose their role in political ads (political ads must disclose the name of the contributors that paid for the ad. For example, "This ad paid for by...").
Fortunately, corporations still cannot donate to a candidate directly from their treasuries. The Supreme Court didn't change that provision. Instead, the same system will be in place where corporations or unions set up political action committees (PACs) that can contribute directly to a candidate, but the PAC can only accept voluntary contributions from employees, members, and others. And there are contribution limits. So while corporations cannot directly donate to a candidate, they can now directly endorse or oppose a candidate through political ads in which there are no spending limits.
The decision also overturns laws in two dozen states that limits corporate expenditures in local races.
The majority opinion of the Court was that these previous regulations on corporate spending violated the First Amendment. They concluded that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech [though they don't. Individuals and corporations are two very different entities -- with very different responsibilities, resources, and power.]. Plus, corporations were not being "censored" or "banned" from engaging in political speech, as the court claimed, they just had to wield their influence through PACs (or lobbying). So don't act like these corporations were previously being shut out from politics and political speech.
Justice Stevens (part of the dissenting liberal bloc) called the decision "a radical change in the law" that ignores "the overwhelming majority of the justices who have served on this court." President Obama criticized the decision, as well. He said," [It's] a green light to a new stampede of special interest money. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." (Full Story)
It seems as if the only time the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court is in favor of Freedom of Speech, it's for corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment