The Balencing Act

In the Civil Power vs. Military Power segment they talked about Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. The question is are they crimes or acts of war? They said that civil power normally is superior to military power in the U.S. Its the "heart and soul of the American tradition." Should these terrorists be considered a military responsibility? The military law is usually only used over seas in combat. The United States is not a battle ground for the terrorism war. But these people in the imaginary situation are being taken as military detainees. They don't have access to a lawyer. In the video they discuss the writ of Habeas Corpus being there for judges to make an executive decision. Habeas Corpus allows detainees to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. When challenging their detention by filing a habeas corpus petition, the executive branch must explain to a judge its justification holding the person.

The Balancing Act: Security and Liberty Post-9/11 Response

In the beginning of the “Attacks on America” segment, it was hard to see a Muslim man holding a sign that read “America’s Graveyard is Afghanistan.” The segment was introduced by saying that terrorism has returned and it has an enormous economic impact. This is sad, but true.

Even though this situation is fictitious, I disagreed with a lot of it. For example, what would happen to America, if someone began injecting toxins into our foods and drinks? Sadly, it would be easy to do, and to hide. It makes me wonder if I should even be buying things at the grocery store right now.

My biggest discrepancy with the situation was when the host, Frank Sesno, said that they were picking up people off the streets and then detaining them in military prisons with no access to lawyers. He stated that there were over a thousand people that were in question and sixty people were picked up. Their families and friends began to protest (using their 1^st Amendment rights). I do not feel this is right…What if some of those people really are innocent? It is not right for them to be taken in, simply because they fit a stereotypical description of a terrorist: most often: Muslim. I understand that it is being done for our protection, but I feel there needs to be more grounds and proof to prove that the person or people being taken in have done something wrong. I do not believe they should be taken in due to their religious beliefs, or physical appearance. Bob Barnes, a lawyer, a military man, and a former assistant judge advocate, agrees with my statements. He says that the situation makes him feel uncomfortable and he doesn’t feel its right. He says that it is a tough and ongoing situation that is hard to deal with. He questions whether the injecting of toxins into the food is a crime or if it is an act of terrorism/war. That answer determines if they use the Rule of Civil Law or the Rule of Military Law. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration quotes Habeas Corpus; which means the right to protection again illegal imprisonment. He believes that Habeas Corpus is there for judges to supervise and look out for, in any situation.

Week 4- Declaration of Sentiments

I found this article very interesting... E.C. Stanton read the Declaration of Sentiments on July 19^th, 1848. The Convention assembled to decide whether men would sign the Declaration. After this decision was made, they read the Declaration. After reading it, there were eleven issues marked as resolved. I felt that a strong quote was, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This quote is strong because it covers so many aspects of the situation and highlights the main theme: equality. Men and women are equal—women’s rights are just as important! The next morning, E.C. Stanton reread the Declaration and it was adopted and accepted.

I feel that during this time, this was a crucial event that meant a lot to the people. Women’s rights were and are very important to this day. I also agree that, “that woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.” I agree that no man nor woman is above one another. We are equal beings. There are certain characteristics that give people stature, but overall, we are one and the same.

the declraration

the declaration of independents was such a good speech, saying that women should be mans equal. saying that women have the right to do what they want and they can vote also. i dont think that women should have to stay in a house and clean and cook food. they should be able to do what they want just as much as males. that is why this speech is so good because susan b. anthony, and elizabeth e. stanton did a project on trying to get womans rights. that all rights are equaled to mans rights. resolved. they infleunced the government to let this law happen that women have to right to do anything, aand males cant abuse them. this was a huge change all around the world.
in conclusion susan b. anthony is a huge part of history because she got the government to give women just as many rights as the mens.

Week 3 Summary

This week Mary started off with a good summary of Lyndon B. Johnson's speech. She described how the speech happened after a terrible hate crime against African Americans took place by the police. She highlighted a quote from his speech that she was important. "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Norther problem. There is only an American problem." Mary thought he was being optimistic but there was a negro and a Southern vs. Northern problem. She appreciated his approach at making everyone equal.
Pat talked about the basics of equality. He said that Johnson was trying to say that people should be able to get along no matter what their individual beliefs or skin color is. He also mentioned that we should be able to come together as a nation and set aside all other differences.
Val thought that Johnson's speech was powerful and emotional. She especially like his quote, "This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose." She continued to list those purposes and explain h0w they continue to be relevant today. Val also mentioned how there are still soldiers today, men and women of all colors, fighting for those original purposes of America. It seems like my whole group agrees that race problems are present today but continue to get better.