Throughout this course I have learned quite a bit about media, politics, and how we are indirectly or directly influenced by it all. This course along with this blog enabled me to become a more active participant in what I watch, how I watch it, and how I interpret the information given to me. Reverting back to one of my previous posts I think news and how it is currently delivered to us all is in some way shape or form propaganda. The trustworthiness of news lies not only in how the news is delivered but also with who is delivering it. Looking beyond the hidden agendas and the bureaucratic nonsense is our duty as Americans. It is our right to decipher and understand was is true. To be able to apply it to making sound decisions about our country's needs is also in our best interest. Hopefully this blog and this class as been as enlightening for you as it has been for me. I hope that we are all able to keep some sense of passion about the effects of the mass media throughout our lives as we have in this class. I'm glad to have met and worked with you all and enjoyed the comments posted on my page. Thank you for your participation and I hope you all have a Happy Holiday when it comes.
Staying Free and Informed @ KSU
Suzanne M. Bettis
Sgt/ United States Marine Corps
KSU Semper Fidelis Society
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Five 9/11 Terror Suspects to Be Tried in NY
Attorney General Eric Holder has just recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed along with four other terror suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be given a federal trial in New York. The location of the court is in close proximity to the WTC site. While some family members of the victims praise the government for their decision, a great number of others consider this decision "insensitive and deplorable." Some New Yorkers feel as if it will re-open wounds that have have no fully healed and that trying these men in NY will give them "a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views" (CNN.com).
Now, I have heard the proponents and opponents of this decision and their reasoning. I have heard that "this should be an easy conviction," "this is a military issue and should be dealt with as such," and of course "Why was President Obama overseas when this decision was made? Was it because he did not want to comment on the decision?"
I believe that these terrorist that have already wholeheartedly admitted guilt to these crimes in the presence of military court should resume their trials by military tribunal. It makes no sense to me to split a trial between two different jurisdictions to appease someones agenda. These men are not American citizens like the domestic terrorists we have tried in the U.S. (i.e. D.C. Sniper, Timothy McVeigh, etc). I heard one individual on the news state that "This will give the world a new view on the U.S. since we water boarded these individuals and used other methods of "torture" on them." Comment on the water boarding: If you do not think other countries are using some sort of "enhanced interrogation tactics" to preserve the peace in their respective countries you need to wake up and smell the roses. The difference between them and us is that they choose not the air their dirty laundry to the world because they consider the safety of their nation more important than the feelings of everyone else. (You can choose to agree or disagree with that last statement, but it will not change my view on the topic.)
Back to the topic though. These men have already been tried in the public eight years ago. And since the argument rests that it will be easy to convict them because of the overwhelming evidence, why has it not already been done? What is our government waiting for? What really angers me about this is we have convicted so many of our own military members for doing harm to "enemy combatants and civilians" in Iraq and Afghanistan, quickly I might add. And have gone eight years without convicting and sentencing any of these five TERRORIST! The American government needs to get its head out of its ass and stop caring so deeply about the feeling of other nations and continuously discounting those of their own citizens. We are the ones paying taxes to the government to keep us safe, yet all of that money is going into Middle East economies that have not put half the amount of effort into the betterment of their own country as we have.
I think Eric Holder needs to resend this decision and give them the military trial these men deserve. So what if the public cannot follow the tribunals. GET IT DONE! If they convict and sentence these guys as fast as they have convicted and sentenced our own military servicemen then there should not be an issue.
Now I know not everyone reading this post will agree with what I am saying. I would like you all to consider the facts though. Eight years held by the military, admissions of guilt, no remorse, would do it again if they had the chance, and not an American citizen. I think we really need to stop discounting the effects these sloppy government decisions are having on our nation. Grow a backbone. Not every nation will agree with what we do or what we stand for. We can't make everyone happy, but we can take care of our business and make our nation safer. I believe our government needs to worry about what it CAN control instead of what it CANNOT.
So, let me know what your feelings are. I can't control them and don't intend to. But I will listen and take them into consideration.
Now, I have heard the proponents and opponents of this decision and their reasoning. I have heard that "this should be an easy conviction," "this is a military issue and should be dealt with as such," and of course "Why was President Obama overseas when this decision was made? Was it because he did not want to comment on the decision?"
I believe that these terrorist that have already wholeheartedly admitted guilt to these crimes in the presence of military court should resume their trials by military tribunal. It makes no sense to me to split a trial between two different jurisdictions to appease someones agenda. These men are not American citizens like the domestic terrorists we have tried in the U.S. (i.e. D.C. Sniper, Timothy McVeigh, etc). I heard one individual on the news state that "This will give the world a new view on the U.S. since we water boarded these individuals and used other methods of "torture" on them." Comment on the water boarding: If you do not think other countries are using some sort of "enhanced interrogation tactics" to preserve the peace in their respective countries you need to wake up and smell the roses. The difference between them and us is that they choose not the air their dirty laundry to the world because they consider the safety of their nation more important than the feelings of everyone else. (You can choose to agree or disagree with that last statement, but it will not change my view on the topic.)
Back to the topic though. These men have already been tried in the public eight years ago. And since the argument rests that it will be easy to convict them because of the overwhelming evidence, why has it not already been done? What is our government waiting for? What really angers me about this is we have convicted so many of our own military members for doing harm to "enemy combatants and civilians" in Iraq and Afghanistan, quickly I might add. And have gone eight years without convicting and sentencing any of these five TERRORIST! The American government needs to get its head out of its ass and stop caring so deeply about the feeling of other nations and continuously discounting those of their own citizens. We are the ones paying taxes to the government to keep us safe, yet all of that money is going into Middle East economies that have not put half the amount of effort into the betterment of their own country as we have.
I think Eric Holder needs to resend this decision and give them the military trial these men deserve. So what if the public cannot follow the tribunals. GET IT DONE! If they convict and sentence these guys as fast as they have convicted and sentenced our own military servicemen then there should not be an issue.
Now I know not everyone reading this post will agree with what I am saying. I would like you all to consider the facts though. Eight years held by the military, admissions of guilt, no remorse, would do it again if they had the chance, and not an American citizen. I think we really need to stop discounting the effects these sloppy government decisions are having on our nation. Grow a backbone. Not every nation will agree with what we do or what we stand for. We can't make everyone happy, but we can take care of our business and make our nation safer. I believe our government needs to worry about what it CAN control instead of what it CANNOT.
So, let me know what your feelings are. I can't control them and don't intend to. But I will listen and take them into consideration.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Paying the Taliban: Good or Bad Idea?
The Defense Spending Bill that President Obama has signed has a section in it that will allow the U.S. military in Afghanistan to pay Taliban fighters to essentially quit or switch sides. These funds are in fact taxpayer dollars. This tactic was used in Iraq with the "Concerned Local Citizens" a.k.a the "Sons of Iraq" community group. This tactic, especially now is not sitting too well with American citizens. The thought of paying the people who are killing service men and women daily is hard to swallow. Some worry that they will "take the cash and keep on fighting." Others argue that it was this very program that enabled the "Troop Surge" in Iraq to be successful.
Pres. Obama in the video above states that he will do anything in his power to keep the American people safe. I don't have an issue with that, I have an issue with negotiating with terrorist. For as long as I have been in the military I have always been told that, "America does not negotiate with terrorist." What is even more intriguing to me is that not only are civilian contractors getting paid better than military personnel by our government but our enemies are as well. I feel as if this is another attempt to put a band aid on a arterial bleed. In addition, with the amount of opium-growing that is currently funding the Taliban I do not think they are hurting for money. The National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University's article, "Taliban Drug Money Targeted by U.S. Military" reported that "the Taliban... are expected to strongly defend the opium crop that generates an estimated $300 million annually to pay for weapons, recruiting, and other needs." In addition, "The Taliban also generate income by collecting protection payments from opium farmers." So, how much more will we have to pay the Taliban for them to first consider the offer and then for how long will these payments be made? On the flip-side of this, the program was done in Iraq. Why didn't anyone find too much fault with it at that time? Is it because of how the media has or has not covered the first attempt at paying militant groups? Or did President Obama make a mistake by attaching the Hate Crimes bill to a Defense Spending bill which allowed for further scrutiny of the document.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure. I do think because of the current economic hardships that our country is facing, the news media will ensure it reports/monitors all government spending initiatives. So while Fmr. President Bush, Jr. was able to implement this same plan years prior without notice or conflict, Pres. Obama will be harshly scrutinized and picked apart by the media, political figures, late night hosts, and more importantly the American people for essentially trying to do the same thing.
Tell me what you think. Is the media blowing this entire thing out of proportion or do you think that it is a workable plan if implemented correctly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)