Week 5 Blog

Adam Z chose Joseph T. Barnes, civil power vs. military power. I agree with Adam when he says that, if you are not in the act of war and you are captured for doing something illegal, you should go to a state and tried under civil law not military power. I agree with this only if the something illegal has nothing to do with war or terrorism, because if you are not in an act of war but someone is doing something illegal that is threatening to our military, then I am not sure how I feel they should be tried.

Mark then talks about the food poisoning issue. He says that in order for food to be poisoned in grocery stores, someone would have to go in and inject it, I disagree; if someone could get ahold of a shipment that was going to a grocery store, they could inject poison before it gets shipped or even while it is getting shipped. Mark also says that they would have to hit more than one grocery store for it to be a big deal, I also disagree with this; if one grocery store served over 100 people and all of those people got poisoned, I think that would be a big deal. Also if the person poisoned a shipment that was going to many grocery stores not just one, they would be poisoning way more people than just the people who go to one grocery store.

Tiffany then points out how the terrorists wouldn’t go into the grocery store to poison food; they would do it before it gets to the grocery store; which is what I stated above. Tiffany also thinks that people being held and not being able to have a lawyer is wrong, I agree because the person is unable to defend themselves, and if the case goes to trial what would they do? Get a lawyer then?

Week 5 blog

I agree with Mark about what the speaker, Peggy, said about the attacks on food supplies to a point. It is indeed a very serious threat that can be dangerous, but it is not a case on how the terrorists would get into the grocery stores. The real problem is how to prevent them from getting to the food before it gets to the grocery stores. That is how they will strike and it needs to be taken seriously. I also agree with Adam when he talks about Joseph T. Barnes. He talks about a period in time of war, people getting taken off streets without seeing a lawyer and also put on a military base for trials, etc. When he asks if it is a war or crime, I have to agree, it is very wrong. People should not be tried under military power but under civil law.  I also agree with the former attorney general, Viet D. Dinh, when he speaks of a 6^th generation Lebanese American named Narrir. He was pulled out of line at an airport in the United States coming from Europe because of the high interests he had in Islamic movements. As Adam says it, . Authorities detained him out of suspicion “to diminish the risk of taking any catastrophic harm”. They can investigate and question but they cannot arrest him for anything. Under the U.S. law, he cannot get a lawyer while this is happening and Eric Holder and I think he should definitely be able to have one. The civil liberty in this situation is not how it is supposed to work.

The first speaker Peggy talked about the attacks on the food supplies on grocery shelves. She said it was a very real threat and it would mean very serious diseases. I think that yes this is a serious problem but let us look at it a moment. How would the terrorists get into the grocery stores to inject the food and to get it out? This is not something that would be or could be done without someone seeing or knowing what’s going on. With it also being a grocery store they would need to hit many for it to even make a huge deal. I just think it is less of a threat then she thinks. The next speaker is Bob, talks about using military law in a domestic scenario; at least this is what I think he was trying to say, I have a great problem with this for a few reasons. The US constitution has rule over all people on US soil… it does not say all citizens it says all people. If they are on US soil they should fall under civil law and they should have liberties and due respect. I do not under any conditions agree with the speaker. The speaker Eric talked about taking someone off the street for an indeterminate amount of time, this… this is against all that we agreed on in the constitution. The right to a speedy trial (if there needs to be one) It is not right to take someone off the street for however long you want just because it is “terrorist” related. Civil liberties are broken when we start doing this.

Week 5 Post

The first speaker I chose was Joseph T. Barnes, a brigadier general, under the civil power versus military power segment. Barnes talks about in a time of war, people being taken off streets without seeing their lawyers, and put onto a military base for trials and such. He is very uncomfortable to see civil power over military power slipping away. He asks “Is this war or a crime?” I agree with him and am wondering if this sort of thing is totally wrong and immoral. I believe that if you are not in the act of war (aka fighting in a war), if captured for doing something illegal, you should go to a state and tried under civil law and not military power. One major subject that is a negative aspect for the people being transported to a military base is that the military is much harsher than civil power.

Derek Smith, the ceo of a company called Choice Point, was the next person I focused on from the segment “Intelligence gathering and Civil Liberties”. In this piece, he talked about how starting knowledge has to include probable cause. Part of his job is to make lists of people on airplanes and extend to relationships of people and the background info. For example, during the 9-11 trade center bombings, he started with 2 people on his list of terrorists and with his background info and looking into relationships; his list grew to all 19 people who participated. I love his job and what he does. This is so very important and I am glad someone is doing it. The restrictions on civil liberties for this man and what he is doing is only good and helpful. Yes, he is looking into people flying on planes and into your relationships with people, but can this really be hurtful?

Viet D. Dinh, a former attorney general talks about a 6^th generation Lebanese American named Narrir who was pulled out of line at an airport once back in the United States coming from Europe because he has a high interest in Islamic movements. Authorities detained him out of suspicion “to diminish the risk of taking any catastrophic harm”. They can investigate and question but they cannot arrest him for anything. Under the U.S. law, he cannot get a lawyer while this is happening and Eric Holder and I think he should definitely be able to have one. This is definitely a civil liberty that has the wrong affect in this situation. Maybe some civil liberties go too far restricting?

Week 4 Summary

Adam T starts the week’s blog with some main points. He points out that in the beginning of the article there is a major emphasis on the “law of nature” and that the law of nature is mandated by god. He put in the quote; “that woman is man’s equal- was intended to be so by the Creator” This points out the emphasis of god and how god wanted men and women to be equal therefore they should be. Adam then points out that woman should get an education, and they should be able to teach and preach religion just like men. He completes his post by saying that the constitution is a set of fair rules but it is going to take determination from both men and women to keep a fair society.

Adam Z starts his post by pointing out the importance of the word “resolved” in the article. He said that the word “resolved” sticks out to him because it means a call of action and that something has to get done. Adam then puts in the quote; “We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the state and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf.” He said this quote is important because it means they are going to spread the news by repeating themselves that way people won’t forget it. Adam Z then agreed with what Adam T had to say about education, he also said he liked the quotes Adam T put in his posting.

Mark adds to the blog by putting in a quote that he disagrees with; “He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” He thinks this quote means that men thought of women as property, and women weren’t anything until they had a husband who they then had to obey. Mark thinks this quote is degrading to woman and he thinks it contests Adam’s post saying that men and women were created equal. Mark then ends his posting by saying; “ I think this goes to show back in the day when this was written the men were sexist and all for white male supremacy.”

Tiffany then sums up the weeks postings. Tiffany agreed with all the points made by Adam T and Adam Z. She then puts in the quote: “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”. In Adam Z’s post he said he likes this quote because of the power that the quote holds for people and the world. Tiffany said this quote was important because of the impact it had on changing the meaning of equality for men and women.

week 4

I agree with Adam T with his point about the resolutions making it clear that women have a right to pursue happiness just as men do, and that is the law of Nature: no conflicting law has any validity. I also agree with the quote from the article: “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 with the education part of the article too, where it quotes as: “That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they -live, that they may no longer publish their degradation, by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.” Education is very important to both men and women for both to be successful in society. Many women had no idea what they could accomplish because their husbands refused to let them learn besides any household tasks. I also agree with the statement that women should be involved in everything that is available to them.

I agree with Adam Z’s point about the main object that sticks out in the article is the word “resolved”. It means that something has been done. This quote was really important to the document: “In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to affect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.” I agree that repetition is a way to spread news in a way that people will not forget it. The point they are trying to get across is that women should feel like they have power and feel equal to men

 “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 important because of the significant impact it had to change the meaning of equality between men and women.

Week 4 post

After reading the article I found one small paragraph to almost be… degrading to women: “He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” This is full on saying that women are property and that they basically mean nothing without a husband. The husband being able to control apparently all aspects of life if this document gives him the permission to be the “master” which now full on contradicts the previous statements and puts contest to Adams post where all men and women are created equal. This one powerful and I think morally wrong paragraph in plane words states that men are created more equal and women amount to nothing more than property to be owned by their husband and to be used in the way he see fit. I think there were equally powerful messages and quotes to be found but this stuck out to me the most and I felt I needed to bring it up to debate the supposed all men created equal with rights liberty and the pursuit to happiness. I think this goes to show back in the day when this was written the men were sexist and all for white male supremacy.