About Me

Name: Leonard Nolt
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Supremely Anti-American

In his column, "A Supreme Error" on June 13, Fred Thompson foolishly critizes the Supreme Court for restoring basic human rights to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. In the Boumediene vs Bush opinion the court, by an ominous 5-4 decision, decided that the prisoners, most who have been held for years without charges and no evidence of any guilt, should have their habeous corpus right restored.  The "ominous" aspect of this decision is that it was not unanimous. 
 
What the court is doing is recognizing these prisoners as human beings, something the Bush Administration has refused to do.  As humans under the control of a democracy they have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  The decision by the court will force the Bush Adminnistration to reveal the evidence thay have against these prisoners, which probably won't happen because, for most of them, there isn't any. It will also require the Bush Administration to provide information about how the prisoners were treated. The name Guantanamo is already synonmous with torture and abuse of innocent human being. The prediction is that the prisoners will soon be released, since revealing information about evidence of wrongoing by inmates, or inmate treatment at Guantanamo can only be embarrassing to the Bush Administration and anyone who has supported it, including Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
 
Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo have been there for more than five years in close to total isolation.  They've been imprisoned without charges, without a trial, or the most basic protections of the Geneva Convention. All of the prisoners are Muslim. Those facts alone prove that this is a stiuation reeking with injustice and discrimination, a situation in which the basic tenants of freedom and democracy are being violated by the Bush Administration and those who support it. All the prisoners are family members, and have been torn from their parents, children, wives, and other family members by the military violence of an attacking, invading, and occupying superpower.  We know from the award-winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side,  that US soldiers in Afghainstan were paying local officials to apprehend people and turn them over to the US military. Some of those imprisoned were tortured and killed in Afghanistan. Others were shipped to Guantanamo for similar treatment.
 
 During the time that the prisoners were in Guantanamo, they "had been repeatedly abused.  They had been subjected to stress positions, sleep deprivation, blaring music, and extremes of heat and cold during endless interrogations. They had been sexually humiliated, their physical space invaded by female interrogators who taunted them, fully aware of the insult they were meting out to devout Muslims. They were denied basic medical care. They were broken down and psychologically traumatized, kept in extreme isolation, threatened with rendition, interrogated at gunpoint, and told that their families would be harmed if they refused to talk." ( from the notes by Marc Falkoff in the book Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak).

The treatment of detainees at Guantanamo teaches us that our own freedoms and liberties as citizens of the USA are in a very fragile state. Any administration willing to imprison, torture, abuse, and hold humans indefinitely without evidence, charges, or a trial is an administration that has little or no respect for the rights of any human being. The Bush Administration's treatment of detainees at Guanatanamo is a threat to the freedoms of all Americans. When a Republican and former presidential candidate Fred Thompson defends the Bush Administration's abuse of human rights, it's clear that another Republican Administration will continue to undermine the liberties and freedoms that made this country great.   
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

S 3036

Conservative opposition to Senate Bill S 3036 is inappropriate and also evidence of a lack of concern for the health and safety of future generations of citizens on the Earth.  Conservatives have lambasted the bill by claiming it would increase energy costs and create new expensive government bureaucracy. What the bill would do is decrease total US emissions by 18-25% by 2020 and an additional 62-66% by 2050.  This is actually a conservative goal. In order to properly respond to the problems caused by pollutants, especially air pollutants, the reductions should be greater and sooner. However, the bill is a step in the right direction. Of course most of the opposition to S 3036 comes from the industries responsible for the pollutants. Although the vast majority of scientists accept the threat of global warming, many conservatives are still saying that it's a hoax. It doesn't matter which side is right.  The emissions responsible for global warming, (if that is, in fact occurring) are pollutants, and as pollutants they represent a threat to the health and safety of people on the earth.  Responsible citizens, governments, and industries will be trying to reduce those emissions as rapidly as possible. They will be doing it to make the planet a healthier and safer place for their children and grandchildren. It's a part of responsible parenting and responsible citizenship.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Immigration; A Few Observations


                                                       Immigration: A Few Observations

Immigration is one of the hottest issues facing the United States today.  It's important for citizens to understand a few things about the issue of immigration, illegal aliens, and the work they do in this country.  Here are five points to take into consideration.

1. Those who travel from other countries to find employment in the United States do not make that effort lightly or easily.  They face significant dangers in the process, especially those who do not have visas or any legal status when they arrive.  They also face long separations from their families and friends. Most are very hard-working people, often laboring long hours from sunrise to sunset with few breaks and for low wages.  It's unlikely that they take jobs away from Americans, since the work they do is not sought after by many Americans. Many acres of farm produce have gone unharvested in recent years because no one was available to do the work of harvesting the produce.  The argument that immigrants and illegal aliens take jobs away from US citizens has no credibility.

2.   Most of the people who complain the loudest against illegal aliens and immigration have ancestors who years ago entered this country in exactly the same way .  They came here without a guarantee of citizenship and worked hard to be successful. Do you and I have a right to deny others the same opportunities today?

3.  Human migration has been a part of history since the first humans existed, and it will continue regardless of what anyone does.  It's possible that someday we or our children may have to migrate to a different country. Would we want to be treated then the way we are treating immigrants and illegal aliens now?

4.  On June 12, 1987 President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenberg Gate and told Soviet Premier Gorbachav to "tear down this wall," referring, of course, to the Berlin Wall which blocked the passage of people seeking freedom and better opportunities in another country.  Two years later the wall came down. Now many Americans are saying that it's time to us to do as the Soviets did and block the attempts of others seeking freedom from poverty and oppression, by building a fence along the border between the US and Mexico. I wonder what Pres. Reagan would say if he knew that many of his fellow conservatives were acting in a manner that imitates the former Soviet Union and threatens to turn the US into a model of that type of Communist oppression.

5.  There are many contradictions in the debate on immigration and one of the most glaring is that some of the stiffest opposition to immigration comes from so-called "Christian" conservatives.  Their opposition to immigration and their animosity toward illegal aliens in not even remotely Christian since it violates the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) which says that Christians are to treat people the way they would want to be treated, and is one of the foundational teachings of Christianity. This teaching is reinforced in Matthew 25:40 where we are told that the way we treat other people is the way we treat Jesus. Acting in an unwelcome manner to those who come from another country, legally or illegally, is also not  Biblical since the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:33-34 tells the Children of Israel that they are to treat the stranger or foreigner as though he were one of them, a native.  That passage goes on to say that "you shall love the stranger as yourself."  Opposition to immigration and attempts to block the entrance of illegal aliens may be politically popular and may even be supported by a majority of Americans, but it is definitely not Christian or even Biblical.

Much more could be written about the issue of immigration, especially about how NAFTA has contributed to the loss of jobs, both in the US and Mexico.  Also if we ever want to be seen as acting responsibly toward other countries we have to seriously take into consideration how our tendency to export military violence to other countries eventually results in an increase in people seeking new homes and jobs here in the US.  Americans also need to face the fact that much opposition to immigration is simply the same old discrimination and racism that, a few decades ago, was shoving people with different colored skin to the back of the bus, or making them attend different schools or use separate rest rooms.  This discrimination and racism is obvious in statements about immigrants which suggest that immigrants are more likely to be criminals or terrorists. 

The debate on immigration will probably continue for some time. We can hope and pray that in the near future, compassion and sympathy will also begin to have a part in the discussion.

Leonard Nolt

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »