Freedom of Speech: Your First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment

The First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, and it applies to laws enacted by Congress as well as the fifty states through the 14th Amendment. It does NOT apply from one individual to another or one individual to a company/employer.

Here's a very brief understanding of your 'freedom of speech' rights:

• Political speech is protected: "...freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government." --Justice Brandeis (minority opinion) 
• Desecration of the flag: You can burn the American flag (though in my personal opinion, you shouldn't): "...if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." --Justice Brennan, Jr., Texas v. Johnson. 
• Commercial speech (speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit) doesn't get full protection under the First Amendment. It is more interested in avoiding fraud than anything else. 
• School speech: Students in school have certain speech rights as well. A school cannot restrict symbolic speech that does not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities, according to Justice Fortas. "[S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students ... are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State." --Tinker v. Des Moines.
• Obscenity and pornography is a completely different issue, and their definitions have changed over time. That's a fun topic for another blog. 
• Defamation (slander/libel): Consists of actionable words that are false, articulated to a third person (whether by writing or in speech), not subject to legal protection, and motivated by malice. The malice standard differs for public figures in that it requires actual malice (knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not).

In the recent uproar over Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's comments and his employer A&E, people have claimed that his first amendment rights have been curtailed. This could not be further from the truth. If you are unfamiliar with the facts, here's a brief recap:

Phil Robertson, in a GQ interview, expressed his biblical views on homosexuals, sin, and morality. I can't imagine that anyone was surprised that he held these views. He's a very old-fashioned, redneck Southerner, familiar with the Bible. He is not ignorant; he has a Master's Degree in Education. He quoted the New Testament's views on homosexuality and sin. Anyone familiar with the New Testament, again, shouldn't be surprised.

As a result of his comments and pressure from gay rights organizations, his employer, A&E has put him on permanent suspension. Critics are claiming that Robertson's freedom of speech rights are being crushed by A&E, but they are ignorant of the law. And while Robertson's comments were made on his own time and quoted the New Testament, he still represents A&E, and it is their choice to react (or not react) to his behavior.

Let me be clear: I have never watched Duck Dynasty. It's not my idea of entertainment. I'm coming at this from a purely ignorant point of view, so to speak. 

But if someone is going to form an opinion on what should or should not be done in this particular (or similar situation), they should do so with knowledge and fairness. 

Facts:

1. Phil Robertson made his remarks on his own personal time.
2. In some respect, Robertson represents A&E (as employees represent their employers).
3. Phil Robertson was closely quoting the New Testament.
4. Laws do not protect our feelings.
5. Employers are allowed to do whatever they want when employees behave in a certain way (provided it's not illegal).
6. This is not a 1st Amendment issue; it's an employment issue.

In truth, this could have gone either way... Either the way it went OR A&E could have chosen to view Robertson's statements as what they were, his personal religious views (to which people are entitled) and to support his right to hold those opinions. They could have rejected the pressure from outside groups and stood up for each individual's right to possess a personal belief. If they were truly worried about public opinion, they simply could have released a statement saying that Robertson's views do not represent the views of the station, but that they support an individual's right to a personal belief. Done.

Everyone on this planet is different. That's what makes our society an interesting place! As long as someone's belief and opinion does not infringe on another's rights or safety, that belief and opinion shouldn't be restricted. I shouldn't have to fear or be ashamed of my beliefs. 

With that in mind, A&E retains the right to do what it wants in response to Robertson's actions, but it shouldn't have been pressured to act one way or another. I understand that perhaps the point of the pressure was to promote tolerance, but instead of doing that, this has instead been a forced silencing of personal opinion and differences to which we are, and should be, entitled. 

Whether or not each of us agrees with Robertson and the New Testament is irrelevant. 

If Robertson isn't allowed to have and express his opinion on his own time, what's to stop another group/company/government organization from suppressing our personal belief and opinion (popular or unpopular as they may be)?

A joyous birthday to America's Navy: A Global Force for Good

“It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definite, and with it, everything honorable and glorious.” – George Washington

October 13^th commemorates the birthday of the United States Navy, 238 years ago today. It was founded in 1775, before the official birth of our country.

The US Navy traces it origins to the Continental Navy, which the Continental Congress established on this day over 200 years ago, by authorizing the procurements, fitting out, manning, and dispatch of two (yes, two) armed vessels to cruise around in search of munitions ships supplying the British Army in America. The legislation also established a Naval Committee to supervise the work. Over the course of the Revolution, the Continental Navy numbered about 50 ships, with approximately 20 warships active at its maximum strength. It was disbanded at the end of the war.

The Constitution, ratified in 1789, empowered Congress “to provide and maintain a navy.” Acting on this authority, Congress ordered the construction and manning of six frigates in 1794 and the War Department administered naval affairs from that year until Congress established the Department of the Navy on April 30, 1798.

Today, the US Navy has exceeded its modest roots by now being larger than the next thirteen largest navies (combined in terms of battle fleet tonnage). It also has the world’s largest carrier fleet, with ten in service, one under construction (two planned), and two in reserve. The service has over 317,000 personnel on active duty and over 100,000 in the Navy Reserve. It operates 285 ships in active service and more than 3,700 aircraft.

The US Navy is a blue-water navy (a maritime force capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans) able to project force onto the littoral regions of the world, engage in forward areas during peacetime, and rapidly respond to regional crises, making it an active player in US foreign and defense policy.

“The mission of the United States Navy is to protect and defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans and to protect our country against her enemies.” – New Recruits Handbook

The Navy’s three primary areas of responsibility are: 

1. The preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war;
2. The maintenance of naval aviation, including land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations and all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the Navy; and
3. The development of aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organization, and equipment of naval combat and service elements.

 In 2007, the US Navy joined with the US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard to adopt a new maritime strategy called A Cooperative Strategy for21st Century Seapower that raises the notion of prevention of war to the same philosophical level as the conduct of war. The new strategy charts a course for the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps to work collectively with each other and international partners to prevent crises (man made or natural) from occurring or reacting quickly should one occur to prevent negative impacts on the United States.

 There is so much history to our US Navy, and so many positive things that it provides (and can provide to its soldiers)... Check out the official website for more information, and if you're interested in signing up, just click here! 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, UNITED STATES NAVY.

Happy Birthday, United States Air Force!

Today, in 1947, our United States Air Force (USAF) was created (through the National Security Act of 1947).

The USAF is the aerial warfare service branch of the United States military and one of the seven American branches of armed forces. It is the youngest branch, but also one of the most technologically advanced in the world.

The Air Force is a military service within the Department of the Air Force, one of three departments within the Department of Defense. The USAF is headed by a civilian Secretary of the Air Force, who is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

In general the United States Air Force shall include aviation forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war. -National Security Act, 1947.

The purpose of the USAF is to preserve the peace and security, and provide for the defense, of the United States, the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States; to support national policy; to implement national objectives; to overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States. -§8062 of Title 10 U.S. Code

The stated mission of the USAF today is to "fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace." That's right, cyberspace as well.

The USAF takes great pride in its creativity, air shows, technology and engineering, science, and holds events regularly around the country.

One of the USAF's most exciting and coolest interests is its science! It works with lasers, micro air vehicles, g-forces, remotely piloted aircraft, GPS and satellites, supersonic and other forces in flights, and more. In addition, the Air Force Research Laboratory is constantly discovering and developing new war-fighting technologies for our air, space, and cyberspace forces.

The USAF doesn't also work for our great country; it also serves mankind. It helps assist in humanitarian crises via air deliveries, fire response, goodwill, and more.

The United States Air Force may be less than 70 years old, but it has accomplished quite a bit in its time.  

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AIR FORCE!

The Guardians of Humanity

Human rights are commonly understood to be inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

"All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action." -Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, 12 March 2007, Opening of the 4th Human Rights Council Session

Apparently, the UN has decided that the topic of human rights is important. Sadly, this is as good as it gets. 

Here's a closer, cursory look at the 47 wonderful and humane State members of this "Human Rights Council."

The Worst Offenders

Sierra Leone, a country who went through a horrific civil war from 1991 to 2002, leaving 50,000 dead, over one million displaced, using large quantities of child soldiers. The Revolutionary United Front committed horrendous abuses, including rapes, limb amputation, and more. In 1999, the UN brokered a peace deal, but even that came under serious scrutiny because it gave amnesty to the rebel forces for their grotesque human rights violations.

Congo, another member of the HR Council, went through a civil war as well. More than 5-6 million people died since the civil war began in 1998 (nearly half the dead younger than 5 years old). If that weren't bad enough, UN peacekeepers themselves weren't interested in doing the job their name implied. Three years ago, there were mass rapes taking place in Congo just up the road from those "peacekeepers." Nothing was done. Why didn't that qualify as violations of human rights? We'll discuss that later. Another good question: Why is this extremely guilty country on the UN Human Rights Council? Sorry. I can't help you with that one.

Uganda, another of the 47 members, is the home of the Lord's Resistance Army and the infamous Joseph Kony. The LRA's "ranks are filled with boys who have been brainwashed to burn down huts and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars, as if they were grinding grain" (according to Jeffrey Gettleman, The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars, New York Times, 29 April 2007). How pleasantly appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council.

In the Ivory Coast, yet another member, the 2010 presidential election led to the 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis and the Second Ivorian Civil War. International organizations reported numerous human rights violations on both sides. In the first civil war, in 2002, child soldiers were used, often forcibly, by both sides.

Libya, a vacation destination in Northern Africa, saw such terrible human rights violations that their rights as a member of the UN Human Rights Council were suspended from March 2011 - November 2011. It was so bad that Libya's own UN delegation urged the UN to kick them out. Makes me wonder; if Libya's own delegation hadn't done so, the UN likely would never have done anything at all because...

Switzerland, one of our illustrious 47, has nominated Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the "Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize," for the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, to represent the Western group (election scheduled for September 27, 2013). He has publicly endorsed such infamous a**holes as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Colonel Mengistu, and other repressive rulers. Impressive, especially because we, in the West, always consider Switzerland as one of the 'good guys.' If you want to take action and oppose this election (as well you should), you can complete the form on this page. Perhaps someone will listen.

In the Philippines, children are recruited by rebel forces (MILF, ASG, NPA, acronyms explained below), but it is also reported that the government (Armed Forces of the Philippines) uses them in paramilitary units. It is known, even by the UN, that the rebel forces and the government subjects these kids to the most brutal violence, including killings, maimings, rapes, and other sexual assaults and human rights issues:

"There is a United Nations Security Council Report in 23 April 2010 that says that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF, yes, MILF), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), New People's Army (NPA), and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are among the groups around the world that recruit and use children. In the report, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) is not mentioned as a human rights violator.

In a separate corroborating report, the State Department of the United States of America also had a 2009 Human Rights Report and it has never mentioned MNLF as a violator.

On 28 October 2011, the Philippine Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo admitted that some members of the Abu Sayyaf are related to members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and even government officials."

I'm sure I could go into more detail about the 47 member States and their impressive human rights history, but that would turn this blog into a novel (as if it isn't approaching that already). There's no need. The two questions remain the same: 

1) Why are the aforementioned countries members of the UN Human Rights Council? 

2) Why is the UN only now looking into Syria for its human rights violations, especially when both sides (government and rebel forces) have been accused of gross, systematic, and wide-scale violations of human rights?

For as smart and clever as I am, I cannot explain or shed light into the thought processes of the UN. Perhaps they felt there were just too many offenders to have a truly humanitarian Human Rights Council. Or maybe, as I believe, they just don't give a crap and so remain intentionally blindly ignorant. As such, I'll stick to Question #2. 

Why Syria? Why now?

Russia

Russia has never stopped being a communist country (though now I suppose it might qualify as pseudo-communist), and with our crazy ex-KGB Vladimir Putin in charge, he wants to become a super power again. He has gotten our attention and wants to remind us that he's a Someone we should all be worried about. We need to remember that he is no one's friend, least of all the U.S. or Israel's.

Putin has been angling for the power card for a while now. From 2000-2010 Russia sold $1.5 billion (with a "B") worth of weaponry to its ally Syria, making Damascus its 7th largest client. During the Syrian civil war, Russia threatened to veto any sanctions against the Syrian government (yes, they do have veto power) and continued to supply them with arms.

Some may argue that Russia is concerned about an Syrian overthrow further destabilizing the region which may then affect them, but it's more realistic to remember that Syria is in the heart of the Middle East and Russia has had four decades supporting the Assad regime. Further, Putin's tactics seem to be succeeding. Obama has capitulated and is letting Putin run the show. Somehow, we are supposed to trust that Russia, who has a long-term relationship with Syria and supplied them with billions of dollars in weapons, will finally force their customer to dispose of the weapons they just purchased because of the September 14, 2013 Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons.

Chemical weapons

Other countries, as mentioned above, have horrendous human rights violations (note that I only mentioned member States, not countries who have had violations but aren't currently Human Rights Council members), but they haven't been threatened with invasion and attack by the US or UN. This is because the violations in those countries were done the 'old-fashioned' way, so to speak (say, with machetes and such). The murders and attacks were not considered as brutal or cruel as those conducted by chemical weapons, which can be considered a weapon of mass destruction (though in a separate class from biological weapons, nuclear weapons, or radiological weapons). 

We aren't talking about your run-of-the-mill mass murder... Chemical weapons are so brutal to the human body that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), held in 1993, made a legally binding worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, and international law has prohibited them since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23.

98% of the world has signed, if not ratified, the CWC. Conveniently, Syria was one of only seven states in the world who weren't a signatory (until they were forced to several days ago), though it was a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons (but is silent about production, storage, or transfer of them-- I guess they didn't have lawyers back then).

Racism

For as far as we have come in this world, I believe that the UN and others feel, though won't admit, that Blacks are less human/humane than others. That's why there was, and still is, a delay in doing anything of significance in the African countries where human rights violations and atrocities are being committed daily. Some may claim that we only go into Arab countries because it's an oil issue, but diamonds, timber, and chocolate, all vital goods that the US and the world need/want, are all produced in Africa.

No. As unpopular and controversial as this may be to put in writing, I sadly believe that the crux of the matter is that the UN, European, and Arab countries feel that Africans are more tribal than organized and that, therefore, African countries are merely glorified tribes. 
UN logic is that the Black Africans will continue to kill each other so there is no reason for the UN to go in and interfere unless it becomes so excessively brutal that they can literally no longer ignore it (e.g. against Liberia for the blood diamonds or Sudan, where it took the UN and International Criminal Court 16 years to step in, and immeasurable numbers of Darfuris are still suffering even today).

Though the Arabs are also of darker skin, they are viewed to be slightly more civilized than the Africans, and therefore, able to be manipulated (since that's what the UN tries to do anyway).

Israel

Israel isn't truly a reason but I wanted to address it since some might assume otherwise. Other than American news sources making the claim, there is no documentation proving that Israel actually asked for US assistance. In fact, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to Washington, emphasized that Israel was not pressuring or even recommending that the US engage militarily in Syria.

"Israel and the United States are sovereign countries, and whether it’s with Syria or Iran, each country has the right to determine how best to act and defend itself,” Oren said. “I think it’s important to point out that Israel has a different red line than the United States.

Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu has stated that Israel’s red line is any attempt by Syria to transfer chemical or other game-changing weapons to Hezbollah. That is our red line, and we stand by it.” 

-Sam Sokol, Michael Wilner; "Steinitz: Israel Didn't Ask For US Help in Syria." Jerusalem Post, 4/28/2013.

Additionally, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz asserted that Israel never asked the US to take military action in Syria, "never asked and never encouraged the US to take military action." Id.

In that same article, Steinitz was quoted as saying that he has had to deal with categorically untrue statements from American outlets such as the NY Times and NBC News that Israel was encouraging action.

Conclusion

It's really too bad that the Human Rights Council is a joke (not surprising, though, since it is a outshoot of the UN). 

It permits the very same human rights violators to be the watchdogs over other human rights violator countries, does a less-than-stellar job of watching over the countries who everyone knows is murdering and torturing its own citizens, and picks and chooses who it's going to "help" next.

It sets no bar for respectful countries to surpass (or even reach) and even allows so-called Western countries to make proposals that are laughable, at best.

Logic dictates that we wait it out and see how well the UN (or rather, Russia and the US) does with Syria. Then again, I haven't really been impressed with the UN's past track record, who they trust, or who they enlist as guardians of humanity.

Unfortunately, with this type of organization in charge, there's no reason to hope that the situation in Syria will turn out positively.