If you didn’t catch the news this weekend, there was a debate regarding the legal status of a President in a foreign country. No, I’m not addressing the Iranian Presidential Elections but rather the arrest and expulsion of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. The action has caused an international uproar, but I think the attention in the issue might be misplaced.

Imagine, if you will, that President George W. Bush thought he was channeling President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he could not leave the helm of the nation while two wars were underway. Noting that FDR was elected to four terms prior to the passage of the 22nd Amendment with no serious harm to the balance of power on the Federal level, he decides to unilaterally initiate a national referendum to revoke the 22nd Amendment. This alteration would allow him to run for a third term, most likely against Senator Barack Obama.

The Supreme Court informs Bush that his action would be unconstitutional, but he decides to go ahead with the referendum anyway. Fearing that Bush is seeking a power grab, the Congress orders Admiral Mike Mullen (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to detain the President for violating Federal law. Before Admiral Mullen could take action, President Bush fires him. Attorney General Michael Mukasey informs the President that his actions are illegal and that he would be arrested if he prosecute him if he carries through with his plan. Bush calls Mukasey’s bluff, and as a result is arrested with Congress elevating Dick Cheney to the office of the President. What do you think the domestic an international reaction would be? Bush would be condemned for his actions and Congress would be praised for enforcing the rule of law in the United States.

The above chain of events is what occurred between President Zelaya and the Honduran government last week, resulting in his arrest on Sunday. Acting to preserve the democracy, the Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya, with the Congress supporting the Courts action. So why is it that the ousted Honduran President is the one receiving support and the actions of the government being described as a coup?

The UN has already accepted a resolution demanding the restoration of power to Zelaya, and the Obama administration has called the Honduran government’s action against Zelaya illegal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described the events as “fast-moving,” but I wonder if the international knee-jerk is moving even faster. If the Supreme Court, Attorney General, and Congress of Honduras warned the President that his actions were unconstitutional and he would be punished if he sought to break the law, why is the world taking Zelaya’s side? Could it be that the international body has acted before taking a moment to review the facts of the case?

Related articles:
The Age – “Honduran military ousts president ahead of vote”
The Wall Street Journal – “Honduras Defends Its Democracy”
Taiwan News – “Foreign ministry spokesman admits to gaffe on Honduras situtation”
Brisbane Times – “Ousted leader ‘had drug links’: Honduras”
Reuters – “Ousted Zelaya to be arrested if returns to Honduras”
Breitbart – “UN General Assembly condemns coup in Honduras”

In what could only be viewed as an act of desperation by the hard-line segment of the Iranian population, hard-line cleric Ahmad Khatami used today’s prayers as a way to scare those who have participated in the protests following the presidential elections. Lacking any tactful or colorful words, Khatami issued the following threat:

We ask that the judiciary confront the leaders of the protests, leaders of the violations, and those who are supported by the United States and Israel strongly, and without mercy to provide a lesson for all.

…

Based on Islamic law, whoever confronts the Islamic state … should be convicted as mohareb.

Mohareb is a term used to describe anybody who takes up arms to create fear and to deprive the people of freedom and security, or one that is at war with God. Under Iranian law, anyone convicted as mohareb would be executed.

This threat of lethal violence follows increased crackdowns on protestors within the country. Supporters of Presidential candidate Hossein Mousavi, and others, who view the current state of Iranian leadership as dictators, have challenged the results of the presidential elections as well as the authority of the ruling power. Protestors have been beaten, arrested, and sometimes shot as a means to control the growing outcry. Such actions would not be required if the people had faith in their leadership.

While this is the first time the threat of death has been used in such a direct manner, it is not the first time the ruling power has tried to link Mousavi and his supporters to the United States and Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has attempted to tie Mousavi to the West (with the United States having long been labeled the Great Satan) and used that as an excuse to justify harsh actions by the state. The threats seem to have worked, as the size of the protests and confrontations continuing to dwindle. The latest act of defiance was a mass release of green balloons in honor of those killed during the violence over the past few weeks.

President Obama has tried to walk a fine line by praising the participation in the election process and then for those who protested in the streets amid the threat of violence. On the other hand, he has tried not to interject the United States into the debate, even though the U.S. Congress passed a few resolutions on their own. However, how long can the President stand on the sideline while a government scared of losing their power strikes back at their opposition?

The United States must take a stand and call for the global community, especially the countries of the Middle East, to condemn the harsh tactics by the Iranian government. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had issued a joint statement with Prime Minister Gordon Brown expressing concern over the Iranian government’s response, but fell short of any real condemnation. President Jalal Talabani of Iraq has complemented Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his victory, but has yet commented on the crackdown of protestors. The leadership of the United Arab Emirates has also been silent.

With the major players in the region remaining silent on Iranian domestic violence, they are indirectly supporting such aggression. It might be accused that these nations are suddenly “pro-American” if they were to stand up for the rights of people to protest free from fear of harm or death. But being able to voice your opinion free from the fear of being beaten isn’t an “American” concept – it is a human concept. For some of these nations, it might be viewed as hypocritical, since they too attempt to silence dissent, but change has to start somewhere.

It’s time for the region and the world to stand up for the rights of the individual.

Related articles:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy – “Saudi Media Take the Lead Against Iran’s Regime”
UPI – “Brown, Abdullah speak on Iranian protests”
International Relations and Security Network – “Iraqis Say ‘Hands Off’ to Iran”
Al Jazeera – “Call to execute ‘rioters’ in Iran”
Telegraph – “Iran election: protester ‘worthy of execution’ says cleric”
Reuters – “Cleric calls for punishment of Iran ‘rioters’”
International – “Mousavi Vows to Continue Efforts; Ahmad Khatami calls for Death Penalty on Protest Leaders”

It is a sad day. One of the world’s greatest entertainers, if not the greatest, passed away at the young age of 50 years old. Michael Jackson was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles today after suffering what is assumed to be a cardiac arrest. With the world looking forward to his comeback tour starting in just a few weeks, a silence has befallen the musical industry.

It is unusual to cover celebrities on the U.S. Common Sense website, but Michael was not your ordinary celebrity. For decades he was involved in charitable work both in the United States and around the world. Starting back in the late 1970s, he provided his talents and money to hospitals, various awareness groups, scholarships, combating world hunger, and more. Most of his charitable giving went to hospitals that specialized in care of children, including burned victims, those with cancer, and those suffering from leukemia, and AIDS. Some might argue that the large amount of money he gave led to his financial troubles that he faced later on in life. However, by that point he greatly impacted the world through his music and charity that he would find people willing to support him in his time of need, even during highly publicized legal cases.

For a complete list of his humanitarian efforts, visit this site.

There are few people that have impacted the world as much as Michael. I would group him with international icons such as Mother Teresa, President Ronald Reagan, Princess Diana, and Pope John Paul II. All of these individuals used their talents or positions of influence to improve the lives of people around the world, from fighting hunger to ending oppression. I doubt that Michael will be remembered more for his charitable work than his art, but it is something that we should all remember.

Have you ever tried to buy a hand gun? I haven’t, but I understand there is a laundry list of items that can bar you from legally obtaining a permit during your background check. According to the Department of Justice website, you are prohibited from purchasing a gun if the person:

- is under indictment for, or has been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal alien or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
- was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces
- has renounced U.S. citizenship
- is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child
- has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under age 18 for long guns or under age 21 for handguns.

What seems to be missing from this list, however, has become the subject of concern by Senator Frank Lautenberg. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, 963 background checks were performed where the applicants name appeared on the national terrorist watch list. Lautenberg’s concern isn’t about these individuals applied for a permit, but that over 90% of the applicants were approved.

The national terrorist watch list, also known as the No Fly List, was created following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The names on the list represent people who are deemed to be aiding in or have participated in terroristic activities. So why would someone on the list be able to obtain a permit? This is where the issue gets cloudy.

The watch list isn’t perfect, and has grown exponentially over the short few years. What started out with just a few hundred names at the end of 2001 has grown to over 500,000 by some estimated. Additionally, there has been a series of obvious “false positives” on the list, where innocent people have been identified as a security risk. One of the false positives was sitting Senator Ted Kennedy. In 2004, he complained to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge about being delayed due to his name showing up on the list. A few other sitting and former politicians as well as celebrities have found themselves in similar positions.

So what action, if any, should be taken on this issue? Personally, I think the background system should not include screening against the terror watch list as a prerequisite to obtaining a permit. Unlike the search of a person’s criminal background based on their social security number, the risk of an innocent person being denied the right to practice their Second Amendment right due to the fact their name might match up with an alias of another person is too great to be used as a practical screening process. Additionally, even if the person is rightfully suspected of having dealings with terrorists, if the person hasn’t broken the law, they should not be denied. “Innocent until proven guilty” is the corner stone of our legal system

Related articles:
The Washington Independent – “Gun Lobby Questions Accuracy of Terrorist Watch List”
CNN – “People on terrorist watch list allowed to buy guns”
Associated Press – “More than 800 gun buyers on terrorist watch list”
Google News – “People on ‘terror watch’ list able to buy guns: US”

Ten days ago, the citizens of Iran went to the polls and vote in the presidential election. While there were multiple candidates on the ballot, two figures were viewed as the main choice. The incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was facing a tough battle from Hossein Moussavi following years of economic strife and a severe drop in international standing. While Moussavi wasn’t too different from Ahmadinejad in domestic policy, he was seen as a much-needed change to improve relations with the international community.

The polls opened, and millions of voters came out across the country to voice their opinion. So many in fact, that the polls were held open for a few additional hours to ensure everyone had a chance to cast their ballot. From this point, the joy of voting suddenly hit a snag. For starters, the millions of ballots were counted in only a matter of three hours, which seems odd for an election that had to be extended due to the overwhelming turnout. Added to this problem was the conflicting election results leaked to the media. Both men claimed victory by winning at least 60% of the vote. (It was noted today that there were voting discrepancies in 50 of the largest cities in Iran, though that only accounted for 3 Million votes.)

The confusion over the election, and feeling of voter fraud drew millions of Moussavi supporters and reformists into the streets across the nation, shouting their discontent and carrying signs that read “Where is my vote” in English. These protests have been met with police lines trying to deter the activists then increased violence when the Basij (the militia) started to beat – and in some cases, kill – the protesters. One of the victims has been identified as Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman who was engaged to be married. Much like the unknown student who was crushed by a tank in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Neda has become the face of the deadly oppression the government can impose upon those challenging their authority.

So the question becomes, “What action should the United States take?” There are two schools of thought. The first is a strong, up-front condemnation of violence and force used against the protesters. In 1981, President Reagan addressed the violence and force used against the public uprising in Poland by challenging the government directly. He said:

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

…

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

The other school of thought is to take a softer approach, hoping not to antagonize a government that already despises the United States and spinning any statement as an attempt to label the protests as interference by the West. President Obama has said:

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

With two distinctly different approaches, leaving one to ask which action is correct? That is rather hard to say, as the variables are different. While I believe Obama should strike a slightly more forceful tone and standing up for the rights of people to protest without fear of violence, I don’t think directly challenging the Iranian leadership is the right idea. And while I personally believe the United Nations has turned into a rather worthless organization when it comes to standing up to human rights under oppressive governments, I think Obama should be actively pursing an international resolution calling for an end of violence towards the protesters. That way, it shows that the world supports those rallying in the streets without directly challenging the leadership of the nation.

When all is said and done, will these protests matter? As stated earlier, there isn’t a glaring difference on the issues between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad. However, we might be surprised if the protesters are successful in overturning the election. Moussavi has been the face of the reformist movement during the rallies, and might change his positions to match those of the public. While the President answers to the Ayatollah, a President backed by a powerful populist movement (especially women) might be able to force the Supreme Leader to initiate change in favor of basic human rights for all within Iran.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that these current protests will lead to a complete collapse of the existing government power structure, meaning the ruling class will remain. However, with a series of gradual changes in domestic policy and rights, long-term changes are possible. Till that day comes, it is my hope that no other protester will meet the face of Neda – Iran’s “Angel of Freedom.”

Related articles:
Powerline – “A Word From Ronald Reagan”
The New York Times – “Both Sides Claim Victory in Presidential Election in Iran”
Cafe Sentido – “Rivals Ahmedinajad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election”
Hurriyet Daily News – “Status quo likely victor in Iran vote”
America Blog – “Secret document declares Mousavi winner”
Progress Politics - “President Obama regarding Iran Election Situation”