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”

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”

I started writing this article about the Senate resolution to apologize for slavery in the United States. The past tense is used since, while reading various articles on the topic, I came across a sentence that just stood out. In the Washington Post article “Senate Backs Apology for Slavery,” Carol M. Swain of Vanderbilt University said something that bothered me. To quote the article:

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday’s vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate’s resolution “meaningless” since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

“The Republican Party needed to do it,” Swain said. “It would have shed that racist scab on the party.”

This is something that has bothered me for such a long time. Why is it that the Republicans get such a bad rap in regards to racism? A simple look into history shows roll the Democrats play in not only prolonging racism in the country, but also delaying the progression towards equal rights. Let us walk through the history real quick and see how things have evolved. From the establishment of our country through the Civil War, slavery was legal. It was even an integral part of our Constitution. The argument over slavery progressed from our founding fathers (who owned slaves but argued against the practice) up through the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Stephen Douglas, a Democrat, was less a proponent on slavery as he was a proponent for allowing people to vote for or against slavery. This unique position was evident in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, where the residents of the territories could determine if their position as a free or slave state when they entered the union. This act (and slavery in general) became the core topic of debate between Lincoln and Douglas four years later. Even though the two men were campaigning for the same Senate seat (where Douglas, the incumbent, won), the debates were followed on the national level. The Whigs, and eventually the Republicans, were taking the position that slavery should not be allowed to expand across the nation. Becoming the face and voice for that position, Lincoln cemented his popular support in the Northern states as well as in the West, defeating Douglas by 500,000 votes in the Presidential election just two years later.

As we know, the nation fell into Civil War under Lincoln’s watch. Two years after becoming President and fighting the largest war in the nations’ history, Lincoln issued two executive orders that became to be known as the Emancipation Proclamation. These orders proclaimed that slaves in the Confederate states (starting in 1863) would be freed. In 1864, Lyman Trumbull (Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee), with co-authors Charles Sumner (Republican) and John Brooks Henderson (Democrat) submitted an amendment proposal to abolish slavery. This amendment was adopted in 1865, becoming the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and the death of Lincoln, the Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 expanding and protecting the freedom of blacks in America. The freedoms and protection of blacks were later cemented into the Constitution when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. This Amendment, primarily written by John Bingham (Republican), declared that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fast forward 100 years, we find the nation debating racism in the South. Despite the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Jim Crow laws continued to spread in the South leading to the segregation of the black and white populations. For years both Republican and Democratic legislators worked to draft a civil rights package that would override the abuses by Southern Democrats in the core former Confederate states. In the early 1960, the Republicans introduced a handful of bills into committee that would later be incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the act reached the floor of the House and Senate, a higher percentage of Republican (80% in the House, 82% in the Senate) politicians voted for the passage of the Act than the Democrats (61% in the House, 69% in the Senate).

So why is racism the “scab” of the Republicans, especially after all that they have done on behalf of blacks within our country? Why isn’t it the “scab” of the Democrats fought against the rights of blacks, stemming from Douglas’s unwilling to stand up against the practice to Senator Robert Byrd’s marathon filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is it merely the fact that the Dixiecrats broke away from the national Democratic organization and joined with the “states’ rights” side of the Republicans in the second half of the 20th century? Or are people simply uneducated when it comes to racism in our nations’ history?

Whatever it may be, it is beyond time that people mature and accept people for who they are. People cannot choose what skin color they are born with, nor does skin color make you better or lesser than the person next to you. As the Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal.” Both political parties have much to apologize for over the years, as does the Federal government itself. It is my hope that this bill is the last chapter on the issue of racism in our nation, and that we can move forward as one.

Related articles:
BellaOnline - “Democrats and Racism”
World Socialist Web Site - “The Republican Party and racism: from the ’southern strategy’ to Bush”
U.S. Constitution Online - “Constitutional Topic: Slavery”
Teaching American History - “The Constitution and Slavery”
New Visions Commentary - “Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act”
The Dirksen Congressional Center - “Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964″

On Friday, I will have the privilege of visiting the only nuclear-powered commercial ship built in the United States. I will take as many pictures as possible on my trip and write up an article for your information.

My, what a week it has been. Last week I wrote about how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught in a “lie” when she denied ever being briefed by the CIA about interrogation practices being used on terrorists, including waterboarding. Yesterday, she claimed that the CIA lied to her.

In what can only be called a bizarre event, Pelosi held a press conference over the CIA briefing she received back in 2002 when she was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. During a flurry of questions and rambling answers, Pelosi became visible uncomfortable. She would periodically wander away from the podium, come back and shuffle her papers, and then stammer as she was trying to find the correct page with her pre-written statement. However, the whole event could be summarized by one exchange with a reporter in the audience.

Reporter: “Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you’re accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002.”

Pelosi: “Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States. Misleading the Congress of the United States.”

Reporter: “And doing it again now as they released this list of briefings that says you were briefed on the interrogation tactics that were used.”

Pelosi: “I’m quoting what the head of the CIA said. This is … we don’t know if this information is accurate that he’s talking about. What they briefed us on, and perhaps they should release the briefings, I would be very happy if they would release the briefings. And then you will see what they briefed in one time and one time in another, House and Senate and the rest, and perhaps with the intense interest this has generated because of the distraction that the Republicans want to cause with this then you can make a judgement yourself about what you think these briefings were. But I’m telling you that they talked about interrogations that they’ve done and said, “We want to use enhanced techniques and we have legal opinions that say they are ok. We are not using waterboarding.” That’s the only mention that they were not using it, and we now know that earlier they were.

So yes I am saying that they are misleading … that the CIA was misleading the Congress. And at the same time the Administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said that this intelligence does not support the imminent threat to which the press asked the same question you just did now, “Are you accusing them of lying.” I said, “I’m just stating a fact.”

This accusation against the CIA did not sit well with the intelligence community. Leon Panetta, the current CIA Director, published a memo to his employees today defending them as well as the information currently provided by the CIA to the public. In it, he says, “Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’”

The rebuke by Director Panetta caused Pelosi to change her tone. In a written statement today, she responded by saying, “We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.”

In the past week, we’ve seen Pelosi swear she hasn’t been briefed on waterboarding, only to change her story. Then, we’ve seen Pelosi accuse the CIA of lying to Congress, only to change her story (again). I’m curious … What will be the story to be corrected next week?

Related articles:
Yahoo News - “Pelosi in dispute with CIA over interrogation”
The New York Times - “Pelosi Acknowledges She Was Told of Waterboarding in 2003″
Breitbart - “Pelosi says she learned of waterboarding in 2003″
The Washington Post - “Speaker’s Comments Raise Detainee Debate to New Level”
The Politico - “Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth”