Friday, October 29, 2010

Is Multiculturalism Dead?

Is Multiculturalism Dead?


By Adrienn Kácsor


The multicultural attempt has failed, utterly failed,” announced Angel Merkel in Potsdam a couple of days before. Amid the growing tensions between Germany's immigrants and residents, the German Chancellor's statement should be considered seriously: her speech, given at a meeting of the young members of her party, the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), absolutely marks the significance of the question of immigrants in the German society. After her speech, it is really time to think over: is multiculturalism still a live issue?


Just a few decades after the birth of “multiculturalism” and that it has become a leading ideology in cultural studies, the validity of the term has become challenged by the reality of everyday life. At least in most Western European countries, just as Germany, the United Kingdom or France, that could have been considered 'multicultural' in the last decades. Now mainly (but not only!) Muslim religion that strongly questions the patience of West European residents. According to one of the latest German polls, recently published in The Economist, “a third of Germans think the country is overrun by foreigners; a majority favour a “sharply restricting” Muslim religious practice. Over a tenth would even welcome a Führer who would govern with a “strong hand”.” It seems like now it is growing extremism and xenophobia that is typical to Western Europe, not multiculturalism.


For politicians, like Merkel, the biggest issue for the upcoming years is how to stop extremism and to restore multiculturalism - if restorable. And if anyone wants to restore it at all. It is really a serious question that why would it be worth having immigrants, packed up not only with their own cultural traditions, but also with their problems (just as like unemployment is a big challenge for France's Roma minority).


Is this really a solution to expect the immigrants to merge into the society in which they would like to live?


I still believe that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Not only immigrants, but also Western Europeans have a lot to learn. And mainly about themselves: how open they are, which in the long run means: how democratic they are.


Thursday, October 28, 2010

Britain Makes Defense Cuts, But US is Left to Tie up Loose Ends

October 25, 2010

By Michelle Consorte

With the 8 percent cuts in Great Britain’s defense budget expected to take full effect by 2015, Britain will not be able to fulfill its commitment as an ally to NATO and the United States.

Yet, Britain still claims that it will be able to keep its commitment as an ally and continue its aid to the US in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the British Defense Minister, told reporters that Britain will “be able to maintain a moderate deployable force for a considerable length of time, if required… Maybe not exactly at the level we have now, but at still a respectable and useful level.”

However reassuring this statement was meant to sound, it is a gentle way of saying “we still support your cause, but you’re on your own.” The level of military aid that Britain is giving now is “useful,” so, wouldn’t a lower level of aid be less useful? Fox’s language of possibility is startling when there is a distinct, real, and tangible need for military action now.

In reality, Britain will no longer have adequate resources to continue with the same level of military involvement. A planned reduction in total military personnel of at least 7,000 soldiers, from a force that started off smaller than that of the US Marines alone, along with other defense budget cuts, will spread Britain’s military too thin for it to fully honor its commitment to NATO and the US in Afghanistan.

Not only will Britain default on its promise, but the US will be left to deal with the repercussions. With Britain’s military downgrading to the size of the other individual NATO powers, the US will be forced to step up to the plate to compensate for its English counterpart’s pull-back. The cuts will put pressure on the US in a number of ways, including investing in upgraded military strength. This is especially challenging considering that the US is struggling with the growing national deficit in these unstable economic conditions.

In the current global economic instability, it is understandable that Britain wants to cut back on spending. Who doesn’t? The US faces similar issues of trying to balance economic restoration at home with sustained and effective investment in military buildup.

But Britain’s overt disregard for the most recent aspect of an Anglo-American alliance that has been in place for over 65 years is both shocking and frightening. Apparently, the US has allies in spirit and tradition, but less so when it comes time for action.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Lifting the Drilling Moratorium: Welcomed Relief for Gulf Coast Economy

by Andres Arevalo and Joanna Kurylo

The controversial deep-water drilling moratorium imposed on the oil industry after the huge Gulf oil spill last summer has been lifted and we applaud this decision. After four months, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says tighter regulations and enforcement plus a major cleanup effort have led to a greatly reduced risk that a spill like this could ever happen again.

Thousands of jobless workers in Louisiana will surely welcome this move by the Obama administration as their industry has lost millions of dollars and thousands of jobs due to the blanket prohibition of deep-water drilling.

According to the Obama Administration, the drilling moratorium has cost about 8,000-12,000 jobs in the region.

Investigations originally reported that up to 48,000 could have lost their jobs due to the moratorium. Now that the numbers have been revised to less than 20,000, many argue that the moratorium should remain in place to ensure environmental safety, claiming that an insignificant number of job losses should not outweigh environmental considerations. This however, does not cover thousands of jobs lost in other related industries, such as a slowdown in shallow-water drilling.

Two important factors should be considered when reviewing the lifting of the moratorium. First, we must acknowledge that in light of our current economic situation, jobs should be protected at virtually any cost. Second, we must acknowledge that any job losses create a negative economic impact in all of the gulf area.

Cities such as Houma, Louisiana, which heavily depend on the oil industry, have witnessed their unemployment rates increase drastically since the May moratorium. The April 20th explosion has affected the Gulf area and caused business losses. Furthermore, the area now deals with the relocation of hundreds of workers to other areas.

In addition, local representatives of both parties of the region have called for the release of the moratorium. Critics include members of the president’s own party, including U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, who says, “[o]ur workers need to get back to work on those rigs to provide the jobs and energy security we need. If rigs comply with the regulations that are necessary to keep another BP disaster from ever happening again, they should be allowed to resume work immediately.”

Lifting the ban on the drilling moratorium allows for the creation of more jobs, perhaps filling the void that has been created by the April events. It also adds, even if only incrementally, to the widely shared national goal of relieving the United States from dependence on oil and other energy resources imported from nations which don’t share our values, interests or which wish us ill. But the bottom line here is the bottom line. As State Rep. Cedric Richmond put it: “Protecting jobs in the oil and gas industry is paramount to moving our state forward”.

Friday, October 22, 2010

'Don’t Ask Don’t Tell' As a Gag

by Elizabeth Dovell

The outdated Clinton-era policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was created as a compromise that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military without creating divisions inside the armed forces. Ironically, the policy has worked against this goal. More than 13,000 troops have been discharged upon violating the policy—hardly a measure of unity. In fact, the policy serves as more like a gag order intended to shield those with misconceptions of homosexuality from discomfort. Instead of a united US military, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy serves as a distraction to a significant portion of the US military.

Gays and lesbians in the military have found ways to skirt the rules and reach out to those who they believe to be homosexual as well. Code words and references to gay characters on television shows have become the language used to communicate with one another. One has to marvel at the effort these soldiers (who are making such a sacrifice in their willingness to put their lives on the line) are putting forth simply to express their individuality.

Our sexual orientation is a large part of who we are as human beings. To deny American troops (truly, any human being regardless of citizenship or creed), the right to speak their true identity is truly deplorable. The fact that we are willing to allow these soldiers to fight our battles overseas but not have the right of speech on this subject is almost laughable.

In a country mired in the midst of an economic crisis and embroiled in various military conflicts, are gays in the military truly worthy of our concern and our scorn? The millions of lobbying dollars being thrown at Washington could be spent on more noble causes, rather than attempting to erode the rights of Americans citizens--indeed, American soldiers.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Wiesel and Axelrod Talk Global Issues, Denounce All Forms of Fanaticism

by Elizabeth Dovell

David Axelrod, top political advisor to President Obama, convened with humanitarian and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel on Wednesday, October 6 at the 92 Y in New York City. As part of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity and the Conference of Nobel Laureates series, Holocaust survivor Wiesel discussed global issues and current events with politician Axelrod.


Axelrod and Wiesel set up the discussion as a "conversation between friends," with an audience of several hundred listening in. The two then began to ask one another questions concerning the state of the world with regards to the recession, poverty, the war on terror, and the rise of the extreme right in the United States.

Wiesel expressed malcontent at the actions of some who fall into that category. "This time there are more than 20 million people who listen to certain political commentators, so to speak, the language they use, some of them compare President Obama to Hitler. How far can indecency go?" He continued "I understand adversity, of course political adversaries, but there is hatred. Why such hatred?"

Axelrod concurred on Wiesel's stance on the matter and expressed his wish to move forward politically. "The big test after November is whether people are going to accept the sense of responsibility on both sides to move the country forward. We're eager to do that, but the environment is working against that."

Axelrod and Wiesel also fielded questions from Skype callers on issues concerning world hunger, global ethics, and the responsibility to protect.

The hot topic of the evening was undoubtedly the Park51 Islamic cultural center, which Wiesel felt strongly about. Commenting on the issue, Wiesel said "I didn't intervene until now because, on the one hand, there's the Constitution. I consider the Constitution a sacred document we cannot touch. On the other hand, there are the feelings of the families. How can I not think of that?"

Wiesel went on to propose an alternative that would, he hoped, satisfy those who support the project while at the same time display sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. "I would speak to the imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) and tell him, 'Look, I don't doubt that your intentions are good. Nevertheless, you've divided the community. Why not unite it?' I propose to turn the whole project into an interfaith project of Jews, Christians and Muslims.' One site. A joint adventure."

This is not a new idea. While both men denounced fanaticism, citing both the Tea Party and terrorism as examples of extremism (obviously in different contexts), it should be noted that we must not confuse sensitivity on behalf of 9/11 families with appeasement of those who do not recognize religious freedom.

The two ended the evening on a note reminiscent of Wiesel's trademark unflagging optimism.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Chinese Dissident Wins Nobel Prize...Now What?


By Michelle Consorte

After much deliberation, the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee awarded the Peace Prize to prominent Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo on October 8, 2010.

(Photo credit: PEN American Center)

Unfortunately, Liu was unable to physically accept the award, as he remains in prison in China on an 11 year sentence under charges of "inciting subversion of state power." Liu was not even aware of his own prize until two days after it was announced, when his wife, Liu Xia, was able to visit him on October 10.

Liu has had a long history of arousing anger and frustration within the Chinese government, but winning the Nobel Peace Prize from his jail cell definitely takes the cake. Instead of silencing him like they had hoped, Liu's name is on everyone's lips, and cries for his freedom are louder than ever, including from President Obama. Liu's name was even used as a prime example for the word 'dissident' by Merriam-Webster.

'Prison' has a different connotation in a country where the right to freedom of expression and other human rights are routinely violated. Liu Xiaobo is not the picture of the red-eyed murderer most Americans would associate with someone who is a "prisoner." Liu is a 'dissident,' 'someone who strongly and publicly disagrees with and criticizes the government,' to go back to Webster again. Liu has been fighting for freedom of expression and democracy in China for years. Most notably, his saga includes helping to organize a hunger strike in Tienanmen Square in 1989 to aid students in their calls for democracy, and helping author Charter 08, a document which calls for more human rights, political reform, and an end to the one-party rule in China. Indeed, Liu embodies this document, especially one line which reads, "we must end the practice of viewing words as crimes;" speaking out for freedom of expression and human rights, and accepting the punishments (detainment, house-arrest, prison sentences) that follow.

For China, watching as the prestigious the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a national dissident, a criminal, was the last straw. Since the announcement of the award, restrictions on Chinese citizens, especially those close to and/or in support of Liu, have only become tighter. Even during the actual announcement, China put its foot down, and blocked the Nobel announcement on CNN and BBC International channels. "The Great Firewall" on the Internet and in the airwaves also shot up, removing any and all posts or SMS messages containing any element of Liu's name or the phrase "Nobel Peace Prize."

All of this begs the questions as to whether Liu's receipt of the prize will help or hurt, both in terms of China's domestic policy regarding human rights and China's foreign relations with countries like Norway-who awarded the prize and is therefore currently the root of all evil-and the United States-who demands Lui's release and is part of the Western influence that helped to cause this problem in the first place-.

China's Foreign Minister was an outspoken critic of the prize, calling it "an obscenity," and stating that awarding the prize to Liu "desecrated" it. Additionally, he stated, point blank, that the prize could hurt relations between China and Norway.

Others, including President Obama, the Dali Lama, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, praised the award and called for Liu's release from prison.

PEN American Center President Kwame Anthony Appiah, who nominated Liu for the prize, has used the event as a springboard towards democracy for China. In an article he wrote for Foreign Policy, he states,

"We need to help the Chinese Communist Party understand what it took a long history of struggle for us to learn in the Western world: A government that cannot hear from its people cannot govern well. My friend Amartya Sen, an economics Nobel laureate, has shown, in essence, that famines don't occur in democracies. A government that hears its people can serve them better. Democracy makes some things more difficult -- but mostly they're things, like corruption and the abuse of human rights, that ought to be difficult."

The Chinese government may be emerging as an economic power on the global playing field, but it is sorely lacking in the human rights department, in comparison to other states. And if a government's main goal is the security of its people, China's priorities need some serious restructuring.

Although leaders of the United States and Canada, in addition to others, have called for Liu's release, just how far are politicians willing to push China?

Not very far, according to J.M.'s blog in The Economist: "[awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo] will infuriate Chinese leaders. It may well give extra ammunition to hardliners in China who argue that the West is bent on undermining Communist Party rule...There will be an upsurge in demands from abroad for Mr Liu’s release [as has already been seen]. Yet major Western powers are little inclined to jeopardize their relationships with China for the sake of individual dissidents."

So, where does this leave us? Liu Xiaobo remains in prison, China is intensifying its crackdown on freedom of expression, and other governments may be too fearful of tipping the delicate balance that is the outside world's relationship with China to force his release. Yet, like those who are able to successfully skirt "The Great Firewall," there must be a way around shattering ties with China and still obtaining Liu's freedom.

In 1989, the same year that Liu was organizing a hunger strike to aid the students in the Tienanmen Square protest, Francis Fukuyama wrote that this was the end of history, and that mankind as a whole was moving toward universal acceptance and embracing of liberal democracy and the virtues that it entails. Appiah echos this sentiment in his call for democracy in China.

We are indeed headed toward democracy, as pressure and involvement from Western powers increases. Still, we're not out of the woods just yet. Actually, we're probably only taking our first step under the canopy of pines. Democracy is possible in China, in fact, its possible everywhere, but it will take an immense amount of difficult work, preparation, and compromise that most nations won't like. It will get ugly. To get to the human rights light at the end of the tunnel, nations will have to be willing to take a risk and putting pressure on China to reform. Attaining Liu's release would be a huge victory- but it is only the beginning.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

'Elections' for Burma

-Maeve Dwyer

On November 7 Burma will hold their first elections in twenty years. While the world usually views elections in countries that have not been operating freely as a positive step for a country toward democracy and a more open society, these 'elections' blatantly are accompanied by any such transition nor do they symbolize any positive change for the Burmese people. They represent little more than a ploy by the military junta to formally legitimize their rule.

It seems the Generals have learned from their last attempt at elections in 1990. These elections overwhelming voted the ruling dictatorship out of power, with the people of Burma voicing their support for the National League for Democracy. However, the regime did not take well to the loss of power and refused to honor the election results, keeping their iron grip on the country and placing Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the NLD, on house arrest.



This time around it was decided that the election results should largely be determined beforehand to avoid to the troublesome upset of the last attempt. Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain, outlined the division of parliament seats in a seething op-ed for the New York Times Sunday. The constitution implemented by the junta reserves 25% of seats solely for the military. Half of the remaining seats will be filled by loyalists to the regime running in uncontested elections. The voice of any opposition with the luck to win a seat will be drowned out. Furthermore, the regime has ensured no serious opposition even has the chance to participate in the elections.

The election rule bars participation from any candidate with a criminal record. While this wouldn't sound altogether outlandish in many democracies, a similar proposal is on the ballot in my home state of Michigan this November, one must account for what The Guardian estimates to be 2183 political prisoners. Furthermore, parties are now required by law to dispel any incarcerated party members. Thus, the National League for Democracy, the regimes largest competitor, was dissolved by the government last month for refusing to reject leader Aung San Suu Kyi who has been on house arrest since her party won the last elections twenty years ago.

Last month, Win Tin, a founder of the National League for Democracy declared in a I.H.T. Op-ed for the New York Times that his party was boycotting the elections. The party and their ethnic allies see these elections as a tool of the regime to permanently legitimize military rule and widespread participation merely serves to make the intrinsically flawed process seem legitimate and fair. Win Tin insists the elections are in no way democratic but rather an attempt to please the international community while solidifying rule.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Women in Combat: How Far Have We Come?

by Elizabeth Dovell

Six months ago an "experimental" all-female engagement team was sent into Afghanistan's Helmand Province with the goal of winning the hearts and minds of the female population there. In an area restricted to men, Marja, Helmand Province is a key battleground area in the war in Afghanistan. The female U.S. troops arrived in the province with a mission to gather intelligence such as humanitarian need and other information. The female Marines found themselves facing unspeakable danger while at the same time violating the rules concerning women in open combat. Despite the hardship and danger these women experience on a daily basis, the team has not experienced any casualties.

The fact remains that women are barred from participating in certain branches of the military such as he Navy SEALS and the U.S. Army Rangers, mostly due to men’s physical superiority over women. That does not, however, make women any less valuable in other military branches. Individuals serving in the military should view their peers with respect and trust; after all, you're supposed to trust your fellows with your lives. A functioning squadron needs that group mentality and trust in order to function properly. Sadly, this has not always been the case. The past couple of decades have seen incidents that paint a disturbing picture for women in the military.

I hold those who serve in the U.S. military to a certains standard. While sexual assault is never acceptable on any grounds, by any individual serving in any professional field, the public is still shocked when, say, a politician is involved in a sexual scandal. It's a lesser-newsworthy event if a supermarket employee is accused of harassment. We hold certain positions in a higher moral regard: politicians, military folk, etc: we expect something from them. We expect our politicians and our soldiers to appropriately represent this country to the rest of the world. The Tailhook scandal of 1991 and the U.S. Air Force Academy of 1996 rocked the country and made us open our eyes to the fact that this country still has a long way to go in terms of respect and honor in the military. However, it is imperative to remember that these incidents absolutely do not reflect the majority of individuals who sacrifice so much to serve in this country's armed forces. That fact is why I am infuriated with the few who do participate in such vile behavior: not only are they morally bankrupt, but they reflect poorly on their fellows who are making such a colossal sacrifice and volunteering to put their lives on the line.

I was inspired to write a piece on women in the military after a recent publication in the New York Times. My overarching point is this: the more emphasis this country places on the value and necessity of female soldiers, the more respect they will gain from their male peers. While this will probably not eradicate the problem of sexual harassment and assault in the military, it is certainly a positive step that should be taken. Again, I must reiterate that the number of male soldiers who do participate in harassment may be in the minority; but that does not mean that the issue shouldn't be spotlighted for fear of belittling the commitment of the more ethical majority.

Women have indeed made great strides in the realm of career advancement- and not just in the military. In order for this trend to continue, and for women to experience the group cohesion that men enjoy simply for their gender (I'm excluding the discomfort many gay men most likely feel for be required to conceal their sexual identities- but that's another blog post for another time), it is imperative that the military continue to highlight the need for women to participate in missions such as this most recent one in Helmand Province. We must continue to show how much we value our female troops.

U.N.’s Role in Climate Change Talks: Neutral Venue or Forceful Overseer?

By Michelle Consorte

With the 2005 Kyoto Protocol scheduled to end in 2012, the United Nations is working toward creating a new, binding treaty which furthers nations’ commitment to reducing harmful climate change and holds them accountable to these stipulations. After the failure to produce a viable treaty at Copenhagen, nations are currently meeting in China to discuss a new treaty, and will meet again in Mexico in November to continue the conversation.

But what should be the U.N.’s specific role in the formation of the new treaty? And, who will hold nations accountable for their obligations as defined by said treaty?

In a recent New York Times article, Yvo de Boer, the U.N.’s former climate chief, expressed a desire for the United Nations to take a more integral and assertive role in the international climate change talks. He wants the U.N. to be the one to hold countries accountable for adherence to whatever commitments they agree to, and to help set up these commitments a.k.a. “guidelines” in the first place.

He stated, “‘I think it’s ultimately the responsibility of an international regime to set a common metric, to set common standards, perhaps even translate those into guidelines,’” he said, adding that that work could lead to establishing common guidelines. The clean energy business would benefit from an ‘international framework that registers the commitments of countries, but then at the level of activity puts a very solid mechanism in place for reporting monitoring and verification of action.’”

He also claimed that “such a structure would ‘ensure real results are being achieved.’”

I have two major problems with these statements. First off, isn’t the U.N. supposed to act as a neutral venue for discussion between nations to reach a common understanding and/or agreements? Since when did it become a police force or “regime”? The last time I checked, we existed in a state of international anarchy, without this supranational body, because no nation-state was willing to give up part of its individual sovereignty to such an entity.

Secondly, it is difficult to empirically measure the results of climate change reforms because the effects are slow-in-coming so that immediate results which prove that the reforms are working are impossible to achieve the way that educational reforms, for instance, would show in students’ test scores. Although immediate relief and reversal of environmental problems is much sought after, these issues have taken decades, some centuries, to develop and cannot be fixed within the short time frame that we would like.

In effect, it would be the future treaty which holds countries accountable, and the melting of the icecaps, rising sea level, and increasingly intense and bizarre weather patterns that act as a policing force if countries do not comply with said treaty.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, focused more on the idea of creation of a binding treaty as progress, than a forceful U.N. She stated in a press release: “Progress at Cancún would also include a mandate to take the process inexorably forward towards an encompassing agreement with legally binding status.”

She also called on governments to abide by the future treaty of their own accord, rather than relying on a larger body to act as the enforcer of the agreement. Her address to governments to ‘step up to the plate’ is seen in a BBC article: “Ms. Figueres added that this year's gathering would be ‘the place where governments need to take the next firm step on humanity's long journey to meet the full-scale challenge of climate change.’”

Even Ms. Figueres admits that an effective treaty will take time. However, she, like this author, is willing to work toward this realistic option where governments hold themselves accountable for their promises (for the most part- if we are to be truly realistic), rather than expecting a neutral body to suddenly gain an independent army and act as the guardian and watchdog for individual nations.

Friday, October 1, 2010

We are all Creatures of the Constitution

Esme Ellis

Attack of the drones-It sounds like the title of an all-too predictable Star Wars film. This, however, is America's latest military trend, and it is far from simple or miraculous,contrary to the eager proclamations of the Obama administrations' top advisors.

Why does the Obama administration endorse drone warefare? They simply believe it reduces troop loss , perhaps in an effort to change the troop loss numbers which can be used as fodder against the administration during this critical time of re-election. In fact, acording to the September 27th New York Times Article , the month of September has been busy: "the CIA launched 20 attacks with armed drone aircraft thus far in September, the most ever during a single month."

Precisely because there is no on the ground co-ordination, drone attacks do not possess that incredibly important element of human reaction in split-second circumstances. This is seen as a gain by the Obama administration- I am withholding judgement until further facts come to the general public's attention to draw a conclusion, but I assume you can estimate what camp I have thrown my lot in with.

As far as addressing the question, the Obama administration has been frustratingly flip aboutr the whole thing. The lack of transparency about these attacks are addressed with statements like " Drones are equipped with precise weapons and intelligence, so there's no need to worry about mistakes or deadly errors."

What a drone can accomplish has been proved. The attacks have driven high level leaders into hiding, and they have scourged the Northern Waziristani country side clean, but at a cost that our military is reluctant to inform us about. The American public has very little information about the targets, their crimes, or their relevance.

Allow me now to draw your attention to the lawsuit filed last month, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. It is filed by the father of an American citizen who has been put on a short list for immeadiate "deprivation of life" upon sight. The man in question has been hiding in Yemen since January, with no contact to either his father or his counsel, as it might endanger his position and thus, result in his "deprivation of life" by means of targeted drone attack. His father is defending his right to both trial and a charge backed by substantial proof within an American court, choosing not to rely on the American governments standards for designation of terrorists and terrorist threats.The ALCU also filed a freedom of information act asking for more informtation about drone strikes in January, basically the whens, whys and the wheres.

On the order of the Joint Special Operations Command, American citizens are targeted and then eliminated- no trial, and most certainly no charges having been brought against them. They are added to a shortlist, and then, as soon as is feasible, they will be eliminated. There is no check to balance these decisions- they are on executive order and executive order alone.

Reading through the complaint for relief and the preliminary injuctions of Al-Aulaqi v Obama(which can be found on the ACLU website), " We reject the idea that when the United States acts against its citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States in entirely a creature of the Consitution. Its power and authority have no other source." What a fantastic way to put it.

And really, all we're asking for here is a formal notice of our termination. Anwar Al-Aulaqi may in fact be part of a terrorist organization with nefarious intentions towards the United States. However, our judicial system is idealized to provide room for the details which cannot always be accounted for by the system. Thus why someone should explain to the Joint Special Operations COmmand why they can't just name a terorist and eliminate them. There is always a risk of mistake,even in the surest of cases.

Every American citizen's life is to be determined by the three branches of government. That was an agreement, I thought, perhaps one of the few we all continue to agree on. Irrelevant- here's the point: America may be able to pick and choose what laws she goes along with internationally, but in America her leaders are accountable to us, if no-one else. We ought to be a little more forceful about that every once in a while.