FBI: Fixing the CIA's Mistakes

The FBI is reconstructing the cases against 15 Al Qaeda leaders that are at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The FBI is doing this because they believe that the evidence that they have against this mean is “inadmissible or too controversial to present at their upcoming war crimes tribunals” (Meyer). This is an embarrassing for the Bush administration because they called for CIA to use measures that would get information, but would not be allowed in the court or if it was it would be focusing on the agencies actions instead of he leaders. The most important captive in this case is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who has said he is the mastermind behind September 11th and while in Guantanamo Bay planned the event that killed Daniel Pearl. Basically the article says that the CIA has made many mistakes in this trial and the FBI is being used to help fix the mess if there are any more problems.
I found this article interesting because I had not heard much about the Al Qaeda leaders in Guantanamo Bay in a while. However, I found this article to be disheartening because of all the mistakes that the CIA has made. I believe that the CIA has made a tremendous amount of errors in planning this case, and also there were definite errors made by the Bush administration. I do not feel that it is the responsibility of the FBI to fix the mess that was made, but I also feel that we need to convict these men of the crimes they have committed. Another aspect that I was really surprised of was the comment from the head of Amnesty International who said, “ I think there’s no surprise that they have to call in the FBI to clean up the mess left by the CIA secret detention program” (Meyer). I feel that after this trial the government really needs to fix the problems in their programs quickly so this will never happen again. What do you think?

For more information look at Josh Meyer's article called "FBI working to bolster Al Qaeda cases":
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror21oct21,1,2519428.story

Spying Legislation Approved

"The Senate Intelligence Committee approved legislation Thursday that would place new controls on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, but includes provisions sought by the White House to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for aiding the government spying effort" (Miller). This new legislation will let a special federalized court have more authority to overlook the practices that the Bush administation is using to target terrorists. The previous legislation allows the NSA (who listens to electronic communications around the world) the ability to monitor conversations between the United States and someone outside of the country without a warrant. However, this new legislation would require a warrant that requires the government to get governmental authority when an American is targeted overseas.

I believe that this legislation was a good choice for the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do not believe that the government should be allowed to listen to calls without a warrant or use them later without a warrant because it is a violation of privacy. However, this practice has been helping us, but I still think that there should be more rights for the citizens. This legislation will make this practice more legal for the government and will stop the questions on President Bush's practices.

For more information on the legislation please read Greg Miller's article on the Los Angeles Times Website: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-fisa19oct19,1,4939644.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=7&cset=true

The American Flag and God

Recently on Capitol Hill there has been a question on whether a practice is breaking separation from Church and State. There are about 100,000 requests to fly the flag on top of the Capitol building for political significance every year. In August, a 17 year old wrote his congressman to ask to fly the American flag at a certain time to "honor his grandfather and his 'love of God, country and family'" (Neuman). The architect of the Capitol was very angry that this boy would make such a religious dedication for the Capitol. In fact, the architect failed to provide the dedication because he said that dedications would not occur if there was a political or religous message. The architect was afraid that boy using this dedication it would ruin separation of Church and State. However, people have called for the architect's decision to be overturned and is now in Congress, 160 members have signed on as of today.

I believe that what the architect at the Capitol did was ridiculous. I agree with Rep. Nuergebauer who said "This is a case of political correctness run amok," wrote Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas). "The government is not imposing 'God' on flag certificates. Rather, it is the request of the taxpayer who wants to mark a special occasion with the honor of a flag flown over the world's symbol of democracy" (Neuman). What the seventeen year old and many others wanted was to honor someone or something with the American flag, not a cross. However, it was these people's decision to put God in the flag certificates because that is some thing that those people believe in. These people are not trying to impose God on anyone or to bring relgion into the government, they are just trying to fly the true symbol of freedom. What do you think?

Here is the article from the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-god11oct11,1,2646998.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Senator Craig Will Not Resign

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho has decided that he will go against his previous decision to resign. Senator Craig was caught in a sex-sting investigation in Minnesota after he tried to have sex with a man in the stall next to him. Senator Craig said that he was guilty, but then tried to take back his statement would be public property. He has also said that he did not know that he was being called on these charges and says that he was wrongly accused. He said that he would resign his senatorial duty before his term ends if his case (to take back the charges) was lost in trial. On Thursday, the judge said that Craig could not take back his guilty plea, which meant that Craig had to step down. However, he sid tht he would not run for reelection, but would finish out his term until January 2009. This has angered many of his GOP collegues because they want to try to fix the Senate after the Democrats took over Congress last year. "Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who had called on Craig to resign, said, 'The right thing for him to do was what he said he would do'" (Simon and Huffstutter). Also, "Ensign said Craig's decision may end up putting the Senate through a painful ethics investigation. 'It's embarrassing for the Senate; it's embarrassing for our party,' he said. 'It's going to be potentially further embarrassing for his family'" (Simon and Huffstutter).
I think that Senator Craig is making a huge mistake because he is ruining his political party. To be an honest man, and to end his political run with some dignity, I believe that Senator Craig should step down. I believe that this move would help his state out and would be benefical to his party as well. It does not matter whether what political party that I side with because the main point of the manner is that Senator Craig made a promise and should keep it. If he wants to help his party and does not leave as more of a disgrace than he already is then he should resign. What do you think?

More on Senator Craig's decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-craig5oct05,1,7456533.story?coll=la-headlines-nation