A Victory for Democracy

Reuters: Turkish court rules against closing AK Party

Background
The Justice and Development Party of Turkey, the AKP, was re-elected last year with 47% of the vote. Secularists, mostly in the military, have since repeatedly charged the party and its members of having an Islamist agenda and of trying to introducing Sharia law. The AKP, for obvious reasons, has consistently denied that charge. More recently, a group of secular Turks were arrested for planning a coup to overthrow the AK government.

A good decision
The model of secularism and democracy in the Middle East, Ataturk’s Turkey, was almost dealt a huge blow today. Thankfully, Turkey’s Constitutional Court made the right decision today by not banning the AK Party.

In contrast to what one might expect, the less secular AKP is more democratic and liberal than the most secular parties of Turkey. In fact, the AKP has decreased censorship, expanded women’s rights, and reached out to minorities.

The fight is not over
The fight is not over. The case today was won by only one vote (6 to 5, 7 votes were needed) – 8 of the court’s 11 justices are secularists. As well, the court did agree to impose financial restrictions on the AKP (state funding for the party was cut in half).

And don’t think the secularists have given up. Military intervention is always a possibility, but what are more likely are attempts by secularists to slowly remove the AKP’s influence from public society.

And as Howard Eissenstat points out, “If liberalization and parliamentary democracy cannot deliver on basic issues, Turkey’s devout, like its military, may opt for a harder path.”

First Rumsfeld, Then Rove, and Now: Gonzales?

First Rumsfeld, then Rove, and now Tony Snow. Who’s next? Alberto Gonzales?

In the past year, over 15 key administration officials have resigned. The original staff members of the Bush Administration is a rare species ("Can I pet it mommy? Please!").

Joshua Bolten, the President’s chief of staff, recently told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day, he would expect them to stay the rest of the term. This, according to Rove, forced him to leave.

Understandably, this could be the reason Tony Snow is planning to leave. Snow was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt:

HEWITT: Are there any other resignations upcoming, Tony Snow?

SNOW: I think that probably…as [Joshua Bolten] said the other day, he thinks there are probably a couple coming up in the next month or so.

Which makes sense based on Bolten’s Labor Day remark. So, will Gonzales go?


It’s true Gonzales might not be considered a ‘senior aide’; he is higher up in the chain of command than that. But he has become a liability for the Bush Administration bigger than Dick Cheney (and that’s saying something).

But it’s more likely than not Bush will stubbornly keep Gonzales, unless the Democrats launch a full investigation into, well, anything he has done.

Gonzales is the only thing between Congress and some of the Bush Administration’s darkest secrets. He blocks (or attempts to block) any inquiry into the Administration’s dirtiest escapades.

Not only that: any new Attorney General would have to be to be approved by Congress. That means a new AG would most likely be bipartisan.

Will Gonzales go? Right now, it’s a big maybe.

Don't Only Blame Pelosi

200th post


According to Wikipedia, so far, the 110th Congress has passed only three bills.

This is why Congress's approval rating is below the President.

It's not only Pelosi's fault nothing is being accomplished. You can blame the Republicans for stopping them too. Congress is too divided to get anything done. There will be no major accomplishments by the United States until after Bush is out of office and there are new congressmen and -women.

Congress Must Stop Funding For Guantanamo

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
------------------------------------------------------------
Should Congress stop funding the detention center at Guantanamo Bay?

Of course. Guantanamo is an illegal facility, illegal under both U.S. and international laws. The majority of America (and of course, the rest of the world) believes Guantanamo should be shut down. Stopping funding would be a simple, uncontroversial way to correct one of the Bush Administration's biggest mistakes. Then, President Bush would be forced to relocate the terrorists to normal prisons to be tried constitutionally.

[POLL] Do You Agree With the Supreme Court's Decision?

Don't forget to comment.

For more polls, click here.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision limiting the use of race by school districts attempting to achieve integration or diversity?
	Yes
	No
	What decision???
pollcode.com free polls

House To Spend $2000000 On Their Own Salary

Yes, the House is about to vote to spend nearly $2,000,000 of tax funds on their own salaries. By voting to raise each individual member’s salary by $4400, they will, in total, raise the collective salary by nearly $2,000,000. Knowing that there are 435 Reps:

4400 * 435 = 1914000

$2 million of our own tax money...

Supreme Court Makes Another Stupid Decision

In case you haven't heard: Court strikes racial diversity school programs

Yes, of course ALL organizations should be completely blind to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. But what was important about this ruling is that before the ruling schools could make sure schools were diverse.

[CARTOON] The Supreme Court and Bong Hypocrisy

This just about sums up the Supreme Court's decision on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. Click the picture to see it full sized

[POLL] Should Guantanamo be Shut Down?

More good news: normal posting will now resume.

Should the Guantanamo Bay Prison be shut down?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Post of the Month: May

Sorry for the low volume of posting lately. It's been really busy. Just as a warning, there won't be many posts the next two weeks, but after that normal posting will resume.

Post of the Month for May is...Abraham Lincoln, George Bush and Civil Liberties!
---------------------------------------
A controversial Republican president during a time of war, utilizing controversial new powers. Many, even in his own political party, were outraged when he suspended the right of habeas corpus and imprisoned many without trial. Military tribunals were authorized to try suspects quickly; money was spent without congressional authorization. Who was this president? None other than the great Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln:
• Suspended the writ of habeas corpus. [1]
• Spent money without congressional authorization. [1]
• Imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. [1]
• Conducted at least 4,271 trials by military commission. [2]

George W. Bush:
• Defined captured enemies as "enemy combatants". [3]
• Denied "enemy combatants" habeas corpus. [3]
• Tried "enemy combatants" through military tribunals. [3]

No similarities there, right? Of course there could be more added to both presidents, but this list gets the idea across. So what can we learn from this?
• Abraham Lincoln was one of the most popular presidents of all time, if not the most popular.
• President Bush isn't popular.

Does this mean that history will look back at Bush as one of the greats? Maybe, maybe not. The next year and a half will decide that. But looking at the last 6 or so years and comparing it to the President Lincoln's, one could say that it appears Bush will have a nice legacy. But take another look.

In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

During Lincoln's time, there was a rebellion going on. One could argue whether "public safety may require it." But if you want to argue about that, adventure into the comments section.

Abraham Lincoln, George Bush and Civil Liberties

A controversial Republican president during a time of war, utilizing controversial new powers. Many, even in his own political party, were outraged when he suspended the right of habeas corpus and imprisoned many without trial. Military tribunals were authorized to try suspects quickly; money was spent without congressional authorization. Who was this president? None other than the great Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln:
• Suspended the writ of habeas corpus. [1]
• Spent money without congressional authorization. [1]
• Imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. [1]
• Conducted at least 4,271 trials by military commission. [2]

George W. Bush:
• Defined captured enemies as "enemy combatants". [3]
• Denied "enemy combatants" habeas corpus. [3]
• Tried "enemy combatants" through military tribunals. [3]

No similarities there, right? Of course there could be more added to both presidents, but this list gets the idea across. So what can we learn from this?
• Abraham Lincoln was one of the most popular presidents of all time, if not the most popular.
• President Bush isn't popular.

Does this mean that history will look back at Bush as one of the greats? Maybe, maybe not. The next year and a half will decide that. But looking at the last 6 or so years and comparing it to the President Lincoln's, one could say that it appears Bush will have a nice legacy. But take another look.

In Article I, Section 9, the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

During Lincoln's time, there was a rebellion going on. One could argue whether "public safety may require it." But if you want to argue about that, adventure into the comments section.

Do You Think Democrats Duped Voters?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think Democrats duped voters this past November on the issue of pork?

The Democrats were being unreasonable; it was implausible that they were going to stamp out corruption in only 100 hours. But, they had the right idea. One of the biggest reasons the Bush administration has made so many mistakes is because of the administration's affiliation with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

How the U.S. Attorney Purges and Pakistani Judge Firings Are Similar

A controversial leader is coming under fire for the dismissal of one of his legal representatives. Critics say he did it for political reasons. No, this post isn’t about the U.S. attorney purge scandal; it’s about the suspension of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

From Wikipedia:

Justice Chaudhry was summoned by the President General Pervez Musharraf at his Army residence in Rawalpindi on Friday, 9 March 2007 and asked to explain his position on a list of charges brought against him from several quarters. He was then asked to resign, something which Justice Chaudhry refused to do and was hence forth detained for about five hours while arrangements were made elsewhere in Islamabad for speedy appointment of the Acting-Chief Justice. According to further reports he was only allowed to leave when the Acting-Chief Justice had taken oath of office and proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council had begun. According to legal analysts, the procedure adopted by the President is not only unjust and inappropriate but also unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In the U.S. it wasn’t legal of course, but there are many similarities. Mr. Chaudhry had some high profile cases coming up this year, two of which involved President Musharraf:

• The case on whether or not the President Pervez Musharraf could run the election for the next Presidency term.
• The Uniform Issue of President Pervez Musharraf.


What Has To Be Done

In both these instances, people complained. In both the U.S. and Pakistan, each President made a mistake. To make up for this, all attorneys or judges involved should be fully reinstated.

Everyone has the Right to Bear Arms

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 7:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
7 p.m.: Why does a senator need to carry a loaded gun?

They probably don't, but under the Second Amendment you are allowed to. Just because you're a senator doesn't mean you don't have 2nd Amendment rights.

Bong Legally Hits 4 Jesus

The 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.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a Supreme Court case that is still used today to determine whether a student’s first amendment rights were violated during a school punishment. During the Vietnam War, two students planned to wear armbands to school showing their disapproval of the war. The school, fearing commotion, banned the armbands before the students even had a chance to wear them at the school. Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to display their dissatisfaction anyway. In consequence for breaking the rules, the students were suspended. The students sued, and the course went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in the Tinker’s favor, saying that public schools can only limit First Amendment rights if there is a substantial disruption. Because there was no substantial disruption the Court ruled that the Tinkers and Mr. Eckhardt could wear their armbands.

Background on Bong Hits 4 Jesus
Basically, a kid, Joseph Frederick, had a poster that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as the Olympic flame went by because he wanted to be on TV. The principal claims the poster violated the schools drug policy and suspended Mr. Frederick. Joseph and the Alaskan Civil Liberties Union sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of Frederick. They supported their decision using the Tinker case.

Joseph Frederick was under the protection of the First Amendment. The message did not cause a disruption, nor did it insult anybody (another characteristic of when your rights can be limited). He should be apologized too, and the suspension taken off his record. For First Amendment rights to be limited, they have to take at test.

• Is it offensive?
• Is it illegal?
• Does it cause a substantial disruption?

Is “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” offensive? Not really. Is it illegal? Holding up a banner is perfectly legal. Did it cause a substantial disruption? No.

The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Frederick. He did not break any school rule nor did he violate the law.
------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: This post is now featured on the Blogger News Network.