Categories
politics

What Ben Franklin would have thought of the Patriot Act

I doubt if the one of United States’ founding fathers and greatest thinkers would be too impressed with the subtle and blatant curtailing of civil liberties by the enactment of the US Patriot Act. I stumbled across the following quote of Ben Franklin’s earlier today while I was looking for something else. Wise words that the current administration could do with heeding.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. “
–Benjamin Franklin

More information on Benjamin Franklin can be found here

Categories
politics

The legacy of Arafat (revisited)

Just to balance my post a few days ago about Arafat’s role in the middle-eastern peace process, here’s a contrasting view of arafat’s role in Palestinian/Isreali relations (or lack thereof). My last post contained an article by the political scientist Stephen Zunes opining that Arafat was often the excuse rather than the reason for the failures in achieving a peaceful resolution to the palestinian/israeli peace process. It’s only fair to point out that while Arafat may not have been directly responsible for many of the atrocities committed by factions under the PLO umbrella he arguably contributed to the failure of the Oslo Accords and their final peace talks chaired by Bill Clinton at Camp David in July 2000. The political writer Seth Gitell had the following take on the failure of this process, pinning the blame on Clinton’s attempts to harry both sides into striking a potentially unworkable deal (to be fair, he didn’t have much time) and an unwillingness on the part of Arafat to accept basic tenets of the deal from the outset

“Clinton has never understood that a steadfast and even-handed approach by America to issues between the Israelis and Palestinians is more than likely to produce a Camp David-style impasse. This has happened at each juncture during the “peace process.” When the Palestinians ventured off the Oslo reservation, they were met with only the most polite admonishments. After Arafat gave the green light to violence when Israel opened the tunnel in Jerusalem, the United States responded tepidly. The Clinton administration’s even-handed missives — warning both sides to avoid intemperate actions — would almost be comic if not for their damaging effect.
This permissiveness on the part of the Clinton administration — the looking the other way at Arafat’s violations of Oslo, the winks, the nods — served to encourage an ultimate breakdown in the negotiations. Because Arafat came to believe he could use Clinton as a lever against the Israelis, he learned that he should always hold out for more. Even at the beginning of Camp David, this strategy seemed to work for Arafat. When Barak offered civil control of parts of Jerusalem, Arafat balked. Barak came back with a more generous proposal. Knowing that the Israelis are weary, that their morale is low, that they recently unilaterally surrendered Lebanon, Arafat had every incentive to push for the maximum — and then walk away.”

The justification for Palestinian involvement in the Camp David talks is described below while the official Palestinian comments on the failure of this process can be found here

“The Arab consensus prior to Oslo was that a resolution of the conflict must be based on the exchange of land for peace. The Palestinian leadership, for its part, would not accept a peace process outside the framework of international legality. However, Israel rejected any framework in which it acknowledged it was an occupier, and refused to make any commitment to withdraw and stop building settlements. The impasse was broken only when Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat stepped in and, contrary to his own instructions to his Washington representatives, agreed to negotiate with Israel without any conditions and in an open-ended process. The Oslo Accords were the result.”

This statement goes on to state that Israel “rejected any framework in which it acknowledged it was an occupier, and refused to make any commitment to withdraw and stop building settlements.”. This was hardly a surprise to Arafat or any other member of the PLO. Indeed, one feels Clinton’s frustration at his “failure” to broker peace when the Palestinian stance from the very beginning seemed highly unlikely to bring about any agreement, despite concessions from the Isreali government. Whatever your beliefs on his attempts to reign in the more extreme factions within the PLO, as leader of the PLO, Arafat could not abdicate responsibility for the failure of the Oslo accords. If you consider the acts of horrific violence and retaliation perpetrated by both sides since, this failure is saddening.
In saying this, this is a hugely complex issue with contrasting opinions on both sides of justice, blame and solutions. In a conflict such as this a neutral observer often concludes that no party is innocent, none is entirely to blame and the greatest casualty is the thousands of people who have lost their lives in the many years of fighting.

Categories
politics

Arafat’s effects on the Middle-Eastern peace process

Picked up a very interesting article from taint.org (thank you Justin) about “selves and others”, website which keeps track of the published articles of speakers, writers and journalists with leftish political views. Having followed the link to selves and others I was intrigued by another link to Stephen Zunes article on Arafat’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Now that Arafat has died and the eulogies are flowing in, it’s useful to recap on his leadership of the PLO; his beliefs and policies. Well worth a read for anybody with a passing interest in middleeastern politics.

Categories
politics

Right to Bear Arms (or is there?)

We all know that the American consitution protects citizens rights to bear arms. Wrong! It’s a bit more subtle than that. The 2nd amendments actually reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. There is much debate about whether this amendment only applies to state sanctioned militias (whatever they might be in the event of civil-war?) However, we can all agree that there’s quite a difference when the 1st half of the amendment is included. So while organisations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have done their best to popularise the myth that the 2nd amendment is an unlimited excuse to buy an automatic assault rifle for hunting deer or family protection their claims are actually quite tenuous. The US supreme court has deemed that this amendment applies to federal law only, doesn’t affect gun-control laws passed by individual states and actually “means no more than (the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress”. For all you legal buffs out there, this ruling was passed almost 130 years ago in 1876 (United States v. Cruikshank). This was reaffirmed ten years later in Presser v. Illinois. Various state gun control laws have been upheld based on these decisions for years. In 1980 the Supreme Court again presented the opinion that “these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties”. So American’s don’t have the right to bear arms? It’s a myth right? Unfortunately after over a hundred years of consistency in interpretation of this amendment the US supreme court executive branch (including former AG John Ashcroft) presented THEIR INTERPRETATION in 2002 that the 2nd amendment DOES in fact protect the US citizens right to own guns. This doesn’t necessarily obviate gun-control or personal responsibility in the choice of gun(s) owned. Indeed according to the most recent pre-election harris poll in 2004 a slim majority of 52% favour tougher gun control laws.
Up until 2002, however, this supposed “right to bear arms” was actually a bit of a myth and flew in the face of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It may be a moot point as 73% of american’s agreed (in 2002) with the sentiment of their “consitutional right to bear arms”. Big enough lie, often enough etc…
There are arguments against gun control aswell. Some of these seem plausible enough, others are downright paranoid and jefferson’s quote about using firearms as a last resort to protect themselves from the tyranny of the goverment is bogus and can be filed neatly in my drawer marked right-wing, gun toting, self-justifying propaganda. If only this was just a drawer… This file gets any bigger I’m gonna need a new house.
I can’t help feel that the 2002 reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is commentary du-jour and will not stand the test of time. The text of the amendment hasn’t been amended 😉 and it’s fair to say that the 2002 interpretation doesn’t sit easy with many lawyers in the US. Check out the excellent overlawyered.com for information on this and other aspects of US legal practice. Stunning and shocking in equal measure.
Also check out the useful summary of gun control in the US here
Thanks to Kieran Colfer for the debate and the link. You’re as sharp as ever! Mind like that oughta be subject to some kind of state legislation to keep you from hurtin’ yourself, boy! 😉