Supreme Court limits car searches without warrants

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant to search the vehicle of an arrested person if the person is locked in a patrol cruiser and poses no threat to the officer. This 5-4 decision is said to put many new restrictions on police officers, stopping them from searching the vehicle immediately after an arrest. The warrantless searches can still take place if the officer has reason to believe evidence regarding the arrest can be found in the car.

The new ruling is mainly dealing with daily cases where cops will pull someone over. As long as one isn't a threat to the officer, or has any reason to be suspected of suspicious activity, their vehicle can't be randomly searched. Of course, drunk or otherwise influenced drivers don't get a free pass if the police thinks the offending substance is still in the car. Still, it's an interesting step towards more rights for the accused that will probably be well received.

European Nations Getting Involved....

To add more info from my last post, the CIA interrogation cases may be getting a bit more interesting as now it seems that some European nations are going to get involved, and possible hold some of their own trials for the men involved in this case. Some nations already have laws in which they state that they can investigate "torture, genocide and other human rights crimes anywhere in the world". Countries such as Spain have been pushing for their governments to investigate the men involved with these interrogation cases, with the backing of some UN officials who state how the techniques were a clear violation of human rights.

Personally, I do not mind seeing other nations getting involved if our own government does not want to step up and take responsibility for our own actions. But some also say we also have to consider how it would look to our image to the entire world. Do you think it would change what people around the word think of our country? Thoughts?

European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment

Dick Cheney Has a Good Idea? Uhm... Okay...

I don't have the link handy at the moment, but it's been going around the blogosphere, and is perhaps even spreading into the MSM, that former Vice-President Dick Cheney has called for the release of CIA reports regarding the apparent successes of torture, or enhanced interrogation, or whatever we're all calling it these days.

Cheney's rationale is more or less that if everyone knows how well all our waterboarding, sensory deprivation, slappin, etc. worked, how safe it really made us, then we'll all just say "Great, sounds like torturing people is a good idea, no matter how illegal or immoral it may be."

Obviously I doubt that would be the expected reaction, but I think Mr. Cheney might be on to something here. The more we know about what the US has been doing in regards to interrogation, the more likely we may be to actually do something about this, in terms of prosecutions, truth comissions or what have you. So yeah, let's get those papers out, everything we can. Because really, if we don't let everything out, we can never know what else we're hiding.

The best thing I have ever seen on FOX NEWS

Warning: profanity included. Wow. Inappropriate, and yet so appropriate. Click here.

Morgan Stanley Brings Market Down

Morgan Stanley, one of the few investment banks left on Wall Street, announced their quarterly earnings today. Anticipating a poor report, traders set the market price of MS's stock two dollars before yesterdays closing price. Attacking the low price, MS investors raised the average stock price briefly until the quarterly announcement was made. After noon, equity fell and never rose again, leaving the current price two dollars and twenty one cents below yesterday's closing price, an 8.97 percent drop.

Unsurprisingly, Morgan Stanley's quarterly earnings reflected a more than expected loss. While officials believed Morgan Stanley would fall around eight cents per share, their actual loss was about fifty seven cents per share, roughly $177. In order to compensate, Morgan Stanely cut dividends from twenty seven cents per share to around five cents per share. The dramatic decrease can be explained by poor equity sales, the decline in commercial real estate, and changing their primary focus to fixed-income trading.

Morgan Stanley's decline had a noticeable impact on the rest of the market. JP Morgan, a competor in the investment banking sector, fell sixty three cents, a 1.94% drop, Dow Jones composite index dropped eighty two dollars and nintey nine cents, a 1.04% drop, and the Standard and Poors 500 composite index fell six dollars and fiftey three cents, a 0.77% drop.

While the current credit freeze is a reaction to the illiquidity of "toxic" assets that have poisoned bank's finances, the decline of Morgan Stanley's quarterly earnings was well expected. The good news, however, is that the large investment banks are refinancing their balance sheets in order to pull the loan industry out of fearful spending. By focusing on fixed-income trading, and other more reliable sources of income, the investment banking sector is moving towards a less risky manner of making money. Undoubtably, the investment banking sector is allways going to be involved in some form of risk, but the banks are rethinking and therefore rebalancing their finances. Hopefully, these assets will unfreze credit, and in turn raise the economy.

No Prosecution for Interrogation Methods?...Not So Fast

Today President Obama surprised some by stating that he would not be "necessarily oppose a U.S. panel to investigate the interrogation program", going against what many interpreted he said a couple days back about there being no prosecutions for these men involved in these interrogation programs. In this article by Reuters, http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53K63020090422, Obama also went on to state that he just want the questioning to take place "outside of the 'typical hearing process' of Congress".

Now I know that the decision for Obama to release the memos was a very controversial one, with lots of backlash coming from conservatives, but is it a good idea to go through a hearing/interrogation of these men (ironically)? Personally, I would just see this as another distraction for our economic problems and I believe that those should be our first priority right now. What do you guys think? Should Obama be willing to let Congress have their day with these men? Or would it be too much of a distraction away from our economic problems in this country?

CIA delays 'torture memos' release

This article seemed to have caused a stir in the news recently. On Thursday, April 13, President Obama authorized the release of classified Bush-era interrogation memos. Had there not been staunch opposition from four former CIA directors, the memos would have been available to the public much sooner. Apparently, the memos' release might open up CIA officers to lawsuits filed against them on accusations of torture and abuse. The former CIA chiefs argued that opening the memos to the public could hinder current intelligence operations. Interestingly, the Jusitice Department urged senior CIA members to release the memos almost completely uncensored, which they were.

While I can understand why former CIA directors wanted to delay the relase of these once classified memos, I'm curious as to why Obama and his administration was pushing for their declassification. Because these documents are relatively recent, they contain important information on how our secret service operates that is not yet outdated, and to release the memos would be a considerable security leak. Exposing the acts of "torture" may be important for future reform of the department, but it definitely isn't helping the organization and efficiency of the department right now. To cover up human rights violations is bad, but to threaten the security of the nation just to satisfy the curious demands of society doesn't seem much better. Thoughts?

Marking an Anniversary

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the shootings at Coloumbine High School in Colorado that killed 12 students and 2 teachers as well as the two shooters themselves. As we are high school students now, it is impossible to remember what life in high school was like pre-Columbine, but here is something to think about... when the school does a lock-down drill it is called Code 99 because Columbine occured in 1999. So much has changed in terms of security in schools in just 10 years. There are metal detectors in many urban schools and video surveillance on campuses across the country. Security has been amped up, but is it enough?

Yes, it is true that one could argue that it violates the students right to privacy when lockers are searched or we are video-taped in the hallways, but should that right take prescedence over safety? Unfortunately, violence in schools has not stopped. This spring it will have been two years since the Virginia Tech killings of 23 students. Is there a way to stop such acts, or will there always be that one kid who is bent on destruction? Can psychologists predict who the next perpetrator will be? Will stepping up gun restrictions and laws help, or simply anger the NRA? These are very difficult problems when dealing with the safety of children. Any thoughts?

4/20

It only seems fitting that 4/20 should merit a marijuana policy post, especially since the issue has received very little coverage throughout the year on the Hitchhiker's Guide to National Affairs.

I'm not sure how many of you are regular readers of blogs outside of the class blog, but there's a wonderful writer out there named Andrew Sullivan, you might have noticed his blog listed in the Don Roll on the left side of your screen.

Anyways, Andrew, a longtime advocate of gay rights, and a gay man himself, has analogized the gay rights movement with that of the push for ending marijuana prohibition, a cause he also supports. The way he sees it, a deciding factor in the fight for equality among homosexuals was the decision made by many homosexuals to "come out of the closet" and show people that to be gay is not to be a freak, or a pervert, or what have you. Once people started realizing that homosexuals are just like everyone else, the movement for equality started gaining momentum.

So what does all this have to do with legalizing weed? Well, Mr. Sullivan has begun a regular feature on his blog, The Daily Dish, entitled The Cannabis Closet. As the name implies, the feature consists of anonymous emails sent to Andrew by normal, everyday people. Who also happen to smoke pot.

He's printed emails from youth football coaches, bankers, lawyers, moms, dads, graduate students, just about anyone you can think of. The point being that: hey, normal people can smoke weed too, it's not just hippies.

So what do you all think? Is Andrew correct in making the connection between gay rights and marijuana legalization? Will people coming out of the cannabis closet have any affect on ending marijuana prohibition? Has reading any of those emails changed your ideas about marijuana?

Recession's grip tight on jobs

A new government report on Thursday has come up with a unpleasant, yet unsurprising statistic: A record 6.1 million people will be receiving jobless benefits. The housing market has also plunged to its second-lowest level on the record. Construction as a whole seemed to have slowed, as the number of new homes has dropped 10.8 percent and applications for building permits are also declining .The recession is far from over.

The good news is that the economy is not plunging as badly as economists predicted it would. The Department of Labor readjusted its figures on annual unemployment claims, and found the adjusted 610,000 much less than the predicted 655,000. Apparently the spring shopping season has changed some of the numbers around, being much more successful than predicted. Hopefully this will show that even hard times, people will not hide all their money under the couch.

Middle East Peace?

Having recently returned from Israel, I heard a very interesting seminar and lecture that proposed the following statement: Israel's real problem is not the Palestinians, nor is it Lebanon; rather Israel's greatest threat to its existence (let alone peace) is Iran. The speaker, Neil Lazarus, proposed that the Pentagon's worst nightmare would be an Israeli preemptive strike on Tehran and Iran's nuclear program and then the retaliation from Iran, Hezbollah and all other anti-Israel countries surrounding it attack. What is the United States going to do then? 

I wonder about all of your opinions regarding peace in the Middle East. Do you think it needs to come from Israel or from its neighbors, or both? What is hindering the process? What is the objective in the region both for the United States, the world, and more specifically the parties involved? 

I think it is extremely dangerous to have someone like Ahmedinejad in power and even more frightening to discover that he has access to nuclear weapons. Not only is this a problem for the United States, but also it is an imminent and extremely serious threat to Israel. However, how does one deal with someone who refuses to follow acknowledge Israel's right to exist, denies the Holocaust,  refuses to follow U.N restrictions and poses a huge threat to global security when we need things from him, namely oil. The U.S has deep ties to Iran in terms of getting a huge amount of oil from the region and it would NOT be good in this economy to do something drastic and lose that large percentage of the oil market. So, I guess the question is what is to be done?  

Turnitin wins court battle over fair use...

See this Volokh post. Admittedly I find this interesting both as a consumer of turnitin and as Journalism instructor that deals with fair use law on a regular basis. I like to think of myself as a students' rights advocate, but really I'm a moderate, perfectly comfortable with this decision and NJ vs. TLO while fully supportive of Tinker and semi-outraged by Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Morse v. Frederick. Interesting cases all.

Have a great, safe weekend.

Obama Heads South of the Border

Yesterday, President Obama met with Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, before they both head to the Summit of Americas later this week. The topic of discussion? Border safety and curbing the drug violence in both nations. President Obama expressed that the United States would be a partner with Mexico in terms of reducing the violent drug cartels' attacks and power. Obama acknowledged that this is not only Mexico's problem, but the United States' as well. He spoke of security measures in the United States (such as more stringent security on the border so guns and cash are not as accessible en route to Mexico) and how the United States is prepared to support Mexico in its endeavors.

From the articles I've read, the news and radio, it seems as though Americans don't fully understand the power of these drug cartels (I know I don't!). Apparently, it's like having 20 different mafias all of whom could take over cities, wreak havoc in little towns and have the power to do as they please because the citizens are so frightened of these drug lords. I think it is great that President Obama plans on supporting Mexico in this fight, but the question is will his plans come to fruition? Let's face it, the United States government, and especially Obama, has a lot on its plate. I hope that just because this problem isn't directly centered in the U.S (altough it's pretty dependent on America), it doesn't get pushed to the back burner.

Clinton Announces Plan to Reduce Piracy in Somalia

In recent years, the instances of piracy off the coast of Somalia have increased at an alarming rate. This week, United States Navy and cargo ships have been specifically targeted because of the Navy's rescue of an American Navy captain from a hostage situation which resulted in the deaths of three Somali pirates. As the danger and violence escalates off the coast of Somalia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today unveiled a plan to reduce the number of pirate attacks. Her plan consists of four main components: a delegation of diplomats being sent to Brussels next week to discuss the problem with Somali leaders, "the US would work with the Contact Group on Piracy Off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) to expand the multinational response to piracy" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8001102.stm), international discussions on how to freeze assets held by pirates and that countries need to step up and punish the pirates responsibly.

While I believe diplomacy should always be exhausted before any violence should be used, I wonder how much a meeting with diplomats in suits in Europe will help reduce violence off the in the Gulf of Aden. These pirates are, for the most part, using make-shift weapons and rubber boats to attack the Naval forces of developed countries. Why would they listen to their government leaders? It seems as though the United States should not simply work on the problem of Somali pirates, but also look at the conditions that breed the need to go into piracy to survive such as employment, the economy, and the education system of the country itself. Yes, that is a long-term problem that will not immeadiately reduce the pirates, but it seems worthwhile in the long run and I don't think that component of the problem should be overlooked.

Will Lifting Restrictions on Cuba Lead to More Lenient Immigration Laws?

Currently, President Obama is reviewing and considering new immigration reforms and last week it was announced that he is planning on lifting restrictions placed upon Cuban immigrants and Cuban-Americans who wish to send money to and communicate with their families in Cuba. I think it is about time that the United States stopped trying to regulate which nationalities get to send money back to their families in another country. This also raises the question of what Obama will do next in terms of immigration reforms such as laws that deal with illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and those who seek permanent residence in the United States.The article linked to this post shows a very common side of the plight of illegal immigrants and their families. While I do not condone illegal immigration, these are very difficult circumstances and hopefully, Obama will find some middle ground in terms of curbing illegal immigration while still maintaining the lives of those who have been in this country for decades and have built lives here, as well as those who have nowhere else to go.

Kidnapped US captain freed; snipers kill 3 pirates

Thank god this whole thing is over! I can't believe nobody posted on this yet! US Navy snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued American sea captain Richard Phillips in a surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas Easter Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world's most powerful military. One of the pirates pointed an AK-47 at the back of Phillips, who was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed when the commander of the nearby ship (USS Bainbridge) made the split-second decision to order his men to shoot, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said. The lifeboat was being towed by the Bainbridge at the time, he said. A fourth pirate was in discussions with naval authorities about Phillips' fate when the rescue took place. He is in U.S. custody and could face could face life in a U.S. prison. The rescue was a dramatic blow to the pirates who have preyed on international shipping and hold more than a dozen ships with about 230 foreign sailors. But it is unlikely to do much to quell the region's growing pirate threat, which has transformed one of the world's busiest shipping lanes into one of its most dangerous. It also risked provoking retaliatory attacks. Will the pirates learn from this or make retaliatory attacks? Yes, according to a self proclaimed pirate from Somalia. Jamac Habeb, the aforementioned self-proclaimed pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs that: "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill the hostages."
"Now they became our number one enemy," Habeb said of U.S. forces. Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding the Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," he told The Associated Press. "We will retaliate for the killings of our men." Was the rescue of the US captain a good thing? Yes. Was the killing of the pirates a good thing? That remains to be seen.

Out by 2011!

The top military commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, says that he thinks the United States will be our of Iraq by the year 2011. When asked to rate his confidence of his prediction on a scale of 1 to 10, Odierno replied "as you ask me today, I believe it's a 10 -- that we will be gone by 2011."

According to CNN.com, nine U.S. troops were killed in March, which is the lowest monthly toll since the beginning of war in 2003. "So, there's been a clear improvement of security here," Odierno said. "The issue is: Can we maintain that? Can the Iraqis maintain it? And that's what we're working through now. We want them to be able to maintain this stability as we pull out."

This piece of news is music to my ears. When Bush was president, I had an incredibly hard time believing any predictions that came out of his mouth. To me, he had a secretive air about him and he seemed to be hiding something all the time. With Obama, now, I feel at ease trusting him as our Commander-in-Cheif to stick by his word and get our troops out of Iraq according to the set timeline. This assurance by General Odierno just reassures my thoughts.

I also think that pulling out of Iraq and sticking to the given timeline will significantly help our economy. Thousands of soldiers will be returning from Iraq, spending left and right on things they have needed since their departure for Iraq. Presents will be bought for them, stimulating the economy. Babies will be born, stimulating the economy. Overall, it's definitely a good thing.

Another Sales Drop in March

Sales continue to drop in March, as consumers show that they are not ready to spend the money. The American public is still not confident in the economy, and the fear of a worsening recession has affected their trust.
On the other hand, some stores have had an increase in sales. The stores that appeal the middle and lower classes have seen a new region of consumers come to their doors. Chains like Wall-Mart (1.4% increase), discount stores like TJX and Ross, as well as others.
But most retailers have suffered a sales decline. Abercrombie & Fitch was the most notable with a stunning 37 % drop in sales.
Specialty retailers in malls are still struggling, too, including Zumiez (down 17.9 percent), American Eagle Outfitters (down 16 percent), Wet Seal (down 11.4 percent), American Apparel (down 11 percent), Gap (down 8 percent) and Limited Brands (down 9 percent). Sales declined 2 percent at the Children’s Place.
Now, we can only wait to see the stimulus package work, and hope that Americans will once again start to spend some money.

Immigration reform doesn't make this year's cut

According to multiple sources from the Obama administration, the president doesn't plan on passing immigration reform this year but rather is going to focus on our economy. "There are a lot of things on his plate and a lot of pressing issues relating to the economy. I don't think he expects that it will be done this year," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. Back when Obama was senator, he was very supportive of immigration reform, voting to build a 700-mile long fence across the US-Mexican border and backed plans that would provide a safe way for current illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.

So should we start immigration reform right now? I think so. Immigration reform would be a great stimulus to our economy. The illegal immigrants right now getting paid under the table could come out of "hiding" and be able to start a family and a business, all of which would be great stimuli. Also, I think it would be somewhat of a morale booster. Many Americans get frustrated with the job market and claim that illegal immigrants have been taking American jobs. If the Obama administration began immigration reform that actually strengthen immigration laws, making it harder for illegal immigrants to take American jobs, but also making it possible to become a citizen, I think that would encourage the work force and get more people out and spending money.

Thoughts?

Some relevant political cartoons...