Summary

I agree with Cassandra on the fact that people are being taken in without being able to access a lawyer. I like how she has marked out what they have done put what amendment they have violated. I like how she explains that they do not know if the leads are reliable and they the suspects are only suspects because they look like a suspect.
I agree with Cassandra that the country should be informed about the possibilities of terrorist attacks and take every necessary precautions. I like how she quoted the movie “we can’t just go around pulling people out of airports because they fit the vague Muslim description”.
I like how Colleen pointed out that Mr. Viet D. Dinh where someone can be held for questioning for a long period of time. I like how she said “retired Assistant Judge Advocate General Joseph R. Barnes, who pointed out that essentially the United States was in a war with this non-state entity, and during times of war it is seen as being alright to pull enemy combatants off the battlefield until the battle was over. The only thing different this time is that the potential enemy combatants in this case are United States citizens.”
I agree that the government has to prove that they are a threat and the fact that there should be a threshold in existence. This will help figure out who is a suspect and who is a suspect by mistake.

The Balancing Act

To Cassandra: That's perfectly fine, seeing as I found myself unable to post yesterday. That made for a nice little impromptu switch.

I agree with Cassandra that these citizens' rights are clearly being denied, but that the justification is rather evident in light of the 9/11 tragedy. When the lives of hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocent people are being put in danger, the government does have the responsibility to take action. That being said, as citizens of the United States, these men have the right to only be held for a reasonable amount of time (though naturally people will forever debate what exactly constitutes "reasonable") and to be allowed access to legal council, though I don't remember any mention of "cruel and unusual punishments". I can also understand why, in this scenario, the government was being rather tight-lipped about the plot, as again it is a matter of national security. Perhaps it could give more radical groups ideas.

I found it interesting that Mr Viet D. Dinh brought up that there are cases where someone can be held for questioning for an indefinite amount of time if they have such a large wealth of knowledge that they become a continuous source of information for police or the military in this case, but that the 60 men in the scenario almost certainly do not live up to that threshold. That was countered by retired Assistant Judge Advocate General Joseph R. Barnes, who pointed out that essentially the United States was in a war with this non-state entity, and during times of war it is seen as being alright to pull enemy combatants off the battlefield until the battle was over. The only thing different this time is that the potential enemy combatants in this case are United States citizens. I think the best thing to do would be to hold them for just long enough to determine which of them, if any, are truly enemy combatants, and then let the rest go free.

In general, while I do not like the restrictions of civil liberties discussed in this video, I believe that in such extreme circumstances they can become necessary to ensure the safety of the general population. As such, the government has the right to hold them for as long as they have a justifiable reason to believe that the men in question are a threat to the general population. However, to hold them past a certain amount of time, the government should have to provide proof that they are a threat. That time would almost certainly be longer than what we would consider "reasonable" for, say, a shoplifting suspect, but there should still be a threshold in existence.

The balancing act

To my group: Sorry I posted early but I work tomorrow and won’t make the deadline, hope I didn't mess anyone up…

I disagree with the fact that they are taking possible suspects into custody and not allowing them access to a lawyer. That is unfair to them it violates their rights given to them by the constitution. Their 6^th and 8^th amendments are violated. They are being made to undergo cruel and unusual punishment in military jail (8^th amendment), they are being denied the right to a trial (6^th) and also their 6^th amendment “protects their right to have a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witness and to retain counsel”. These 60 people are being denied the rights that they deserve just because they have a lead.

I understand why they are detained them. After 9/11 the whole country became aware of the fact that we have enemies and that we needed to heighten security. But they don’t for sure know if their lead is correct and also they stated on the movie that the people they have could just look like the “suspects” and could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. They need to gather more proof before they start throwing possible innocent people in military prison.

I do agree that the country should be informed about possible terrorist attacks and that we should take all the necessary precautions, I just feel that they acted a little too quickly this time and with a little too few facts. Like the people on the movie said, we can’t just go around pulling people out of airports because they fit the vague Muslim description. If we keep doing that we’re going to get sued or worst arrest some very important person and start another war.

Overview of Declaration of Sentiments

I think my group members had very valuable insights into this matter. I think Katie brought up a good point by quoting, "man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness" There is no indication of women in this passage. Where is the equality? Today, women are treated on a more level basis as men but are under paid. Colleen had a different perspective on this quote stating that the word "man" has been used as a general term to include both sexes. It plays a part on the traditional use of our language. For instance, in many Spanish speaking countries, men and women are treated equally but a mixed gender group of people is still referred to as a masculine group.

I also agreed with the points that Cassandra brought up. This particular quote she found most important, "He has endeavored, in every way, that they could destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent life." It is obvious that women were treated not as human beings but as mere objects.

Here are just a few facts of our past about the oppression of women.
"He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation in which she had no voice"
"He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns"
"All colleges being closed against her"
Without, the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions women wouldn't have many of the rights we have today.

Declaration of Sentiments and resolutions

The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was a great thing for all women. This started women’s rights and equality. I really liked the quote, “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.” I feel that this quote is giving women the right to be happy. It’s allowing them to leave an unhappy relationship, which before they couldn't do or if they did they were ridiculed and out casted.

Another quote I find interesting and very important is “He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her” and the footnote states “Oberlin College was the exception; it admitted women at its founding and granted them bachelor degrees in 1841.” To me this means that up until this time only one college allowed women to get a higher education but the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was now granting women to go to any college that they wanted to go to.

“He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.” This quote is the most important and most sad one in this article. It just goes to us all how poorly women were treated and how they were thought of as objects and not people. Without The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions us women wouldn’t have half the rights we do and we possibly could still be treated as someone’s property not our own person.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions

I took the quote "that man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness," to mean something slightly different than Katie did. I took this quote to mean that humankind should pursue happiness, but that women were being denied their right to find what makes them happy and pursue it. I took it this way because in that time "man" was typically used to refer to humans as a species, without regard for gender. A similar usage still exists in other languages, even in "Western" cultures. For example, in the Spanish language, a group containing any number of women will have to be referred to in the masculine form if there is even one man among them. This is not because they do not have equal rights, because as far as I am aware (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this), in most Spanish-speaking countries they do have equal rights. This is just a matter of it being the traditional usage. Rather than have a separate word for a group of mixed-gender people, or taking the time to say "men and women", they will often just use the word for "men". At any rate, what the women described in this reading were looking for was the right to be treated equally to men, as that was the "great precept of nature".

I like how they address the double-standards that apply to women vs. men. "Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same tranegressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.[sic]" I have had many arguments with my brother about this, mostly when he tries to impose upon me rules that he himself breaks because it is supposedly alright for him to do because he is a man. I ask him: "Why can I not do X when you can? Why should men be allowed to do X when I can't?" To date, he has not given me a satisfactory answer to my questions, and neither has anyone else who has overheard these arguments. "Because that's the way it is" is not a good enough answer.

As I read the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, a few things stuck out at me. One being that it starts out saying “that man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness”. This to me states that man should be happy, not even thinking about the women. History states that men have withheld all rights from women and were given to men that were ignorant, both foreigners and natives. Men did this when they married the woman; they then made them civilly dead. The man also took all the property that belongs to her along with the wages she earned. He did not allow her to continue education, so that means that college was out of the question for her. Men thought of women as the bearers of their children and thought that they should be home raising the children, cooking and cleaning the house.
Later on it then brings in the importance of women in the society. One states that laws that are preventing the women from occupying such a high place in society should be removed from the books. It’s saying that all the laws that do not allow women to be a part of higher positions should be demolished. Women should be able to have higher positions because it says that Woman are man’s equal, this means that women and men should be treated the same. If you look at that way women are treated now-a-days, they are treated well, but they are also not paid as much. It is also stated that men need to encourage women to speak and teach what they know.

Overview

I feel that everyone in my group had good and valuable thoughts. I agree with Morgan when she was talking about the political parties. They do seem to divide our country more. They may have some benefits but they have such opposing views that is doesn’t unite the country only make it a little more distanced. I also liked how everyone used a quote to illustrate their points and then added their interpretation of that quote. This was an interesting way for them to pick apart the article and bring out the main points of the article.

I feel that Colleen pointed out a great aspect with the quote "For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated? How many white families have lived in stark poverty? How many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we wasted energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?" It showed that not only were Negroes being targeted but also some whites, who the Negroes felt had such a greater and easier life. This quote shows that whites were not totally superior because they were living in some of the bad conditions and having some of the same hardships that the Negroes were. It also illustrates that he was striving for all races and economic levels to have the same rights and all be treated as equals; this is a concept that has not finished forming. Maybe one day years from now all races and socioeconomic levels will feel as if they are all as equally important and have all the same rights.

We Shall Overcome

One of my favorite quotes from this article was when the former President said, "There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country." As we have discussed in class, there are two types of obligations we associate with citizenship: legal and moral. President Lyndon B. Johnson here points out that the law he was proposing, a law to force polling places to allow African-Americans to vote, met both obligations. In addition, it rectified the unmistakable wrong on both counts of denying their right to vote. By denying their legal right to vote, those in charge of voter registration were committing a terrible wrong. He also points out that, and I quote, "We have already waited 100 years and more and the time for waiting is gone." These rights were supposed to be granted to the African-American population with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. He asks why they should have to wait any longer for what is rightfully theirs.

However, he does not only focus on the African-Americans and their plight. He also makes a plea to the American people to help all those who are less fortunate in this country.

"For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated? How many white families have lived in stark poverty? How many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we wasted energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?"

Clearly there was a need in this time to make the same opportunities available to all United States citizens, something that we are still working toward today. The level of success toward that endeavor is debatable, but at least we are trying, which is more than we can say for the people of 50 years ago, before this movement, who were denying others of their rights. We just need to be sure that we don't push the "equalization" movement so far that the former oppressors do not wind up being oppressed themselves.

We Shall Overcome

As I read through this article I wanted to point out a particular quote. "And we are met here tonight as Americans-not as Democrats or Republicans" I've always thought that political parties do nothing but divide this country. Of course, there are some good aspects to parties such as rallying people together but when I look at the whole picture, they just split people up and cause harm. And I think this is what this quote is saying.

I also wanted to point out another quote that gave me some insight into this issue. "But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over...Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome this crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice" I interpreted this as saying that we as human beings are keeping each other down in every way possible. Whites are opressing Blacks and vice versa as they have prejudice against white people too. We need to stop with the labeling because it not only hurts those who are labeled but also the ones who are doing the labeling. I see it as a sublevel of racism. No good can come from it.

We Shall Overcome

There are few points that I would like to express on. The first one is the quote “There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is an American problem.” I see that he has singled out the African Americans, but he is not doing in a negative way. To me this quote means to me that there is no one person or one group of people that are at fault, he is saying that all of America is at fault and they need to work on the way they handle things.
The next point I would like to make is because of this quote: “The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color.” This is saying that anyone can vote, but what the people that do the registering make the African Americans either do tests or lie to them. One of the tests that they make them do is recite the entire Constitution or they were asked to explain the most difficult requirements of state law and if they don’t then they cannot register to vote, but if your skin was white then all you have to do is walk up to the register table and just write whatever they want down and then they are off to vote.
The final point I would like to make is from this quote “Your president makes that request of every American.” He is asking for all of the Americans to step it up and try and remove all of their racial thoughts. He also said that the African Americans are the real heroes because they went through everything to get where they were now.

Summary

My group had many good points this week. Morgan brought up an excellent point when she was talking about the recent shooting. She said that if the government were to try and increase the laws making it tougher for people to get guns, the public would be mad and it would infringe their rights protected by the second amendment. Katie built off Morgan’s point by saying that the government should not restrict the rules of guns but make it tougher for irresponsible people to get them as to avoid any other tragic shootings. She also linked us to two sites, one was to a site about Columbine and the other was to one on Virginia Tech. Colleen’s opinion about the gun situation is that we should make it so that only the military and other armed forces can have access to them.

Lepage’s recent outburst was agreed upon by my group as a badly handled response. They felt like he could have declined going to the prison, by simply saying “No thanks” or something along those lines. By telling them to “kiss his butt” he actually made himself look racist, like he didn’t care about their conditions, he was not acting like good citizen and he was morally wrong. Everyone in my group agreed that he needs to behave like a professional because people look up to him and he is supposed to be a model citizen. Outbursts like that are not professional or one a model citizen would make.

Evaluation of the Week 2 Responses

I agree with the previous posts on the issue of gun control in response to the Tuscon situation. If gun laws were made more restrictive, which is in fact what making them harder to get would be, there would be many people who would become quite upset about it. My older brother, for example, takes the extreme stance of believing that all US citizens should not only have the right to own a gun, but that it should be a requirement whether you want one or not. He has told me and my mother over and over again that it would keep us safer, however we have always disagreed with him on that point. We believe that the opposite extreme, making it so that ONLY members of a well-regulated militia (read: the military and the police) could have them would make us safer, since that would help keep the "crazy" people from getting them in the first place. Letting them have guns because you have one too and "Now it just becomes a matter of who is faster to pull the trigger" would not, in my opinion, be an effective safety strategy. If anything, I believe it would just make this country more dangerous.

As far as the governor's comments, I agree with Katie that he could have been much more tactful about how he phrased his refusal to attend the event. Politicians should know that whenever they make such comments, especially publicly, they are going to be taken out of context and made into a big deal. If rather than saying that they could "kiss my butt" he had said "They failed to meet the conditions I laid out for them to make it possible for me to attend, and therefore I will not be able to attend," it would have come off a lot more diplomatic and made him look far less disrespectful. As Morgan pointed out, the way he phrased it can have the effect of making him look racist, and that is probably not the sort of image he wants to portray in the present political climate. While the First Amendment grants him the right to say whatever he wants, that does not necessarily mean that he should say whatever he wants. He has to remember that his comments are going to be heard by the public and that they can influence the public. Therefore, he should not say anything that he would not want said to him, nor should he say anything that could be deemed as offensive as "kiss my butt".

With the situation about the gun control in the United States was becoming a big deal way before the shooting in Tucson, for instants, the shooting at Columbine High School on Colorado. We all know that the two seniors shot and killed 12 students and one teacher, but also injured 21 other students. Then there was the shooting at Virginia Tech, the shooter killed 33 people. I don’t think that we should make the gun law stricter, I think that they should be a lot harder to get them. Morgan makes a great point about how upset people will get if or when the government changes the gun law. People love their rights, but some people do not know when it is time for a change. When teenagers and young adults are getting guns like they go and buy a soda, there needs to have some more restrictions.
With the comments that Paul Lepage made, I think, was out of context, because he should have never said “they can kiss my butt”. He should have stated simply that he was not going to be able to make it. By saying this comment he could start the rumors of him being racist. It could also state that he does not want anything to do with people that are not directly working with him. I think it was morally wrong because he needs to start thinking about other more and treating them the way he would like to be treated. He is the head of the state of Maine and everyone looks to him for guidance.

Response #3

Dealing with the recent shooting in Tucson I can see serious implications with gun control. The 2nd Amendment states that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This is one aspect of our rights as American citizens and there is already a lot of controversary about the restrictions on guns, or lack thereof. If lawmakers try to impose new gun control restrictions, people will be up in arms protesting it stating their rights are being violated.

As for LePage's comments, I would think there would be concerns surrounding diversity and equality. A governor holds a high position within the state and his comments might trigger other comments from people regarding the issue. Of course, this also goes along with Freedom of Speech too. Legally he hasn't done anything wrong, but maybe he over stepped the moral boundaries of citizenship.

I feel that my classmates have summed up the idea of this speech (MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church) very well, in that the whole idea of this time was earning the right to be treated equally, which was supposed to be granted to them a century before. MLK made a point to emphasize to his followers that they were not to use violence. I liked when he said "There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. (Well. That’s right) There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating" (paragraph 8). He was basically saying that they should not use the same sort of scare tactics that were being used against them, and that if they persisted, then someday they would earn equality. He wanted to be sure that they understood that just because they were tired of being oppressed, that did not give them the right to try and become the oppressors. That is not equality. True equality means that it does not matter the color of your skin, your gender, your age, or anything else about you. You get the same treatment as everybody else. We have made great strides in that direction, but I'm still not entirely convinced that we're there yet.

Response 4

I agree with much of my team's responses. First, I like the point that Cassandra makes about Rosa Parks. She was the driving force behind the equality for African Americans. She made hope and community possible and come alive in the black community. When we hear about equal rights, we often think about MLK and his speech and how badly the whites treated the blacks. But as Jacob mentioned, not all white people were trying to oppress them. In fact, there were groups of white Americans who who either tried to help stop inequality or didn't participate at all. I'm glad this was mentioned because this is how holocausts start. We tend to blame a whole group of people for the destruction of another group when really we are just profiling and this helps no one. I also agree with the "contract" that Colleen wrote about. I think this makes complete sense that we as American citizens have an unwritten agreement with our government.

The first post does a great job at describing the right to assemble and the right to be treated equal. Cassandra explains that one of the most important points in the speech was that they had the right to be in public and protesting. She does a good job at explaing why this is important. I like how she put "we all know the right to be treated equal is the driving force of MLK", because it is the driving force. I agree with the part about if Rosa Parks never gave up her seat that who knows if MLK would be have been able to do all that he had done.
I like how Jacob tied the violence in the south being a huge part of the MLK history. I like how he stated that not all whites did racist things because of the guilt that they would feel.

Blog One Response

This article has several main points. The three that I am choosing to talk about are the right to assemble, the right to be treated equal and Rosa Parks. All through-out this article of Martin Luther King's speech, he mentioned how they had every right to be in public and protesting. This was an important point of his speech because he was trying to teach them to stand up for their rights and not to let others force them out of their rights. As we all know, the right to be treated equal is one of the driving forces behind MLK. He fought most of the United States so that him and his people could have equal rights and be treated like human beings. Rosa Parks is another main point of this speech because of her couragous act. She started the revolution for the black community. If she hadn't refushed to give up her seat who knows if MLK would have had the impact on racism that he did.

What comes to mind when you hear the word "citizenship"?

Community, Justice, and able

What comes to mind when you hear the word "citizenship"?

Liberty: In exchange for loyalty to the country, you get liberty.
Law-abiding: In exchange for the liberty, you have to obey the laws of the country.
Community: You feel like you belong to a community of people who are also in this contract.