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.