Was the War in Iraq Illegal?

Andy Worthington, the author of the blog “Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on Cheney’s Torture and Lies,” believes the war in Iraq was illegal and that then Vice-President Dick Cheney should be held accountable for his actions. His blog discusses how Cheney condoned capturing and holding various prisoners without rights - and in an inhuman manner - and conducting various torture methods. He condoned torturing prisoners in order to establish connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Worthington is an author and journalist. He has written several books on Guantánamo and has a documentary film about Guantánamo. He states from interviews from various sources that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the head of the Khaldan military training camp in Afghanistan was captured and was tortured in order to confess a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2003 presented this information to the UN, to justify the war in Iraq.

Vice-President Cheney continued with his torture program supposedly to protect America from terrorists in order to promote the war on terror. Worthington goes on to quote an interview obtained by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker with Dan Coleman, a once FBI interrogator. Coleman states “Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.” After reading this I was really not sure what to think. I know we had to do something after 9/11. As a former soldier myself, I know the last thing we want is to be in an illegal war. This blog leaves me with a further lack of trust in our government. Our government is supposed to stand for truth and justice. Why hasn’t someone done something about this? To send our sons and daughters into harm’s way for an illegal war is an unjustifiable and unforgivable act.

The Credit CARD Act

I read an article in the New York Times called Loan-Sharking Inc. This article is directed to the average consumer. The article written in The New York Times may not fit into the Times’ motto “All the News That's Fit to Print" for the more conservative audience. The article refers to recent passage of The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act. The Article leads the audience to believe that the law was a compromise to the Senate Republicans lobbying the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Basically credit cards have been getting away with various scams. The public is tired of outrageous interest rates, late fees and changing dues dates that credit companies have been getting away with. They are demanding that the government take action to provide protection to the consumer against the credit card companies. The recent law is a start in the right direction however more needs to be done. The article leads the reader to believe that the republican congress is blocking passage of a recent bill for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, without which some advocacy groups believe the credit card companies will continue to find loop holes in the law.
I do lean on the side of the advocacy groups that there should be stronger laws to protect the consumer. Many young people have credits and not all of them misuse them. Some of them like my daughter use them for emergencies. I don’t think my daughter should be penalized as much as $49.00 for being late and an additional $25.00 to $50.00 for being as low as a few dollars over the credit limit. This has happened to me. I think credit card should offer the same latitude to consumers as others financial institutions.

Terrorist Trials

Blog Stage 2

I wanted to know more about what was going on with conducting the terrorist trials in NYC. I read an article by Terry Hurlbut of the Essex County Conservative Examiner titled the “Terrorist trials in New York”. I had catching brief blurbs from watching various news programs but this article seems to sum up the situation really well. I also reviewed other articles and viewed a YouTube video. For those who don’t already understand the significance of the Terrorist trials and how they relate to what we are studying in this class, I highly recommend this article.
In summary, it has been nearly nine years since the terrorist attacks. We have five terror suspects in custody. One of them was caught red handed, with evidence in his possession. This article puts into question whether these five suspects should be tried in civilian court in New York City for what was an apparent act of war against the U.S. There is a significant difference between a military court versus a civilian court. In a civilian court all the evidence must be submitted regardless of how it was obtained. However, the only evidence accepted would be the evidence legally obtained. Then there is the issue of the 5th Amendment. According to the article, the debate of a civilian trial versus a military trial could have been avoided if President George W. Bush had obtained a Declaration of War from Congress.