The Most Basic Human Right

I have four objections to Amy Huynh's blog post on abortion, which can be found here.

First, Ms. Huynh said that we should not force a mother to raise a child, especially since they will most likely lead a life of poverty. While it is true we cannot force a woman to raise a child, there are other options that do not include abortion. She could give the child for adoption. Ms. Huynh also said that since they will live a life of poverty, they will not have a good life. This is a very quick judgment that denies a human child the opportunity to live their life and make something better for themselves. Steve Jobs’ parents gave him up for adoption, and he became one of the most successful people in history.

Secondly, Ms. Huynh said rape was a valid reason for abortions. I do understand that this is a very complicated and awful situation and I wish we never had to talk about it. However, rape is not a valid reason to kill a human being. If a mother kills the baby because the father is a rapist, then we are allowing the baby to be punished rather than the father himself. If the mother had the child, and then decided when he was 5 that it reminded her too much of the father, we wouldn’t let her kill the child then. It is a horrific situation but it not make it okay to kill a human. Also, situations of rape make up less then 1% of all abortions, which means 99% of abortions are just because the mother doesn’t want the baby.

Thirdly, Ms. Huynh said that if we make abortions illegal, we would force women to have back alley abortions. However, making abortions illegal does not mean we are forcing anyone to have abortions. We are not forcing anyone to have abortions, legal or illegal. If a woman wants to have an abortion and they are illegal, she will have to make the choice to do it illegally herself. Also, illegal things will happen whether they are illegal or not. We won’t make murder legal simply because people will do it if it is illegal anyways!

Lastly, Ms. Huynh said we can’t force a woman to carry the baby to full term because it’s her body and only she can make choices about it. But the fact it, it is not her body that she is making a decision about. She is making the decision to kill another human being, who has their own body. An unborn baby does not become its own person only after it is born. It is a human being from the moment of conception and therefore has the human right to live its life without fearing its mother will kill it before it even has the chance.

U.S. Airstrikes are Justified

Despite President Obama’s declaration in 2014 that the war in Afghanistan was over, American troops are still overseas, and still in danger. While they are there, they have been operating strategic airstrikes and raids to combat terrorism and protect troops. To some, these airstrikes are unnecessary and wrong.

There have been 128 airstrikes and 40 Special Operations raids in the first three months of this year. While the official reasoning for these airstrikes and raids have been targeting terrorists and protecting troops, Western military officials speaking under conditions of anonymity, have said, “They are putting guys on the ground in places to justify the airstrikes. It’s not force protection when they are going on the offensive.” However, the top American Commander in Afghanistan, General John F. Campbell denies he has put troops in harms way to allow for airstrikes.

Back home in the U.S., citizens and officials are concerned that the U.S. military is going against the wishes of it’s Commander in Chief, President Obama, by continuing airstrikes and raids after President Obama said the war was over. However General Campbell also said that, “Combat and war and transition, as you know, it’s a very complex thing. For me, it’s not black and white.” This statement is very true. The U.S. can’t pack up and leave Afghanistan in one day, especially after its continued presence for over 10 years. It’s a slow and gradual transition, and since troops are still there, airstrikes and raids are necessary for the protection of troops and Afghan citizens.

Besides protecting troops, American officials have been asked by Afghan President Ashraf Ghandi to help train Afghan troops and help with strategies. Although we may not like it back at home, it would be terrible if American troops denied helping Afghan troops while we are in there country, even if it puts our troops in danger.

While some people are concerned and frustrated with the American airstrikes and raids occurring in Afghanistan, I personally am not. Because our troops are still there training Afghan troops, they must defend themselves and the troops they are training, even if that means airstrikes against enemy targets. Furthermore, the spread of ISIS from Syria into neighboring countries has complicated the situation in the entire region. Of course I wish the airstrikes weren’t happening and our troops and family members were safe, but while we still have a presence in Afghanistan we must continue to fight terrorism.

The NSA is Probably Reading This...

One issue that is very controversial is whether or not the NSA and other national agencies are collecting our information, and whether that violates our privacy. Mr. Alek S. Ortiz wrote his opinion on his blog, which can be found here. 

I agree with Mr. Ortiz's position. I think it’s important not to judge the situation so quickly. While it may be uncomfortable to think about, maintaining national security is not always so black and white; there is a lot of gray area. If the NSA is gathering information from my texts and emails, I am not too concerned. One, because I have nothing to hide in the first place, and two because like you said, if they prevent terrible situations or at least monitor suspicious activity, then I’m not too upset about it.  

Another thing I find interesting about this issue is how people think that it is something new. Spies have existed since the first civilization started on Earth, and they are never going to go away. I am not saying we should accept being spied on (especially from private parties!) but I am saying that if our national intelligence agencies is using information to keep me safe, then I’m at least glad they’re using it to protect us.

Of course we can’t assume they are using it for something good. There is definitely a possibility that they are breaking laws, and our privacy is being violated. But, one thing we also need to consider is, they are getting this information from technology. And even if our texts and tweets are technically private, we are still sending them to a satellite somewhere. We need to accept the fact that anything we put on technology of any kind can be found. That’s why we don’t go around emailing our Social Security Number!

While technology has provided new ways for our information and conversations to be monitored, it’s important to remember that in order to protect our nation, our intelligence agencies may need to use some morally ambiguous tactics. And, if you don’t want anyone to steal your information, don’t put it on the Internet.

President Obama Makes Deal With Iran

On April 2, President Obama announced an historic nuclear deal with Iran. Discussions have been ongoing for two years, in pursuit of President Obama’s goal to improve US-Iranian relations since his election in 2008. In the agreement, Iran has promised they will not produce nuclear weapons, and will also allow America to come into their country and investigate to verify their compliance. In exchange, America’s sanctions will be lifted, allowing Iran to trade with America and other countries. President Obama appeared confident, saying that the deal “cuts off every pathway” for Iran to make nuclear weapons, and “if Iran cheats, the world will know it.”

While Iranians are thrilled about the prospect of the sanctions being lifted, citizens in nearby countries are more hesitant that the deal will work. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states are concerned that this deal allows Iran to keep much of their nuclear plans and materials. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to President Obama and was not convinced despite the President’s strong support of the deal. Prime minister Netanyahu claimed “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.”

Despite President Obama’s obvious elation, the Republican Congress is not thrilled. What President Obama seems to be ignoring is the 1979 sanctions put on Iran were made by Congress, and he will need Congressional approval to lift them. With a Republican majority, this seems unlikely.

While President Obama is thrilled by this “accomplishment,” I am not convinced this is in our country’s best interest. Besides valid concerns from countries like Israel, and President Obama’s bypassing Congressional involvement and approval, many details have to be worked out before this deal can be effective or trusted. And this agreement aligns the US with an enemy while ignoring the concerns of our allies in the region.

My first thought after reading about the agreement was a quote from the 2008 movie Iron Man. In one of his most famous quotes, the villain says, “Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps! “ after a scientist says the technology doesn’t exist. While this quote from a superhero movie may not be directly associated with real foreign affairs, it does seem relevant. I know nothing about building nuclear weapons, but I do know that any country, including Iran, could possibly build one without the United States knowing. Even if they didn’t build in their official labs, it seems possible they could build one in a cave, or other secret location, with a box of scraps, just like Tony Stark.

While I am not opposed to agreements and deals, I have problems with the way President Obama left Congress out of this one, as well as ignoring their needed involvement for ratification. I also do not believe that this particular agreement is “historic” or helpful, as it endangers other countries, and is completely based on Iran’s word. Discussions will continue and will be finalized on June 30.

Republicans Make Bold Yet Questionable Move

On a March 9 article for the Washington Post, Paul Waldman, “… a contributor to The Plum Line Blog, and a senior writer at the American Prospect,” gave his opinion to the readers of the Washington Post on the controversial open letter to Iranian leaders from 47 Republican Senators.

This letter, which can be read in full here, addresses Iranian leaders, and informs them that any nuclear negotiations that are made with President Obama and his administration may be revoked or changed as soon as he is no longer president. These Republican Senators are upset with President Obama’s actions, because he has excluded them from participation in and about the nuclear negotiations, which they believe is another unconstitutional Executive order.

The letter, which is signed by 2016 Presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, does not violate any laws, although it is very unusual. It has already been compared to Richard Nixon’s private negotiations with South Vietnam is 1968, which are considered by many as treason. Interestingly, current Vice President Joe Biden wrote a similar letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002. As the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden wrote saying that Congress needed more involvement in the nuclear negotiations in the Moscow Treaty with Russia.

In the article titled “Republicans are beginning to act as though Barack Obama isn’t even the president,” Waldman makes his opinion very clear. His stance on the subject is that Republicans are being extremely disrespectful to the President, saying that Congress has no right to make their own foreign policy. He also says that though it is not illegal, it goes against Washington’s “norms,” which he believes should be respected, despite not being law.

Although the Senator’s open letter is surprising and bold, I do not think their main purpose is to bash President Obama and be disrespectful. I do understand how it could be interpreted in that way, but in my opinion, the Senator’s are making their point clear; they are being ignored by President Obama and want to be a part of the negotiations in the way our country’s Checks and Balances policies allow them to. They believe that President is disrespecting the Legislative Branch by misusing the powers of the presidency. This is yet another example of how the two parties cannot negotiate, and it is now getting in the way of important foreign policy.

Republicans Fight Obama’s Immigration Plans

In a February 25 article for the New York Times Opinion Pages, the Editorial Board wrote a critique of Republicans’ issues with the proposed budget for the Department of Homeland Security. The Editorial Board is comprised of 19 journalists, all specializing in different areas, and represents the opinion of the New York Times’ editor and publisher.

Speaking to the segment of the American public reached by the New York Times, the Editorial Board clearly stands with Obama’s opinion. Titled, “Holding Homeland Security Hostage,” the Board describes the current debate on immigration. In December 2014, President Obama issued an executive order protecting certain immigrants’ amnesty as well as allowing them to get driver’s licenses and work permits provided they met his qualifications—having lived and worked in the United States for more than five years and having no criminal history. Along with 20 other states, Texas filed a lawsuit against the President saying that his actions were unconstitutional, and his order was shut down.

In a seemingly unrelated issue, Senate Republicans are acting quickly to approve a bill to fund Homeland Security before the end of this week when its current budget expires. If an agreement is not reached by the deadline, the only department within Homeland Security that would still function properly is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services office because it receives its funding from applicant fees rather than taxes. This department is where visas, work permits, and green cards are processed and issued. And although Senate Republicans seem willing to move forward on the budget, House Republicans have said they will only pass the current budget plan for the Department of Homeland Security if it included a way to block President Obama’s immigration plans. In opposition to the House Republicans, President Obama, believing that his plan for immigration is the best plan for America’s immigration problems, says that he will veto any bill that prohibits his plan from passing.

Like all things, there would be consequences if the budget to fund Homeland Security were not passed. Most of the 30,000 employees would be furloughed but still asked to work without pay because they are essential. This would cause many problems for the employees who rely on that paycheck to provide for themselves and their families. If the bill is not passed by the end of this week, the only service from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service that would be in jeopardy is E-Verify, the website that allows employers to check the work eligibility of potential employees.

With the approaching deadline, it is extremely important for a decision to be made soon, and the Times’ editorial board lays out a number of reasons the budget should be passed.  Although I am not personally thrilled with Obama’s actions and executive order, I believe that Republicans need to pass the bill to fund Homeland Security before their inability to compromise effects tens of thousands of American families.

President Obama Urges Congressional Approval for Action Against ISIS

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, President Obama proposed to Congress a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State. His AUMF has no geographic limitations, and prohibits lasting deployment of US ground troops, but does allow for limited Special Forces if believed necessary by the President. This particular approval would last 3 years, and then Congress and the new President would determine whether to extend it. The debate could last several months, as members of Congress are concerned about how broad the proposal is, and some question how thorough the plan is. More information and specific concerns from Congressmen are available in this article, which outlines the issues that must be clarified before further action can be taken.

The American public is also concerned about this issue. A recent Fox poll should than 73% of Americans do not believed the President has a clear strategy for dealing with ISIS. This is up 64% from September, just 5 months ago. This is an important issue for me and many other Americans, who have friends and family among the Special Forces who might be deployed.