Civil Liberities vs. National Secuirty? Seems to be a Common Theme

This Wednesday the class will hear about torture in the War on Terror during our perilous presentation (torturing of Guantanamo Bay detainees). The article which I have attached, is about this topic. Only it is about pictures being taken of the torturing and whether they should be released or not.

A few weeks ago in class we talked about the gay rights petitions that were being signed, and whether the names should be released. They were worried that those who signed the petition could be in some sort of danger to those who opposed their opinion. However, it isn't really the names on the petition, or in this case the people in the picture the government is worried about. In this case, the US government, is worried whether releasing the pictures will endanger Americans. Those who were taking the pictures would understand that if the pictures got out it could cause controversy about what they are doing. Not that that topic isn't already controversial enough.

There are two sides to every story though. One side is saying that if we release the photos of the torturing of the detainees it could endanger US civilians and soldiers. The other side (also within the US government) says that if we release them it will be helpful in the long run. Perhaps because then there won't be rumors flying around now that the knowledge that there are pictures is out. Or to show that we have nothing to hide, and will do what we (the US) has to in order to protect national security.

This topic is very complex, but lets think back to the petition example. In class we said those who signed should be proud of their belief and shouldn't be ashamed to publically back up their opinion. However, could it potentially endanger those who signed it? Is it constitutional?

Now, bring that back to the pictures. Do you think it is a constitutional right that the pictures should be released or is national security more important in this case than civil liberties?

Gitmo Moved to the Mainland?

For our Perilous Times project, I am looking at civil liberties with the Guantanamo Bay issue, so this article caught my eye. However, this article doesn't have to do with the inmates civil liberties, but rather where to put them. For some background, the government is trying to shut down Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay), but no one in the US wants suspected terrorist in their state. Obama has found a new state of the art, maximum security prison in Thomson, IL. The prison has been vacant for years and the less than 600 population of Thomson would be happy to see the detainees come in. It would bring jobs and really boost their economy. But Illinois officials do not want the detainees to come to the state because they believe al'Qaida will target Chicago. There is no simple answer, with over 200 detainees. Some wonder if they should put them all in the same spot, or different prisons. There is talk of freeing the detainees but that is a whole other question. There's a lot of questions and other legistics but there is one question which seems to be a most controversy:

This town could use this prison, and it is the perfect facility, but Illinois officials say is that worth national security?

Our elected officials can't even figure out what to do, so just give your opinion.

Yes, I am a Packer Fan

Today the Green Bay Packer's lost to the Minnesota Vikings...bummer. But the emotions ran high even before the game as Brett Farve played at Lambeau Field for the first time since he switched teams. Many fans had mixed feelings, including my sister whose a die-hard packer fan...but she kinda wanted to see good ol' Brett do well. From the time Farve ran on the field until the start of the first quarter boos from the stands filled the stadium. One fan said "personally I'm booing while I'm crying", while others had signs that said: "We'll Never Forget You, Brent" and a banner flying behind a plane reading "Retire 4 Good". He is a hall of fame legend and no doubt that legend was built on the Green Bay Packers. I mean he's an ingredible player, I guess you can be a fan of him and your team. But I need a question so I guess you could ask where should your allegeance lie? With the team or the star? Lucky for the fans those signs are protected under free speech, is it possible though that someone crosses the line? (its land of the cheese heads...I'm sure someone could think of a sign that gets them kicked out).