Iran Meets with the P5+1 Regarding Iranian Nuclear Development

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

This article broke news concerning international talks held in Geneva between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran. The talks centered around Iran’s desire to develop nuclear capacity as a nation, despite historical resistance from the international community.

Iran has received sanctions by the international community because of the fear that Iran is using nuclear development as a guise under which the nation could develop a nuclear bomb. This fear is perhaps supported by the fact that Iran develops and pursues possession of enriched uranium, a vital component of for nuclear weapons.

Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and has forcefully argued that as a state, it has the right to develop nuclear capacity to pursue peaceful, civilian applications.

As press on these talks in Geneva has spread, Israel has issued statements arguing against the lifting of sanctions currently in force on Iran. As a critical ally of the United States, Israel’s perspective on these developments will likely have respectable influence.

The proliferation of nuclear capacity, for peaceful or military applications, consistently causes a stir in the international community. When a company has civilian nuclear capacity, there is a continued risk that the nuclear-capable state will pursue weaponization to increase its military capabilities.

As a disclaimer, it is probably obvious that support for Iran’s actions will disappear if it comes to pass that Iran pursues nuclear weapons. If Iran is acting in good faith and does not develop nuclear weapons, their approach might set a good precedent. There is a tension around the world between the nuclear states and the non-nuclear states. Those states who do not possess nuclear weapons might feel like second-rate global citizens, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons commands non-nuclear states to cease or avoid developing nuclear capacities, putting them at a strategic disadvantage in global conflicts.

Nuclear capability is something of a Pandora’s Box, the knowledge and capability is not going to disappear. The P5+1 should adopt an approach to deal with and/or assist nations who wish to develop nuclear capability, without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Should the P5, or perhaps U.N. Security Council, be the gatekeeper of nuclear capability? Does every state have an inherent right to nuclear development? What are the risks of a worldwide community with nuclear capabilities, even if developed for peaceful goals?

Fareed’s Take: Gridlock and Polarization in Washington

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Fareed’s Take: Gridlock and Polarization in Washington

On the most recent episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed devoted much of his show to the current state of political polarization and gridlock in the Nation’s capital. He began with his “take” on the problem.  He then discussed the topic with a panel comprised of Vanessa Williamson (Harvard PhD student and author of  The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism) , Norm Ornstein (of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute) and Jeffrey Toobin (legal columnist for the New Yorker). 

Here is a link to  Williamson’s commentary on the Tea Party.

Toobin’s take on Republican radicalism and the effects of the primary system can be found here.

One Federal Judge’s Actions Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

One of my fellow SLACE members brought this article to my attention, and it serves as a perfect follow-up to my post from last week.

This article addresses a Federal District Judge from the Eastern District of New York, Judge Gleeson’s take on mandatory minimum sentences. Judge Gleeson has taken to asserting his strong feelings against the use of mandatory minimum sentences in the federal plea-bargaining process. The excerpt from his recent opinion (found under the above hyperlink) is worth a read. Additionally, the firestorm of comments left on this article raise several interesting points.

First, one comment asserts that Judge Gleeson is acting outside of his Constitutionally given powers and is acting in direct opposition to the separation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary. The commenter is correct in that one of the core principles behind our government is that we have three separate and “co-equal” branches. Each branch has specific duties as well as checks on the other two branches. Federal Prosecutors, as part of the Executive branch, have sole discretion regarding whether to charge a defendant and with what crime(s). However, as Judge Gleeson and some of the commenters on this article suggest, there is an ever-growing concern that Federal Prosecutors are utilizing mandatory minimums to force defendants to take a plea and forego a trial. Should we even be concerned with this potential conduct?

Second, the issue of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes arises again. As one comment suggests, “The charge is drug dealing. It likely stands in for hundreds of crimes a year, including the beatings and murders of competitors. The defendant did not learn from prior punishments, perhaps cannot change. After several convictions, only incapacitation serves the purpose of the owner of the law, the public.” Is this how we should view these crimes and subsequently support mandatory minimums for this subset of crimes? Do defendants convicted of non-violent drug crimes deserve a mandatory minimum sentence now because they were simply caught this time? Does incapacitation, through incarceration, of a defendant truly create a law-abiding citizen following his/her release from prison?

Third, the undertone of several comments touch upon the role of the public. Many commentators suggest that it is the public that wants these steep mandatory minimum punishments. Is this true? Furthermore, does the public even really understand what a 10 year sentence for a drug crime really means for a person? One comment suggests that juries should serve as the guide for what “the public” believes. But, another comment suggests that Congress, due to its greater size, is a better sample to determine the interests of the public. Is Congress really a better gauge of public opinion than the actual people they supposedly represent?

I’m interested to know what other people think about Judge Gleeson’s comments, his approach to mandatory minimum sentences, and the ways in which prosecutors potentially use these as threats or leverage to force defendants to plead guilty and forego their right to trial. Many opponents of this view will argue that a defendant is knowingly and voluntarily deciding to plead and not go to trial. This view is also supported by decisions of the Supreme Court. But, precedent aside, is it true that when faced with a mandatory minimum punishment of 10 years in prison or a plea deal to 5 years in prison a defendant is truly making a voluntary decision to plead and not proceed to trial?

The Shutdown Continues !!

/ Christopher Moritt / Leave a comment

I have been debating nearly all week about what to write in this week installment of the blog on veteran’s issues. I had originally thought that another article on the government shutdown would be boring considering the media talks about little else. However, less then 24 hours after my last post veteran’s issues became a hot topic. The VA has to furlough several thousand more employees thus causing the backlog of claims entering the system to continue. Many veterans will soon be without disability checks, education benefit checks and other services that their sacrifice for this country granted them.
I had fully intended of doing a “where are we know? “ type piece today but instead was inspired to do something different. While doing research about where exactly the shutdown has put the veteran community I realized that nobody actually knows the answer. I assume that in a few weeks I will not be paid, but in reality I don’t actually know. The VA has published that certain benefits and services will continue, which I mentioned last time. That list is more than likely to change as more employees get furloughed, especially the longer the shutdown continues.
Then of course there is the proposal of a partial reopening of the government that would allow for veterans services to resume. But in todays political climate that sounds almost to easy and naturally it didn’t pass. Which brings me to my next point an what I wanted to focus on primarily for todays post. I watched the news and read around on the internet and, as I am sure most people reading this are aware, a group of veterans protested in DC this weekend carrying “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, and American flags and proclaiming that Congress should of course open the government and pay them what they are owed.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I will try to be fairly neutral when writing, but it isn’t always possible. At some point and on certain issues an opinion is all that will suffice. Personally, even as a veteran I admired the protest, I find it hilarious that an open-air memorial would be closed and while I’m not going to pretend that I understand the logistics of a “shutdown” I can be pretty confident that wasn’t necessary. Particularly when a week or so early the park was opened for another kind of rally, this could have been for any number of reasons, but at first glance seems somewhat fishy to me. Even though I admire the enthusiasm of the protesting veterans, I find protesting a poor way of getting things done in today’s political world. Even looking back to a year or so ago with the Occupy movement, nothing was accomplished, clear goals weren’t met, and quite frankly I think most people flat out forgot that it even happened. In a few weeks I can only presume that the shutdown will be over and a few years from now no one will remember or care that the WWII memorial was closed, unless of course it happens again. My point  in writing all of this is that if paying the active duty military can pass with 100 percent approval, why doesn’t paying for our veterans feel the same? The answer of course is because it isn’t the same, and the people that fought for this country are expensive to keep around.
On a side note, as I was reading news articles on the various news websites I noticed that the way we can receive and comment on news has changed our society, and quite frankly I’m not sure its for the best. I am not a big internet or social media person, but the comments section of a particular new story caught my eye. An anonymous commenter on the Washington Post, in response to the article about this weeks protest, posted that people who are out of work because of the shut down “have lost more than you silly veterans are capable of imagining.”. What’s odd about this is that there was a serious of responses in agreement with this post. And just to clarify on a personal level I can imagine A LOT. I know people that have been turned into confetti because they stepped on a land mind. Someone I know is either killed in combat or kills themselves at least once a year. I have other friends that can’t hold jobs or be around their children because the have to be medicated due to PTSD. Now, I don’t want to take anything away from someone who lost their job, and will struggle to buy food, pay rent, or whatever else it is they need, but to be completely honest, unless you were already in some financial trouble odds are you will be fine when this is all said and done. (Obviously I can’t know that for sure, but its my opinion). Where as many veterans will have a lifetime of problems that will never go away, legs don’t grow back unfortunately.
On a final note, and I apologize for this being fairly long post, is that I also saw a commenter exclaim that unless we were drafted veterans do not have a claim against the government. We volunteered he said and any damage we sustained while fighting for this country was by choice and we shouldn’t complain. I’m not entirely sure how to respond to this but I will quickly give it a try. That’s like saying the 8-year-old girl who volunteered to ride her bike and was maimed by a drunk driver shouldn’t complain or be upset. Riding bikes is dangerous, and anything can happen I suppose. I volunteered, specifically to fight in a war, I was infantryman, our job is tough and bad things happen, I knew all of that going in. I am actually lucky to be alive and in one piece. I didn’t ask for free education or health care, it was given to me and I am grateful for it, but you can be sure that I and many of my fellow veterans earned every penny that comes our way.

“Wild Justice”: A History of the Death Penalty in America

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“Wild Justice”: A History of the Death Penalty in America

Last month, NPR’s Fresh Air featured an interview with Evan Mandery, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former capital defense attorney, about his new book–A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America. The interview reflected the book’s title, explaining the strange and fascinating history of the death penalty in the United States. From backroom Supreme Court deals to Mandery’s argument that the death penalty is random and lacks deterrent value, this interview is worth a listen for anyone interested in the death penalty or criminal law.

Here is the introduction to the interview:

In the mid-1970s, Arkansas’ electric chair was being used by the prison barber to cut hair, and the execution chamber in New Hampshire was being used to store vegetables. That’s because in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked the nation by striking down Georgia’s death penalty law, effectively ending executions in the United States. But the decision provoked a strong backlash among those who favored the death penalty, and within four years the high court reversed course and issued a set of rulings that would permit the resumption of executions.

Evan Mandery, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former capital defense attorney, has written a new account of the tumultuous legal and political battles over the death penalty. Mandery is sympathetic to those who tried to outlaw capital punishment, but his account focuses on attorneys for both sides in the battle, as well as the views and deliberations of the justices who decided the cases. His book is called A Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America.

A Wild Justice
A Wild Justice

The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in America

by Evan J. Mandery