Editorial #6: A Bear Escape

Last week, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum to the Endangered Species Act that would require agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Services before taking any actions that my put an endangered species in harm’s way. Before, during the George W. Bush presidency, Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne said polar bears were threatened because of melting ice caps in the Arctic pole region. Through his regulation, he was able to correctly prevent climate change by consultations between agencies. However, the act was reinterpreted by Kempthorne to sound that the agencies wouldn’t have to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Services first before carrying out their plans. Now that President Obama has signed the memorandum, the checks on the agencies and the give-and-take consultation process will be restored, also a way to insure there will be minimal harm done to the threatened species.

To be frank, the article was very confusing. I had to read over it several times to make sure I was getting the basic idea behind the article, but I still had to go back and look over it a couple times. I probably didn’t understand because I didn’t know the people being mentioned, or maybe because I was not familiar with the act. Anyway, whatever was being done, as long as it doesn’t hurt anymore endangered animals, I’m fine with it. It’s bad enough animals are having to suffer, a majority at the hand of mankind. I don’t know, I’m an animal lover.

Anyway, another thing I noticed was that it seems like Obama’s doing a lot more in the name of science. First it was push for more stem cell research, which many people are likely to have opposed, and now it is this Endangered Species Act. He is making sure that science can continue to move progressively forward without the hurdles and restraint of political beliefs; and it may completely turn around the role of the president in the scientific sector. It could be added to one of the president’s top duties (chief diplomat, chief economist, chief pro-science person—I’m not sure what they would term it though).

Editorial #5: Mr. Marri's Day in Court

“Mr. Marri’s Day in Court” focuses on a suspected terrorist’s, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, unjust sentence to almost six years of detention in a military jail (by the command of former president, George W. Bush). He was arrested back in 2001 after evidence of alliance to an al-Qaeda sleeper cell aiming on ruining the U.S. financial system and information on bombs and chemical weapons on his computer were found. Now, the Obama administration is demanding that Marri’s case be sent to the Supreme Court for a lawful hearing that he should have had years back. However, the writer goes on saying that the Supreme Court should not put the case on the docket because it’s no longer a serious issue. Also, the U.S. Court of Appeals (the 4th Circuit) ruling should be vacated because it would not only eliminate the right of the president to “indefinitely” hold a person without charge, but also assure Marri’s place and hearing in the federal system. No president should be allowed to simply get rid of another person like that, and Supreme Court Justices should not allow anything like this to happen again in the future.

This editorial was another very different and interesting topic. I had never heard of Marri before and was surprised to hear the way he was treated. If even the most brutal of all dictators, Saddam Hussein, was given a trial, then you would think that this one person would have gotten one, too. I was able to understand the parts where the different federal courts were involved, and I believe that no president should have the right to just say and have someone punished like that. The duty of our court systems is to interpret law and justice and every person is given the right to a fair trial – especially if Marri was a legal citizen at the time of the arrest (which he was). Even if Marri is convicted guilty, the justices are just going to reaffirm the label of “enemy combatant” onto Marri and will not challenge the president’s authority to detain a person without charge (because it’s a precedential power).

Editorial #4: Banal in Baton Rouge

In response to the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address, the editorial, “Banal in Baton Rough,” stresses how Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana, failed to provide any new ideas or alternatives to Obama’s record-high stimulus plan. The author complains that Jindal only picked out the flaws from the plan and didn’t really provide any concrete ideas. According to Jindal, it’s better to cut taxes on businesses and income, credit homebuyer taxes, and business incentives. However, Jindal did not address the soaring foreclosure rates and the frozen credit markets. He also commented on the failures of big government and its reaction to Hurricane Katrina, suggesting that civilians lost trust in the government as soon as the hurricane hit. Nevertheless, if cutting government spending is the solution, then maybe the $175 billion that came from the government for the Katrina recovery effort fund wasn’t the answer Louisiana was looking for.

It was an interesting editorial with a different point-of-view. I’m still trying to figure out if a hard-core Democrat wrote it or a very upset Republican. It seemed to me Bobby Jindal handled the response as any other politician would have: stand their party ground and get the job done. What I’m thinking caused the writer to feel this way is actually President Obama himself. After listening to such a charismatic and powerful speaker like Obama, no one sounds rights; and so people were still under Obama’s enticing spell when the GOP response was aired. So I wouldn’t be bashing Jindal so much: he was only doing what he was supposed to. What else was he supposed to say? “Hey, Democrats, you guys are right—you’re always right. Let’s all be best for friends for life?” He defended the GOP values and he did a pretty decent job. I can understand where the author was getting at, but do you really want to go there? If the author can find a better speaker for the response, fine. I’m not a Republican and I wouldn’t claim myself as a Democrat, but I know comments like the ones in the article are just one of those that you should just rather ignore.