This post assumes you know how to get a header on the page, just not formatting it. If you don’t, ask, I’ll post it.

When you are on the first page of the doc, press F11 key on your keyboard. Click on the fourth icon over (page styles). Click on first page, then right click – Modify. Uncheck the box that says Same Content. Click ok. Then, making sure the cursor is on the first page, double click the words First Page in the pop up box. This changes the format of that page only.

To add page numbers – Insert -> Fields -> Page Numbers.

Before reading my paper, you can read the story it was written on here - http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/hour/

Thanks for reading!

Tone and Symbolism in The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin

The main theme of The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin is one of personal freedom and trying to be true to yourself while being a part of something else, like a marriage, which is shown through the use of tone, symbolism, and imagery. Symbolism and imagery go hand in hand, and really cannot be discussed one without the other. They are also both most often used to set the tone of a story, whether over all or in different sections.

In The Story of an Hour, the tone changes in a couple places. In the beginning, Mrs. Mallard is portrayed as fragile and weak. We see this in the mention of her weak heart, and in the way the news is broken to her. Josephine, her sister, and her husband’s friend Richards are very worried about how the news is presented and her reaction to it.

After a moment of being overcome with grief, Mrs. Mallard goes upstairs, where she views the world outside through a window. This window represents a portal into a new world of freedom for her. She sees glimpses blue sky through the dark clouds, trees, fresh rain, sparrows, and other things, that make her think of spring and a new life. These symbols provide an imagery that changes the tone in the story, with glimpse of blue sky through clouds specifically symbolizing the happiness that is on the other side of her grief. The sparrows she sees and song that she hears not only symbolize spring and new life, but also freedom and the happiness that can bring.

While the tone changes back to sadness for a moment with the description of how she sat in the chair, showing her sadness and trepidation towards the future, it quickly changes back. This is the moment she realizes her freedom to be herself, and not answer to anyone. No longer will there be someone that she has to put before her own needs and wants. Her excitement of this prospect is shown by the explanation of her physical reaction – raised pulse, muscle relaxation, and the look in her eyes.

It’s also here in the story where we learn the main character’s name is Louise. Prior to this point, she was always referred to as Mrs. Mallard. This symbolizes a shift in her perception of herself. She is no longer just Mrs. Mallard – someone’s wife. Louise is now her own person, with an independent identity. The happiness she feels at this realization is portrayed by the mention of the way she hoped to spend the coming days during the spring and summer, as well as now hoping she would live a longer life than she had hoped before. Feeling like a goddess and the look in her eyes shows the power the feeling of freedom and being her own person gives her.

The final line in the story, along with the mention of it at the beginning, implies to the reader that Louise Mallard died of a heart attack upon seeing that her husband was alive an well as he entered the house. However, the symbolism in this line holds that heart disease is much more than a physical ailment. It implies to the reader that Louise died because she held out so much hope and excitement for the future. In seeing her husband alive, she realizes that she will not be her own person. She will not have the freedoms she desires, and is still locked into a marriage where she will have to put another before herself. Her dreams of the future died in that instant, and we are left to think this is why her heart failed, not because it was weak.

The imagery, symbolism, and the clashing and changing of tone throughout this story explain something that many women deal with even is this day and age – the conflict of personal freedom and identity in a marriage. As mentioned in the story, men and women tend to forget that the other person is also an individual in their own right; has their own hopes and dreams. It does not mean the two do not love each other, but that they push each other to mirror their own ideals and wants for the relationship. The overall theme of this story, shown by the conflicting tone throughout, explains the greatest struggle in any relationship. The best and strongest relationships are ones that conquer this conflict, and realize the individuality of each other while,at the same time, creating a strong partnership together.

References 

Clugston, R.W. (2010). Journey into Literature. (Ashford University Ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Rhonda L. Patterson

SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility

Prof. Carrie Quiza

April 30, 2012

Ethics and Social Responsibility in Legalization of Marijuana

Although Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance that had no medical value in 1970, making it instantly the widely used illegal drug in the United States, many disagree with this and the fight (in the media, courts, and on the streets) brings up many ethical issues, such as whether or not the government should be allowed to govern what people do in their own homes if it doesn’t harm anyone else and actually helps them medically. In fact, up until the government started imposing restrictions in 1930, physicians still widely prescribed marijuana to their patients for a variety of reasons that are similar to the reasons people use it today (Bostwick, 2012).

In 1972, John E. Ingersoll, Director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in the United States Department of Justice, delivered a speech to the Maryland Chiefs of Police at their annual conference. Even at that time, he realized that the current laws were in need of major reform. Director Ingersoll felt that the answer did not lie in making marijuana or other drugs completely illegal with stiff penalties, nor was a free-reign approach the answer. With free-reign, Ingersoll was afraid that the public would not realize the possible repercussions of marijuana use, or would believe that it was safe, if there were no laws regulating it’s usage (Ingersoll, 1972).

In many ways, Director Ingersoll was correct in his thoughts. Without proper education, people will not realize the possible side effects of marijuana use. Many people could have allergic reactions, over use the drug, and many will have no adverse reactions at all. Currently, we educate on the use of cigarettes and other nicotine related products. There are laws in place making it illegal for anyone under the age of eighteen (in most states) to buy these products. Thoughts are, that at eighteen, one is old enough to have been properly educated and understand what it is they are doing when they use nicotine containing merchandise. Why can’t we do this with the legalization of marijuana?

Maybe we should look to European countries for the answer to the drug legality issue. Many of them have already loosened or repealed their laws, which were fashioned after laws made here in the United States, in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Rick Steves, who is a widely popular authority on European travel, stated in a 2011 interview with Nick Gillespie for Reason Magazine that he believed marijuana use to be a civil liberty, and that it should not be a criminal offense (Gillespie, 2011). Many Europeans think along the same lines as Mr. Steves.

Commander Brain Paddock in a neighborhood of London called Brixton, ran a little experiment. Over a six month period, he instructed his officers to warn those caught with small amounts of marijuana rather than arrest them. At the end of those six months, Scotland Yard issued a report that stated more than 2500 hours of manpower was saved by giving warnings (Katz, 2002). Not making arrests meant not spending valuable time transporting prisoners and filling out paper work, not to mention court time and costs saved prosecuting those arrested. That time could then be spent on investigating and enforcing other more serious criminal activities.

Marijuana use is legal, or otherwise overlooked, in many European areas such as Holland. In an article called Europe Loosens It’s Pot Laws, written for Rolling Stone Magazine, Gregory Katz wrote that Senior Drug Policy Advisor to the Dutch Minister of Health, Bob Krizer, has said marijuana consumption in Holland has been consistently lower over the past twenty-five years than it has in the United States. During those same twenty-five years, the United States had been waging the “War on Drugs,” while Holland had been embracing a more liberal policy. Mr. Krizer also states that their rate of harder drug addicts is largely lower than many other countries that have stricter drug policies (Katz, 2002). If true, this goes a long way towards proving education is a much better way to get a message across than making laws and arresting people.

The Netherlands (of which Holland is a part) and Switzerland have already made marijuana legal. Many other European countries are not far behind. At the time Katz’s article was written, Great Britain had announced the potential of legalizing small amounts for possession. Portugal already allows it. Several countries (Canada, Australia, Spain, Italy, France, and Germany) still have laws prohibiting the use of marijuana, medically or otherwise, however they are unofficially liberal on arresting and prosecuting these offenses, including lessening offenses and making them civil rather than criminal.

The term Medical Marijuana is a bit too broad. There are three types that are sometimes considered for medical usage: endocannabinoids, phytocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids (MedicineNet, Inc., n.d.). Endocannabinoids, which the medical community generally considers to be a “marijuana-like substance” rather than actual marijuana, have to do with the skin (endo). This form of the drug dilates the blood vessels and decreases blood pressure. While this would be helpful for someone with high blood pressure, if someone who already has low blood pressure injests the drug, they could become very ill, even die.

The second form, phytocannabinoids, is the plant based form of marijuana. This is the standard, the one that is most talked about when referring to medical and recreational marijuana. It is the naturally occurring THC. The problem with these, however, is that over the years recreational users have cross pollinated plants looking for the best “high.” Some of these can have an extreme reaction in those already predisposed to mental illness, causing them to go into full mental break down.

Synthetic cannabinoids, however, are not naturally occurring and are made in a laboratory. These can be very dangerous. Recreational users, who do not know what they are doing, can mix the wrong things, causing major illness and in many cases death.

Legalizing marijuana would also create several jobs. Farms would need to hire workers to plant, care for, and cultivate the product. From there, the product would need to be packaged and distributed. Sales people would set up accounts where the product would be sold. The government would have new openings for regulators and inspectors to ensure everything was being done properly. Lastly, you have retail outlets, marketers that get the product directly to the hands of the people using it. In the case of marijuana legalized only for medicinal purposes, this makes pharmacies the retail outlets. Pharmacists have to go to school and be licensed by the state to practice, which creates more revenue and another department for state government.

Oaksterdam University was founded in 2007 by Richard Lee in Oakland, California, where state law allows personal growth of twelve plants for medical use (some localities allow such as Oakland (seventy-two) allow more). Though state law does not yet require any special training, Oaksterdam was created as a part of the rapidly expanding medical marijuana industry, and teaches everything you need to know about it from growing and dispensing, all the way to how not to get robbed. The course also teaches students, who come from every walk of life and are not the typical “Hippy” types one would envision, the basics of running a business such as incorporation, taxes, and becoming involved in the local community.

All aspects of product are also taught. One learns how to detect good from bad; and what strains are available, as well as their price points and the affects of each variety when used; and what equipment (lights, ventilator fans, grow table) is necessary to produce the plants. In Grow Lab, students put all of this knowledge to use in a class project that runs from planting to harvest (Green, 2009).

This doesn’t even begin to take into consideration all the taxes the local, state, and federal governments can collect from the sale of legalized marijuana. As of 2009, medical marijuana crops in California were valued at approximately $14 billion. There were 200,000 physician certified users, and hundreds of dispensaries that utilized advertising venues such as billboards, flyers, and newspaper and magazine ads. The tax revenue generated in the state of California for legal medical marijuana sales is estimated at about $100 million per year (Green, 2009). Imagine if we could use all that extra income towards a health care system. Many of the aforementioned countries in Europe facilitate programs through taxes collected from sales such as these.

One major flaw with California’s system is that federal law has not changed to make medical marijuana legal. Oaksterdam University posted the following on the main page of their website: “On the morning of Monday, April 2, a small army of federal agents – including representatives from the US Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service – descended upon Oaksterdam’s brick-and-mortar facility. They seized instructors’ curriculum and student records, among other items. Federal authorities also froze Oaksterdam’s bank accounts, resulting in immediate lay-offs to the facility’s 40+ full-time and part-time staff. Why? As of yet, no one in a position to know is talking. (Oaksterdam University, 2012)”

To many, this shows that the federal government is not willing to allow the public to be educated, but instead follow archaic laws, creating an environment that encourages illegal activities. Without the proper education to legally grow and dispense medical marijuana, the possibility of those in need getting product that’s tainted, incorrectly cultivated, or harmful in some other way that could cause more harm than it would help, raises exponentially. An entire industry that could help a struggling economy is shuttered, and people who could be helped are left to suffer.

The raid and seizure at Oaksterdam University worries me for a much greater reason. How many constitutional rights are violated by this invasion? An attack on an institution that is teaching information, seizing monies paid by people wanting to learn, scares me. The government doesn’t want us to have the ability to learn about medical marijuana, so they come in and shut it down. Yes, the legality of medical marijuana is a hot issue right now, but what’s next? Letting our government get away with such unethical use of their powers opens the door to so many more of such violations in the future.

Utilizing utilitarianism, the greatest good would be to not allow people to injest the drug without medical supervision, or proper labeling and identification. There are too many side effects, too many different types, and it would be too easy for people to take something that was tainted or the wrong kind. Therefore, I feel institutions like Oaksterdam University should be welcomed in our society, not persecuted. They ensure patients receive the best quality product. A department could be set up, probably inside the Food and Drug Administration, to govern the entire medical marijuana industry, creating even more jobs and revenues.

Relatively, these actions may make the cost of marijuana rise to the extent that people who needed it medically, could no longer afford the drug. We see this today in the debate on healthcare and it’s subsequent reform. However, it would also allow insurance companies to cover the added costs, making medical marijuana available to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

Personally, I believe that marijuana, as well as other drugs, should be made legal. As long as a person knows what it is they are taking, knows the consequences of taking the drug, controls it and themselves properly, and doesn’t adversely affect the rights or activities of others, I see no reason why they cannot take them in the privacy of their own home. Creating an environment where the industry is regulated will ensure the product is safe, and that patients get the right kind for their medical needs. People who use drugs have made a conscious choice to do so. In making them aware of the side effects of the drug, they are responsible for that choice. With legalization, it becomes easier to label, identify, and generally tell people what it is they are taking and what will (or could) happen to them if they do.

Resources

Bostwick MD, J. (2012) Blurred Boundaries: The Theraputics and Politics of Medical Marijuana. Retrieved April 15, 2012 from: http://www.cannabisguild.com/MED-MJ-FOLDER/MMJ-ARTICLES/Blurred-Boundaries-Therapeutics-Politics-of-MMJ.pdf

Gillespie, N. (2011). Rick Steves: ‘I just Do What I Think is True’. Reason, 43(7), 37. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from EBSCOhost.

Green, J. (2009). Cannabusiness. Atlantic Monthly (10727825), 303(3), 23. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from EBSCOhost.

Ingersoll, J. E. (1972). The Effect Of Legalizing Marihuana & Heroin. Vital Speeches Of The Day, 39(1), 24.Retrieved April 30, 2012 from EBSCOhost.

Katz, G. (2002). EUROPE LOOSENS ITS POT LAWS. Rolling Stone, (899/900), 55.Retrieved April 30, 2012 from EBSCOhost.

MedicineNet, Inc.(n.d.). Medical Definitions. Retrieved April 16, 2012 from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31402.

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from https://content.ashford.edu.

Oaksterdam University. (April 2012). No Title Given. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from http://www.oaksterdamuniversity.com/

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

Rhonda L Patterson

ENG122 English Composition II

Prof. Ashley Rutledge

February 20, 2012

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress on December 14, 2011 “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes” (112^th Congress, 2012) has been a large source of controversy in the United States among its citizens and in the media.  Originally, President Obama stated he would veto the act.  Stating his reasons included the continuation of military funding; he reversed his decision and signed the NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.  The President included with it a signed statement that said his administration would not allow unconstitutional incarceration of American citizens (Herridge, 2012).  Unfortunately, a signed statement is not law, and can be later changed or ignored by the current or subsequent administrations.  This act is a danger to the freedoms granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution, allowing the government too many liberties to violate those freedoms in the name of terrorism, and can also be used to unjustly target foreigners on American soil.

According to a news release issued by Ohio representative Patrick J. Tiberi, although most of the population believes this act allows American citizens to be detained by simply suspecting them of terrorism, he believes this is not the case.  The release includes a portion of the NDAA that states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” (US Fed News Service, 2012).  Neither does it state that military detention for suspected terrorists arrested in America, whether they are citizens or not, is prohibited (Topeka Capital-Journal Advisory Board, 2012), or the guidelines towards which constitutional freedoms should be adhered to, and which should be revised or ignored.

By saying military detainment is not required yet not saying it isn’t prohibited, the document can be interpreted in a few different ways.  One can read that Americans cannot be detained in the name of the NDAA at all.  Another definition could be that Americans can be detained, but not by the military. The most popular understanding of this section is that Americans can be detained, it doesn’t have to be by the military, but the military could detain citizens if it so chose to do so.  This is the perfect example of the ambiguous language that can be found throughout the National Defense Authorization Act.

Brian Cole, who has belonged to the Libertarian National Committee since 2004, claims in an article he wrote and posted on examiner.com that four Constitutional Amendments can be directly violated by use of the NDAA as it is currently written because of this ambiguity.  The first Amendment which grants freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government for grievances would be violated because people would not feel safe to speak freely.  Under this act, citizens could be arrested for getting together or speaking their opinions on political issues if someone decided to call what they were doing a terroristic act.

The deprivation of liberty without due process is covered under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  Arresting people without charging them and detaining them indefinitely without trial until hostilities ended would clearly violate our Fifth Amendment rights.  It would also violate our right to a speedy trial which is granted to us under the Sixth Amendment (US Constitution, Retrieved 2012).  There is great concern among many people that some members of Congress and the President of the United States have more or less thrown the Constitution out the window, using the fight against terrorism as an excuse to gain more executive powers, and in the process, take rights away from Americans.

There was enough concern regarding encroachment on our rights that a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Colorado Senator Mark Udall, proposed amendment 1107 to the NDAA.  Senator Udall felt the NDAA was written in seclusion without enough input from the leaders in charge of our national security and pushed through too quickly (Udall Press Release, 2011).  The Amendment he wrote would have given Congress ninety days following the enactment of the NDAA to create a report properly defining the roles and legal authorities granted the military regarding the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists.  Amendment 1107 also lists several laws that would be used in properly deciding who was a potential terrorist; effectively removing the ambiguity in the wording of the Act that many believe would allow random arrests and indefinite internment of United States citizens without due process.  Also included in the amendment, were the procedures that Congress should follow upon receiving the aforementioned report (Udall, 2011).  Unfortunately, with a roll call of 210, the amendment was defeated with a 61-37 vote with two members having abstained (OpenCongress.org, 2011).

There are a couple specific sections of the bill which are the focus of worry among many Americans. Section 1021 is the section that allows for indefinite detainment “until the end of hostilities” by the U.S. military any persons who are suspected of acting against the United States and its allies (112^th Congress, 2011).   In Section 1022, it states that military custody of United States citizens is not a “requirement.”  Requirement is too ambiguous of a word to actually prohibit the action.  It can be interpreted to mean that imprisonment is allowed, and under the loose wordings of this bill, American citizens could be held indefinitely, without due process, until hostilities were over.  One has to wonder, who decides when hostilities are over, and what exactly constitutes a suspected terrorist.  If someone states their disagreement with an action of the government, will that make them a terrorist?  As this bill is written, the military can arrest anyone anywhere, acting as law enforcement, and spirit people away indefinitely for as little as voicing an opinion, thus violating not only our right to free speech given to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution, but the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

As a result of military involvement with local law enforcement during the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (Bolgiano, 2001).  This Act prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement unless certain criteria are met, and does not apply to the Coast Guard during peacetime, the National Guard (unless in federal service), or any off duty personnel. It does, however, apply to the four main branches of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force) and their reservists when on active duty, as well as non-military employees of the Department of Defense when a military officer is in charge of them.  According to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, in order for the military to act as law enforcement, the President has to step in and give the go ahead, thus giving him even more executive powers that many feel he shouldn’t have.  The main reasons listed in the act for allowing the involvement of troops are terrorism and civil disobedience related, although they do get involved in many counter drug operations as well.  In other words, without a clear definition of what terrorism is, as well as who is considered a terrorist,  the President can decide to use the military as law enforcement upon everyday American citizens who, for example, are protesting something that the government is involved in or about to do, violating the aforementioned constitutional rights.  As observed when four students died at Kent State in 1970 after the military was called in to assist with a Vietnam War protest, this can have very bad repercussions.

Another issue is what happens when the hostilities end?  By the wording in this section, all military detainees would have to be freed upon the end of any hostilities involving them.  If those same detainees were convicted in a civilian court by a fair trial, they would have to remain jailed, serving out the terms of their sentence.  Prior to this sentencing, the detainees would have had a fair trial, and their guilt would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Due process would have been served, citizen or not, and not been arbitrarily set free because someone decided the hostilities had ended.

Many states and local governments have realized the error in Congress’s ways.  They are refusing to hand over Americans to be detained without due process, and enacting laws to prevent their state military and law enforcement agencies from cooperating with any federal institution in detaining these citizens without charging them and providing them with counsel and a fair trial.  Bob Unruh, with wnd.com, reports that Rhode Island, Washington, and a few cities in Colorado already have potential legislation in the works (Unruh, 2012).  Some are comparing the current arguments over the NDAA to the beginnings of the civil war, when northern states argued with the federal government regarding turning runaway slaves over to the southern states without first allowing them their due process.

The question the American people need to ask themselves is whether or not they are willing to allow the government to pass acts like the NDAA that take away their basic constitutional rights.  No one disagrees that terrorism is real and needs to be addressed.  Americans have a right to be safe.  However, is our safety worth the loss of our freedoms?  Does being safe matter if people are afraid their own government will arrest them merely for speaking their opinions?  The National Defense Authorization Act is too ambiguous in defining terrorists, provides inadequate protections for Americans and their constitutional rights, gives the Armed Forces too much freedom to act as law enforcement, and in short, needs desperately to be clarified and amended. Too many of our freedoms are taken away in the name of National Security by enacting the National Defense Authorization Act.

References

112^th Congress, 1^st Session, S. 1867 (Informally the National Defense Authorization Act),      December 14, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf.

Bolgiano, D. G. (2011) FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Washington: Dec 2001. Vol. 70, Iss. 12; pg. 16, 9 pgs. Retrieved on February 20, 2012 from Proquest.

Capitol Journal Editorial Advisory Board, The (2012). NDAA in Need of Revision. The Topeka Capitol-Journal. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://cjonline.com/node/114310.

Cole, B. (2012). Why Americans Should Fear NDAA 2012. Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-tampa-bay/why-americans-should-fear-the-ndaa.

Herridge, C. (2012). ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill that Includes Detainee Provisions. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/aclu-others-slam-obama-for-signing-defense-bill-that-includes-detainee/.

Trujillo, T. (2011). Press Release – Udall Introduces Amendment to Prevent Veto of Critical Defense Bill. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1746.

Udall, M. (2011). Amendment 1107. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/SenatorMarkUdall/d/73053672-Udall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions.

United States Constitution, Amendments. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends.

Unknown (2011). Amendment 1107 Vote Results. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/210.

Unruh, Bob (2012) States Prepare Brakes on Citizen-Detention Option. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/.

US Fed News Service (2012). NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2012 (NDAA). Retrieved January 30, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2564311701).

Pretty happy I’ve managed to bring my class grade from an F to a high B.

*****************************************

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

Rhonda L Patterson

ENG122 English Composition II

Prof. Ashley Rutledge

February 13, 2012

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress on December 14, 2011 “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes” (S. 1867, 2012) has been a large source of controversy in the United States among its citizens and in the media.  Originally, President Obama stated he would veto the act.  Stating his reasons included the continuation of military funding; he reversed his decision and signed the NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.  The President included with it a signed statement that said his administration would not allow unconstitutional incarceration of American citizens (Herridge, 2012).  Unfortunately, a signed statement is not law, and can be later changed or ignored by the current or subsequent administrations.  This act is a danger to the freedoms granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution, allowing the government too many liberties to violate those freedoms in the name of terrorism, and can also be used to unjustly target foreigners on American soil.

According to a news release issued by Ohio representative Patrick J. Tiberi, although most of the population believes this act allows American citizens to be detained by simply suspecting them of terrorism, he believes this is not the case.  The release includes a portion of the NDAA that states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” (US Fed News Service, 2012).  Neither does it state that military detention for suspected terrorists arrested in America, whether they are citizens or not, is prohibited (Topeka Capital-Journal, 2012), or the guidelines towards which constitutional freedoms should be adhered to, and which should be revised or ignored.

Brian Cole, who has belonged to the Libertarian National Committee since 2004, claims in an article he wrote and posted on examiner.com that the following four Constitutional Amendments can be directly violated by use of the NDAA as it is currently written: First Amendment which grants freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government for grievances; Fifth Amendment which governs the deprivation of liberty without due process; Sixth Amendment concerning the right to a speedy trial; and the Fourteenth Amendment which also covers the deprivation of liberty without due process (US Constitution, Retrieved 2012).  There is great concern among many people that some members of Congress and the President of the United States have more or less thrown the Constitution out the window, using terrorism as an excuse to gain more executive powers, and taking rights away from Americans.

There was enough concern regarding encroachment on our rights that a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Colorado Senator Mark Udall, proposed amendment 1107 to the NDAA.  Senator Udall felt the NDAA was written in seclusion without enough input from the leaders in charge of our national security and pushed through too quickly (Udall Press Release, 2011).  The Amendment he wrote would have given Congress ninety days following the enactment of the NDAA to create a report properly defining the roles and legal authorities granted the military regarding the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists.  Amendment 1107 also lists several laws that would be used in properly deciding who was a potential terrorist, effectively removing the ambiguity in the wording of the Act that many believe would allow random arrests and indefinite internment of United States citizens without due process.  Also included in the amendment, were the procedures that Congress should follow upon receiving the aforementioned report (Amendment 1107, 2011).  Unfortunately, with a roll call of 210, the amendment was defeated with a 61-37 vote with two members having abstained (OpenCongress.org, 2011).

There are a couple specific sections of the bill which are the focus of worry among many Americans. Section 1021 is the section that allows for indefinite detainment “until the end of hostilities” by the U.S. military any persons who are suspected of acting against the United States and its allies (S. 1867, 2011).   In Section 1022, it states that military custody of United States citizens is not a “requirement.”  Requirement is too ambiguous of a word to actually prohibit the action.  It can be interpreted to mean that imprisonment is allowed, and under the loose wordings of this bill, American citizens could be held indefinitely, without due process, until hostilities were over.  One has to wonder, who decides when hostilities are over, and what exactly constitutes a suspected terrorist.  If someone states their disagreement with an action of the government, will that make them a terrorist?  As this bill is written, the military can arrest anyone anywhere, acting as law enforcement, and spirit people away indefinitely for as little as voicing an opinion, thus violating our right to free speech given to us by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Another issue is what happens when the hostilities end?  By the wording in this section, all military detainees would have to be freed upon the end of any hostilities involving them.  If those same detainees were convicted in a civilian court by a fair trial, they would have to remain jailed, serving out the terms of their sentence.  Prior to this sentencing, the detainees would have had a fair trial, and their guilt would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Due process would have been served, citizen or not, and not been arbitrarily set free because someone decided the hostilities had ended.

Many states and local governments have realized the error in Congress’s ways.  They are refusing to hand over Americans to be detained without due process, and enacting laws to prevent their state military and law enforcement agencies from cooperating with any federal institution in detaining these citizens without charging them and providing them with counsel and a fair trial.  Bob Unruh, with wnd.com, reports that Rhode Island, Washington, and a few cities in Colorado already have potential legislation in the works (Unruh, 2012).  Some are comparing the current arguments over the NDAA to the beginnings of the civil war, when northern states argued with the federal government regarding turning runaway slaves over to the southern states without first allowing them their due process.

The question the American people need to ask themselves is whether or not they are willing to allow the government to pass acts like the NDAA that take away their basic constitutional rights.  No one disagrees that terrorism is real and needs to be addressed.  Americans have a right to be safe.  However, is our safety worth the loss of our freedoms?  Does being safe matter if people are afraid their own government will arrest them merely for speaking their opinions?  The National Defense Authorization Act is too ambiguous in defining terrorists, provides inadequate protections for Americans and their constitutional rights, gives the Armed Forces too much freedom to act as law enforcement, and in short, needs desperately to be clarified and amended. Too many of our freedoms are taken away in the name of National Security by enacting the National Defense Authorization Act.

112^th Congress, 1^st Session, S. 1867 (Informally the National Defense Authorization Act), December 14, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2012 (NDAA). (2012, January 19). US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2564311701).

Why Americans Should Fear NDAA 2012, January 29, 2012, Brian Cole, Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-tampa-bay/why-americans-should-fear-the-ndaa.

NDAA in Need of Revision, January 20, 2012, The Capitol Journal Editorial Advisory Board, The Topeka Capitol-Journal. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://cjonline.com/node/114310.

United States Constitution Amendments. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends.
Press Release – Udall Introduces Amendment to Prevent Veto of Critical Defense Bill, November 17, 2011, Tara Trujillo. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1746.
Amendment 1107, Senator Mark Udall, November 17, 2011. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/SenatorMarkUdall/d/73053672-Udall-Amendment-to-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Revising-detainee-provisions.

Amendment 1107 Vote Results, November 29, 2011. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/210.

ACLU, Others Slam Obama for Signing Defense Bill that Includes Detainee Provisions, January 02, 2012, Catherine Herridge. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/aclu-others-slam-obama-for-signing-defense-bill-that-includes-detainee/.

States Prepare Brakes on Citizen-Detention Option, February 7, 2012, Bob Unruh. Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/.

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

Rhonda L Patterson

ENG122 English Composition II

Prof. Ashley Rutledge

February 6, 2012

 Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress on December 14, 2011 “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes” (S. 1867, 2012) has been a large source of controversy in the United States among its citizens and in the media.  Although President Obama originally stated he would veto the act, he signed the NDAA into law on December 31, 2011, including with it a signed statement that said his administration would not allow unconstitutional incarceration of American citizens (Cole, 2012).  Unfortunately, a signed statement is not law, and can be later changed or ignored by the current or subsequent administrations.  Research will show why this act is a danger to the freedoms granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution, allows the government too many liberties to violate those freedoms in the name of terrorism, and how it can be used to unjustly target foreigners on American soil.

According to a news release issued by Ohio representative Patrick J. Tiberi, although most of the population believes this act allows American citizens to be detained by simply suspecting them of terrorism, he believes this is not the case.  The release includes a portion of the NDAA that states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” (US Fed News Service, 2012).  Neither does it state that military detention for suspected terrorists arrested in America, whether they are citizens or not, is prohibited (Topeka Capital-Journal, 2012), or the guidelines towards which constitutional freedoms should be adhered to, and which should be revised or ignored.  Brian Cole, of the Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner, claims that the following four Constitutional Amendments can be directly violated by use of the NDAA as it is currently written: First Amendment which grants freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government for grievances; Fifth Amendment which governs the deprivation of liberty without due process; Sixth Amendment concerning the right to a speedy trial; and the Fourteenth Amendment which also covers the deprivation of liberty without due process (US Constitution, Retrieved 2012).  There was enough concern regarding encroachment on our rights, that the Senate proposed an amendment to the bill preventing indefinite detention of United States citizens.  Unfortunately the amendment was defeated, and not by a small margin (Topeka Capitol-Journal, 2012).

The question the American people need to ask themselves is whether or not they are willing to allow the government to pass acts like the NDAA that take away their basic rights.  No one disagrees that terrorism is real and needs to be addressed.  Americans have a right to be safe.  However, is our safety worth the loss of our freedoms?  Does being safe matter if people are afraid their own government will arrest them merely for speaking their opinions?

By researching various published news articles accessed through the News bank Library, reading the National Defense Authorization Act, and comparing similar events in our nation’s history such as the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II, it becomes clear that the National Defense Authority Act is too ambiguous in defining terrorists, provides inadequate protections for Americans and their constitutional rights, and in short, needs desperately to be clarified and amended.

112^th Congress, 1^st Session, S. 1867 (Informally the National Defense Authorization Act), December 14, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2012 (NDAA). (2012, January 19). US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2564311701).

Why Americans Should Fear NDAA 2012, January 29, 2012, Brian Cole, Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-tampa-bay/why-americans-should-fear-the-ndaa.

NDAA in Need of Revision, January 20, 2012, The Capitol Journal Editorial Advisory Board, The Topeka Capitol-Journal. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://cjonline.com/node/114310.

United States Constitution Amendments. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends.

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

Rhonda L Patterson

ENG122 English Composition II

Prof. Ashley Rutledge

February 6, 2012

Individual Privacy vs. National Security: The National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress on December 14, 2011 “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes” (S. 1867, 2012) has been a large source of controversy in the United States among its citizens and in the media.  Although President Obama originally stated he would veto the act, he signed the NDAA into law on December 31, 2011, including with it a signed statement that said his administration would not allow unconstitutional incarceration of American citizens (Cole, 2012).  Unfortunately, a signed statement is not law, and can be later changed or ignored by the current or subsequent administrations.  Research will show why this act is a danger to the freedoms granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution, allows the government too many liberties to violate those freedoms in the name of terrorism, and how it can be used to unjustly target foreigners on American soil.

According to a news release issued by Ohio representative Patrick J. Tiberi, although most of the population believes this act allows American citizens to be detained by simply suspecting them of terrorism, he believes this is not the case.  The release includes a portion of the NDAA that states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” (US Fed News Service, 2012).  Neither does it state that military detention for suspected terrorists arrested in America, whether they are citizens or not, is prohibited (Topeka Capital-Journal, 2012), or the guidelines towards which constitutional freedoms should be adhered to, and which should be revised or ignored.  A writer for the examiner specifies the 1^st (freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government for grievances), 5^th (deprivation of liberty without due process), 6^th (right to trial), and 14^th (also deprivation of liberty without due process) amendments (US Constitution, Retrieved 2012) are directly violated by use of the NDAA.  There was enough concern regarding encroachment on our rights, that the Senate proposed an amendment to the bill preventing indefinite detention of United States citizens.  Unfortunately the amendment was defeated, and not by a small vote (Topeka Capitol-Journal, 2012).

The question the American people need to ask themselves is whether or not they are willing to allow the government to pass acts like the NDAA that take away their basic rights.  No one disagrees that terrorism is real and needs to be addressed.  Americans have a right to be safe.  However, is our safety worth the loss of our freedoms?  Does being safe matter if people are afraid their own government will arrest them merely for speaking their opinions?

By researching various published news articles accessed through the Newsbank Library, reading the National Defense Authorization Act, and comparing similar events in our nation’s history such as the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II, it will ultimately be proven that the National Defense Authority Act allows too many liberties in deciding who or what group is a terrorist, with no clear definition of protections for Americans and their constitutional rights, and needs to be clarified and amended.

112^th Congress, 1^st Session, S. 1867 (Informally the National Defense Authorization Act), December 14, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867es/pdf/BILLS-112s1867es.pdf

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2012 (NDAA). (2012, January 19). US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2564311701).

Why Americans Should Fear NDAA 2012, January 29, 2012, Brian Cole, Tampa Bay Libertarian Examiner. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-tampa-bay/why-americans-should-fear-the-ndaa.

NDAA in Need of Revision, January 20, 2012, The Capitol Journal Editorial Advisory Board, The Topeka Capitol-Journal. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://cjonline.com/node/114310.

United States Constitution Amendments. Retrieved February 6, 2012 from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends.

YAY!!! lol