The Remaking of American Justice, By Eric Lichtblau

This blog is inspired by the reading of the book: The Remaking of American Justice, By: Eric Lichtblau.

A later part of the book begins with an ominous message- “The Justice Department’s ethics investigation was now shut down.” Lichtblau uses this to set a foreboding tone that remains constant for the duration of the section. This means that even the senior lawmakers in Congress were left to guess what the NSA (National Security Agency) was really doing. In scenarios such as this, where is the ethical and moral line drawn? When does the U.S. government and the NSA recognize their limits in surveillance, even if it is “for the sake of national security?”

In addition, Lichtblau exposes the side of the argument that stresses why wiretapping is unethical. To do so, he uses the example of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales, a proponent of wiretapping, was facing difficulties in gaining support. As a congressional aide told Lichtblau, he “claim[s] the program has done all sorts of wonderful things.” However, he is hesitant to believe this as he retorts: “we’d like to see some evidence of that.”

This is an example of the extent of wiretapping in American society.

“The Remaking of American Justice” By: Eric Lichtblau

Through futher reading of The Remaking of American Justice, it seems as if Lichtblau stresses logical appeal. Due to recent terror plots, particularly the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, wiretapping and other questionable surveillance methods are required. He reasons that because the NSA (National Security Agency) is able to track terrorists like bin Laden’s communications new levels, and because they can do so without court approval, they should be entitled to do so for the sake of this nation’s security.

He also presents the other side of the argument in a kind of concession refutation format. Lichtblau admits that because wiretapping borders unethical, “you can fight the war and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left.” (366) These words were spoken by libertarian judge Royce Lamberth, a judge fearful of the dominating effects of government, be it Democratic or Republican. However, Lichtblau fires back nd refutes Lamberth’s claims by saying that these tools of safety “are so valuable.” Also, he blames the courts for not being “nimble or agile enough to move quickly against suspects.” In a changing world of technology and mobility, the time for approval for every action has passed. For the sake of our security and the need for a change in the face of justice, wiretapping must be integrated into our society.

The changing face of American Justice; wiretapping is becoming integrated into American surveillance techniques.

The Remaking of American Justice: Eric Lichtblau

Blog inspired by: The Remaking of American Justice by Eric Lichtblau

A passage of this book is devoted to the changing dynamics of American politics. In it, Lichtblau focuses on the effect President George W. Bush had on the evolution of wiretapping.

He takes on a biased and indignat tone as he chronicles Bush’s steps to making wiretapping a common practice for surveillance. His indignation proves justified when Bush “would secretly authorize wiretappers at the National Security Agency,” despite the fact that wiretapping itself was “long banned.” Also, his biased tone comes through when he speaks of the Bush administration’s reaction: “They made no apologies.”

Although it may have seemed necessary at the time, due to the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11, Lichtblau believes wiretapping is morally wrong on many fronts. His purpose in this passage is to show this, and he does so by stating that wiretapping initiatives are “brash initiatives” that “often butted against the limits of what law and policy allowed.”

Additionally, this passage serves as a precursor to the rest of the book. Lichtblau opposes wiretapping because it violates both human rights and goes against convential reconaissnance practices.

 

“British Editors Urged to Set Up Regulator” By: John F. Burns

Confronted by wave of fury from victims of Britain’s latest phone hacking scandal, British Prime Minister David Cameron demanded the country’s top news editors come up with a “new system of press regulation”. If they don’t, Cameron fears that the entire government will have to bow down and submit to a hypothetical law that could bring about an entirely new era of regulations.

John F. Burns of the New York Times writes his article with an exasperated tone. He speaks of “moves for a new regulatory system”, and how the “dispute poses a potentially serious political challenge” to Prime Minister David Cameron. Also, he quotes Cameron himself, by including his words: “the clock is ticking for this to be sorted out.” All things considered, Burns does have reason to feel exasperated. Cameron and his conservatives cannot seem to be able to reach an agreement with the Liberal Democrats: a situation all too familiar to American constituents.

His purpose seems to complement his tone. His exasperation leads him to describe the implications of what would happen if editors are unable to create a new system of regulations. Burns slyly points out that “Mr. Cameron could find his Conservatives… facing defeat in the House of Commons if the issue comes to a vote”.

Prime Minister David Cameron speaks to students at a Catholic school.

“Morsi’s Concessions Fail to Quiet His Opponents In Egypt” By: David Kirkpatrick

A mere year after Egyptians relinquished themselves from the grip of dictator Hosni Mubarak, they are at risk of being oppressed again. On November 22nd, “President” Mohammed Morsi passed sweeping legislation that put his word above the law, and sent tens of thousands of furious protestors into the streets. Many Egyptians fear that if given the proper chance, Morsi will violate the civil rights they fought so hard to obtain.

Primarily, David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times maintains a frustrated tone in his article regarding the crisis in Egypt. His words betray his emotion when he calls Morsi’s referendum a “convoluted arrangement”, and “obstructing the the transition to democracy at all costs.” Also, Kirkpatrick becomes irked from the actions taken by President Morsi and his followers. In efforts to quell the tension, Morsi decreed that his soldiers could arrest the protestors.

Kirkpatrick also uses logical appeal to show how the actions of President Morsi are unjustified and immoral. He does so by quoting the words of an opposition leader: “Under the present circumstance, how can you conduct a referendum or an election when chaos is reigning and you have protests everywhere?” Also, he slanders Morsi calling in the military to essentially ensure that protesters do not interfere with his referendum, which supports an Islam-based constitution.

Tens of thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square, Egypt, calling for Morsi to step down as President.

President Morsi himself, addressing a crowd of supporters.

“Negotiators Leading Talks on Fiscal Crisis Defend Stands” By: Jackie Calmes

Mere weeks after the election of the 45th President of the United States, a financial crisis looms at the United States’ horizon. If our nation does topple over the heavily discussed fiscal cliff, it will be self-imposed. There are no barriers blocking legislators from reaching a compromise, other than themselves. In the final month before the fiscal crisis, lead negotiators appear to be in a stalemate, and have expectedly “blame[d] the other side”.

In her article, Jackie Calmes of the New York Times takes a frustrated and satirical tone. She quotes Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, and seems to have a similar sentiment: “We’ve got seven weeks between Election Day and the end of the year, and three of those weeks have been wasted with this nonsense.” Calmes, like many Americans, grows weary of the endless bickering that has been associated with the American government. She takes a subjective turn as she details the plight of the Republican efforts. According to Boehner, Republicans have provided “a dozen different ways” as to how this crisis could be fixed. With a sharp wit, she mocks how Republicans, particularly Romney on the campaign trail, fail to provide details as to how additional revenue could be raised over the next ten years without raising rates.

Calmes directs her article toward the American public by describing the legislation each party is trying to push through Congress. (Rather, just the Democrats’).  Also, because of her mostly objective point of view, the American public can see the process for compromise unfold, and remain updated on the seemingly endless gridlock.

Who Killed the Twinkie? By James Surowiecki

A symbol of America, an icon of the family household, a beacon of the sensory pleasures, is meeting its end. Hostess brands, and the Twinkie, will most likely go out of business due to union strikes. However, as James Surowiecki of the New Yorker puts it, “Hostess’s management certainly bears some of the blame” for the company failure. The talk could go on and on about who is to blame, what went wrong, etc. In his article, however, he focuses on the bigger picture: what this means for America.

Surowiecki’s purpose, as before mentioned, is to use this company’s failure as an example of changing American businesses. The upheaval of this old American business means the upheaval of nearly nineteen thousands of jobs. Certainly, Surowiecki says, we don’t want other companies following suit. Yet at the same time, the changing of American business is emphasized when he cites the case of “creative destruction.” There will always be companies that remain unresponsive to the changing market, and are essentially “destroyed,” while new, adaptive businesses are “created.”

As he writes his ode to the dying Twinkie, he takes a more serious and somber tone. Surowiecki laments over the growing gap between unions and their management, using words such as “destruction”, “upend”, and “challenge” to do so. He ends his farewell to the easily recognizable American treat by taking a neutral stand, blaming both the stubborn unions and management.

“Boehner Tells House G.O.P. to Fall in Line” By: Johnathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer

Days after their party received an electoral battering, Republicans took a dose of bitter medicine from their party speaker, John Boehner. As John Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times put it, he admitted that it had been a bad loss, acknowledged that it was a different political landscape, and hoped that Republicans would continue to oppose tax rate increases.

Weisman and Steinhauer were driven to write this article, “Boehner Tells House G.O.P to Fall in Line”, as the 2012 elections came to an end. The Senate has a Democratic majority, which will complement President Obama’s efforts to pass new legislation. However, the House remains Republican, a final stand to stop the mentioned legislation. More importantly, however, is the highly feared fiscal cliff: the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 going into effect. With economic stagnation looming, Boehner is instructing Republicans to stick to principle and to maintain a “united front” in order to achieve their path of fiscal stability.

For the most part, Weisman and Steinhauer develop a hopeful yet pragmatic tone. Certainly, both the authors and the American people hope that both President Obama and speaker Boehner keep “avenues of negotiation” open so a solution can be reached. However, if both Obama and Boehner staunchly defend their positions and remain unyielding, they would “continue the status quo of the very gridlock voters appear to detest.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner and Barack Obama will negotiate details of the prevention of the incoming fiscal cliff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/us/politics/boehner-tells-house-gop-to-fall-in-line.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

“Iranian Hardliners Reject Any Talks with the U.S.” By Thomas Erdbrink

In Iran, angry celebrations arose in front of the U.S. embassy as the “Day of the Fighting the Global Arrogance” passed. This great arrogance? More commonly referred to as the “Great Satan”, the United States is ridiculed on the day the American Embassy was overrun on November 4th, 1979 by the very people who did it, the Iranian youth. In light of these events, Thomas Erdbrink of the New York Times writes his article, “Iranian Hardliners Reject Any Talks with the U.S. It couldn’t have come at a better time. Just last month, it was reported that Washington and Tehran were “testing the waters for peace talks.” However, Iranian patriots stand firm, saying that America must learn to behave itself.

In light of these events, Erdbrink writes with a sense of wariness. He classifies Iran as a country with strong nuclear ambitions that “will not resume ties with America,” and as a country that calls the American Embassy “the castle of Satan.” A country with such hatred, and with such nuclear potential, Erdbrink realizes, is not to be dealt with lightly. The commander of a paramilitary group, Mohammed Reza Naghdi vehemently stated: “Hear me now, we condemn all sorts of secret talks!” This is an attitude that spans the nation; Naghdi is merely the medium for conveying it. Essentially, Erdbrink brings American attention to this Iranian issue by using his tone.

Finally, Erdbrink finishes with a quote that adds a sense of hopelessness to the whole situation. A writer in Iran woefully said: “It doesn’t matter for us who wins the U.S. elections next week. Who leads America is unimportant, its policies never change.”

“Sharp Warnings as Hurricane Churns In” By James Barron

Truth be told, a “perfect storm” is brewing with Hurricane Sandy. A midlatitude trough is expected to swing down and strengthen Hurricane Sandy even further, along with a burst of arctic air that could result in several feet of snow in some areas. Even the moon, which will cause the water to be in high tide, is pitching in to make this storm even deadlier. Really, the only options left for people along the East Coast are to hunker down or evacuate.

As James Barron of the New York Times comically describes, gamblers hastened to play a few last rounds of black jack in the Atlantic City casinos before governor Chris Christie ordered them out. However, his tone when writing the article is best mirrored by the attitude of the people on the East Coast. He, like them, is anxious and hurried as the storm approaches. Barron emphasizes this tone by using shortened sentences and by using words like “strikingly powerful” and “destruction”, which carry negative connotations.

He directs this piece toward the American people, more specifically, those in danger and those who can help. The images he depicts of 11 ft. waves, trees knocking over power lines, and of severe flooding serve as a further warning to those who are skeptical of the storms wrath and to those who are unwilling to help because they underestimate how much damage the storm can cause.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/east-coast-braces-for-severe-storm-surge.html?hp&_r=0