David Margolis, associate deputy attorney general, handed down a memo Jan. 5 stating that Jay Bybee and John Yoo are not going to face criminal misconduct charges for their collaborated Bybee Memo.

The Bybee Memo was drafted and signed by Office of Legal Counsel lawyers Jay S. Bybee and John Yoo, who served in the Bush administration, to essentially authorize serious torture techniques. One infamous technique was waterboarding, consisting of someone lying on their back as water is poured over their head which simulates drowning and can cause brain damage due to a lack of oxygen.

Did the bloody gloves not fit? Well, actually, they fit surprisingly well, Margolis just decided not to act on the information.

The Office of Professional Responsibility, a watchdog over the Department of Justice, issued a report July 29, 2009 that reviewed the Bybee Memo. The OPR concluded that Bybee and Yoo were guilty of professional misconduct, that their analysis was not thorough, and that they needed to be reported to their respective state bar jurisdictions for disciplinary action.

Margolis came to a decision of his own, finding Yoo and Bybee not guilty of professional misconduct, but rather that they used poor judgment in coming to their decision. He felt since there was no direct violation of the law, the lawyers could not be charged with a crime.

This is a country that has laws prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment,” but perhaps Yoo and Bybee meant well and they were truly expressing their patriotism. Maybe they should be hailed for their initiative in approving torture. It’s too bad the majority of this country has a conscience, otherwise we could take the old chisel back to Rushmore on behalf of these progressive thinkers.

Be careful if you shake Yoo’s or Bybee’s hands , they just got their wrists slapped pretty hard; though they should be able to find a way to get by since they have moved on to jobs that don’t require them to make important decisions or have an excellent ability of presenting information. Oh wait! John Yoo is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Jay Bybee is a federal judge.

Torture is the most sensible way to get the enemy to renounce their ties. Damage their brains and then perhaps they’ll spill the beans on where Bin Laden is hiding, what other rebel armies are training, and where the good oil is at?

There are never any easy answers when dealing with prisoners of war, especially when dealing with individuals who have killed many innocent people. Resorting to an option that puts this entire country behind a letter that not only legalized, but endorsed torture techniques seems like submitting to the old philosophy of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” The Bybee Memo nearly adopts the attitude of the enemy and applies it to the terrorists U.S. forces are now terrorizing.

The memo Bybee and Yoo drafted and signed was essentially a document that allowed the U.S. to participate in these acts of barbaric torture, to participate in the cruelty, mutilation and exploitation we’re fighting a war to stop. We did not vote that into office.

Philadelphia high school student Blake Robbins and his family recently filed a lawsuit against school officials who allegedly violated wiretap laws after they used remote-activated webcams on school-issued Apple laptops to spy on him in his room.

It’s unclear what good can come to high schools issuing expensive equipment to the whole of their student bodies — in this case, all 2,300 students in the Lower Merion School District.

However, if school officials are going to distribute laptops to their students they should make sure that these children and their families are aware of the security software installed on them. In addition, the security software installed on aforementioned laptops should not be a webcam. That’s just stupid.

The case is a clear violation of privacy rights.

The Robbins family filed the suit after Harriton High School vice principal Lindy Matsko allegedly referenced a photo taken from the webcam on Robbins’ laptop to tell him she thought he was participating in improper behavior.

The Associated Press reported that the Robbins family told reporters an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill and thought he was selling drugs.

The webcams were only supposed to be activated when the computers were lost or stolen, according to a CBS news article. There has been no indication by school officials whether Robbins’ computer was thought to be either lost or stolen. But disregarding that information, how is it decided who gets to see what comes up on the screens? And what qualifies those chosen individuals to act as security guards as opposed to members of the school technology department?

“The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal,” according to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General’s Web site. While there are exceptions to the rule, special permissions must be obtained from law enforcement officials before any sort of surveillance is taken or intercepted.

Placing some sort of tracking device on school property seems absolutely reasonable if it is in accordance with the law. But putting a camera on a laptop that a student is going to take into the privacy of his or her own home is totally unnecessary. Scratch that — it’s ludicrous.

Even when a criminal offender is put on house arrest he or she simply wears an ankle bracelet. Law enforcers certainly don’t install cameras all over the individual’s house.

It’s laughable that the school district didn’t see this one coming and that administrators are trying to defend themselves. It all comes down to this: If school officials aren’t thoroughly confident in their students, they probably shouldn’t entrust these kids with take-home computers. And they might want to make a simple pros and cons list concerning the idea of using webcam surveillance as a school equipment safeguard.

The so-called war on terror is a fundamentally flawed endeavor, unwinnable by its very designation as a war.

Webster’s dictionary defines war as “a state or period of open or declared armed fighting between states or nations,” and also more vaguely as “a struggle between opposing forces.”

Whatever the precise definition of the word — and good luck finding one — terrorism is not a state, a nation or a force. Rather, it’s a strategy for raising awareness through the use of violence for a cause that might otherwise be ignored.

Acts of terror are publicity stunts. In this case, the opposing force is an ideologically radical interpretation of Islam looking for publicity. The U.S. is fighting a massive public relations campaign — one which has continuously crippled this country through a series of PR disasters from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to the plight of Palestine.

To win this campaign, the U.S. should challenge the validity of our opponent’s message, destroy the platform used for its transmission or both.

A lesson can be learned from the way the British have dealt with terror in Northern Ireland. By marginalizing events like the Feb. 22 Irish Republican Army car bombing of a courthouse as merely criminal, the state is able to seize control of the narrative and effectively dampen the overall impact of such attacks.

Limiting publicity strips much of the fear from these acts and diminishes at least some of their appeal to would-be terrorists. Reacting hysterically is like granting attention to a misbehaving child. Such a reaction only reinforces the behavior as a valid means of achieving what is sought.

For proof of this, look no further than Israel, which has been fighting a “war on terror” for decades. After many campaigns and much bloodshed in Lebanon and Gaza, it has lost any credible claim to moral high ground and failed to stop the terrorism. In fact, Israel suffered from a significant rise in the number of terror incidents this January, according to a Feb. 4 report released by the Israel Security Agency.

It really shouldn’t be difficult to understand the futility of using the threat of violence to intimidate those already willing to sacrifice their lives. U.S. attempts to stamp out Islamic ideological terrorism by blunt force are as effective as extinguishing a grease fire by dousing it with water.

Over the last eight years, the U.S. has invaded countries, scrapped parts of the Geneva Convention and granted its government unprecedented powers to spy on the populace in hopes of winning this war. But are we winning?

As with the war on drugs, conflating this kind of open-ended campaign with war in the traditional sense makes it impossible to set clear markers by which success can be evaluated.
Obama has sent tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and yet Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, easily boarded his flight on Christmas Day.

Similarly, our color-coded warning system, which apparently defaults to yellow, or significant risk, has yielded very little in the way of tangible results.

Technologically advanced though the U.S. may be, the leaders of this country haven’t yet figured out how to bomb an ideology. What we can and should be doing at every opportunity is utterly discrediting the ideology of radical Islam. By mischaracterizing the fundamental nature of this conflict, we assure that we cannot win it.

Now some members of the Tea Party, which began as a band of people uniting to fight against taxes, want the party to become legitimate a legitimate party so they can place their own representatives on the ballot. If this were to happen, it could help the Democrats because it might split the Republican Party.

The Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15, 2009 marked the beginning for this movement. The party has gone on to rally against the federal stimulus bill, government bailouts and proposed health care legislation.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, 35 percent of voters are open to the idea of an independent party.

The Tea Party’s growing base of support was built with help from the media and financially supported by former Republican Party leaders. Even Sean Hannity spoke at a Tax Day Tea Party rally in Atlanta, hyping up the movement in hope that the exposure would help the GOP regain their presence in the House and Senate. Thanks in large part to this support, the movement could destroy the Republican Party.

If the Tea Party becomes a legitimate third party, the edge Republicans are projected to have over Democrats on the 2012 generic ballot could be reduced by as much as 12 points. Republicans would only get one third of all votes, thus handing over the power to liberals in conservative districts, according to the survey.

Instead of trying to understand what Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are trying to press upon our country, conservatives are quickly opposed to liberal motives, regardless of their intentions.

Instead of ridiculing liberals, Tea Party activists are jeopardizing conservatives.

Three out of four Tea Party members hold college degrees, according to the survey, which means there are many smart conservatives who could be assisting this country instead of crying like disease-infested animals.

The Republican Party needs to regroup and find common ground with Democrats to aid this country.

Even though polls read that 64 percent of Americans are favoring the idea of another independent party running for Congress, the Tea Party is capable of creating problems for the Republican Party. That might not be such a bad idea after all.

With the 2010 Winter Olympics steaming up in Vancouver, Canada, we can’t help but look at what’s really going on behind the scenes.

The Olympics have always been a beacon of international unity. Side by side, nations join to show their individual pride and showcase the talents of their most esteemed athletes.

The issue with all of this is that NBC subjects its viewers to too many commercials. It is unfair to the people who just want to enjoy the Olympics, even if NBC did pay $5.7 billion for the television rights of the Olympics from 2000 through 2012.

As actor Morgan Freeman is telling everyone about the dreams of the athletes, the shows of the latter evening or shaving cream, it’s hard not to think there is a serious degree of subliminal messaging being pounded into viewers’ brains.

NBC is an American owned and operated network. While they really can’t help showing American athletes as being superior to their foreign counterparts, they make the athletes seem like they are super humans worthy of praise and high worship.

Even looking past athletes selling out with celebrity endorsements and all the product placement being drilled into everyone’s mind, there is a certain level of advertisement whoring that cannot be overlooked.

The Dreamworks movie “How to Train Your Dragon” has been exploited in every way NBC and Dreamworks can fathom. No longer can Shrek monopolize the market for adult humor being intertwined with and masked by cute creatures with Scottish accents.

Where the Super Bowl blatantly and even proudly displays its affection of selling commercial time to the highest bidder, NBC is attempting to mask its commercial desires concerning the Olympics with event tie-ins and touching messages. However, the data and rating company Nielsen reported that during the 2006 Winter Olympics a 30-second commercial cost between $500,000 and $700,000, a 40 percent rise since 1996.

Regardless of the product placement and endorsements which are necessary for certain athletes to make it to the games, there has to be a better way of going about it.

Maybe by the time the Olympics reach London in the summer of 2012, NBC and advertisers will understand the true meaning of the games and go sans labels. Doubtful, but still possible. Here’s to hoping.

Face2Face is a computer program that alters photographs of teen’s faces to show them what they will look like six months to even three years after developing a methamphetamine habit.

While an honest attempt to curb teen drug abuse, Face2Face is nothing more than a scare tactic that insults teens rather than educating them about the dangers of drug addiction.

Sheriff Tom Allman created the program in conjunction with software developer Abalone LLC, which currently sells the program for $2,995.

“Some kids start crying when they see the devastating effect meth can have on their complexion,” Allman told National Public Radio. “It was the way to crack the nut — to say, ‘This could happen to you.’”

The program can mutilate the face of a teenager, or anyone interested, in 3-D. It is a shallow marketing ploy to think that the defining factor in whether or not a person takes meth would be their complexion.

In a country that constantly reminds youth of how unique they are, now they’re also being told they shouldn’t try meth because it will make them look ugly.

Allman said the “this is your brain on drugs” and “just say no” campaigns didn’t work because they used scare tactics to keep kids away from drugs. Maybe he just holds a personal bias because he developed the program, as Face2Face is not any different.

The program is so expensive, it would be an irresponsible purchase for most high schools and teen centers. With education funding being cut left and right, buying Face2Face seems almost as wrong as buying meth.

After the program is purchased, the problem doesn’t just magically disappear. Face2Face is just like a school textbook. It can’t replace a teacher and cannot teach any lessons on its own.

The problem with drug abuse education, though, is that it cannot be taught in a classroom by teachers as if it is just another class. Even the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, which is taught in nearly 80% of U.S. classrooms, is considered to be flawed by Dr. William Hanson, who helped develop the model for DARE.

“DARE was misguided as soon as they adopted our material, because we were off base,” Hansen said, according to The State University of New York at Potsdam Web site. He claimed the formula of the program has never been changed, and that from the beginning DARE has been misguidedly attacking drug abuse.

The DARE program is taught at the fifth- and sixth-grade level, a time when drugs abuse is not a concern for many students. A police officer coming into their classroom telling them about the dangers of drugs isn’t going to help if the students are more concerned about finishing their science homework so they can hang out after school.

The problem with all these attempts to prevent drug abuse is that they operate under the assumption that every child will grow up to abuse drugs.

The effects of drug abuse should be taught during high school when most youth are first being introduced to drugs. Instead of straight talk from a teacher or police officer, former drug abusers should be the people teaching the lessons.

A simulated image is not nearly as effective as the life story of someone who has actually lived through such complexion issues, not to mention some of the more horrifying consequences of hard-core drug abuse.

“George Bush says we are losing the war on drugs,” said the late comedian Bill Hicks. “You know what that implies? There’s a war being fought, and people on drugs are winning it.”

A civilian accused of murder is required to answer to a court of law, but apparently this does not apply to high profile politicians like former U.S. president George W. Bush and British ex-prime Minister Tony Blair.

U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003 because Bush claimed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in possession of enough weapons of mass destruction to wreak havoc in the Middle East and the Western World. Without U.S. intervention, Bush argued, the safety of the post-9/11 world could not be guaranteed.

The threat turned out to be “phantom weapons of mass destruction” — unclear satellite pictures which allegedly showed images of mobile labs to manufacture chemicals used in warfare, followed by accusations of Iraq lying and hiding evidence from inspectors sent by the United Nations Security Council.

While definitely not second in the line of command to the former American president, Blair has been Bush’s right hand man in supporting the cause. His loyalty has been compared to that of a lap dog by the media because he was willing to follow blindly without publicly questioning Bush’s actions.

Blair is currently being investigated by the Chilcot Committee, which was formed by the British government to identify the lesson of what should be learned to help future governments who may be facing similar situations, according to the committee’s Web site.

Up to this day the former British prime minister defends his decision as absolutely necessary to protect his country and world peace. However, earlier witnesses have testified before the committee that Blair told Bush in an April 2002 meeting his country would join the U.S. in a war against Iraq, according to an article by the BBC from Jan. 29.

The former British leader struggles to respond to questions posed by the committee. On the other hand, if Blair, Bush’s follower, has to justify his actions, then why is George W. Bush getting off scot-free? While a formal truth commission to investigate the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies was suggested by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in April of 2009, no comparable actions have been conducted by the U.S. government until now.

At least the British government is not afraid to delve into the past. President Obama, however, shies away from that. His election campaign was built on the promise of hope and looking into a brighter future. Before he became president, Obama condemned the war and the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq. Now he is too preoccupied with keeping everybody, including the Republican Party, happy to deal with the current state of the economy and advocating his proposed health care reform.

Other war criminals are tried in front of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. George Bush and Tony Blair, however, are former leaders of the world’s most powerful country and its most eager ally. They did not care about the U.N. Security Council’s opinion in 2003 and they don’t care now.

It’s time to wake up and deal with reality. The American people, just like the British people, have a right to know what has lead to this war which has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and claimed an estimated 105 thousand Iraqi lives, as well as caused at least 4,700 American and 80 British casualties.

MCT CAMPUS

Terrorism struck New York City again as the trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was postponed indefinitely due to the fear residents have for holding the trial in Manhattan. The White House called off the trial, which was to be held in lower Manhattan, due to picketing protests as well as many voiced concerns from New York City all the way to Washington D.C.

Further hurdles played a role in the postponement of the trail. The Democratic party is split on whether Mohammed should be held accountable in civil courts, as the Obama administration suggested, while other Democrats are pushing for a military tribunal, Politico.com reported on Feb. 11. A benefit of the civil court approach would be to show the world that the U.S. Justice system is strong.

A trial of this magnitude is going to draw the world’s attention to the city. The World Trade Center crashed to the ground that September morning and all the death, terror and confusion that poured out of New York was caused by men who specifically planned it. Those men need to be tried at ground zero. This needs to be finished where it started.

The fear that exists behind the trial should be counteracted by the fact that there is no better place to try the criminals except at the scene of the crime. With that being said, good luck trying to find impartial jurors for a civil trial.

There needs to be a direct confrontation to this monstrosity of terror. Alcohol needs to be poured on this open wound, the U.S. needs to clean it out and deal with this problem.

In perhaps the most powerful city in the world and concerning the most horrific act of unprecedented hatred since Hitler, action needs to be swift and direct.

U.S. and Pakistani officers captured Mohammed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003. Since then he has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’s U.S. Naval Station. Globalsecurity.org reports that Mohammed proposed the 9/11 terrorism plans to Osama Bin Laden in 1996, and Bin Laden approved by 1999.

Then again, maybe there is an argument to letting the orchestrators of this insurrection kick back and relax in jail and be hailed as heroes among fellow haters of the U.S. Maybe there is a reason for postponing the trial for another year or so, letting all the democrats agree where they want it and finding a town that wants to host the trial far away from the disaster zone and directly affected families.

We should interview Mohammed and ask him where he’d like to be tried, what type of trial he’d prefer and who he’d like to invite. Maybe Superman’s Fortress of Solitude is available to lease.
The issue is that the opposing political parties are so divided on the approach in dealing with this trial that we, as a country, are going nowhere fast. Even within parties there are disagreements. There is a stubborn stupidity in the air. The resulting effect of this behavior: no trial for the alleged mastermind of 9/11. That is definitely a result where everyone wins.

The democrats can blame the republicans, the republicans can blame the president, the terrorists can get caught up on their sleep, do a few push ups and maybe even read a few good books. Everyone gets to relax, no work is getting done, but, hey, according to the Mayans we only have 2 years left, so maybe we’ll never have to deal with Mohammed.

I found the article to be quite one-sided. I’d like to take the time to look at the issue factually.

The article made the ridiculous claim that Obama is giving Haitians food and water, while former presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton denied them aid and refuge in the US because they are poor. What the article doesn’t say, is the United States has been contributing millions of dollars to Haiti every year for many years. In fact, last year we gave them more than $260 million dollars, accounting for 40 percent of Haiti’s national budget.

The claim that Obama is somehow treading new ground in providing aid to Haiti is patently false. Additionally, the idea that we would somehow withhold aid to a people because they are poor is ridiculous. Bush Jr. alone contributed over $40 Billion to African nations during his two terms as president.

The article goes on to compare the response time of the Haiti earthquake response, led by Obama, to the response time of the Bush administration after the Katrina disaster. Large amounts of aid arrived Sept. 2 with 58,000 National Guard troops and $69 Billion dollars in relief funds. It took approximately 3 days in that case to get aid to the masses. Looking at the numbers, I don’t see Obama doing any better then Bush did in terms of response time and aid available.

The final point the article missed ,was when it tried to miss-characterize statements made by radio host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh stated “We’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax”. This somehow offended some, but again a review of the facts will show Limbaugh has a point.

As I already said, $260 million dollars of OUR money goes to Haiti every year. The total contribution by the US to the Haiti relief effort now totals $400 million and counting, including the $100 million Obama promised in cash and all the food, tents, etc going to the survivors. This amounts to $1.25 per person of our money going to the country. It’s wonderful to make donations to charitable organizations if you wish, but regardless, all of us are contributing in our tax dollars.

Noah Moore
City College student

—-

Editor:

During the State of the Union Address we were told that,
among other things, if we understood health care reform, we would want
it.

That is the perfect example of AUDACITY.

Blatant disrespect for the average American that would allow The
President to speak down to us as though we were not as smart as he and
his colleagues.

Despite the countless hours of TV, radio and hundreds of written
publications we’ve been bombarded with, we are still not informed
enough to “get it”.  So they plan to try again, perhaps using smaller
words the next time.

It’s not ignorance that leads us to oppose this massive leap toward
socialism, it is our understanding of it and our love of freedom that
compels us to stand against it.  The longer it was discussed; the more
informed we became.  The more it was drawn out into the light; the
more we could see just how bad it really was.  So stop repeating the
message, it’s childish and insulting.

WE DON’T WANT IT.

Josh Steadman

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a $10 million cut from the Extended Opportunities Programs and Services budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year, leaving those in need with even fewer resources. During a time when everyone is looking for help and the needy are worse off than usual, slashing the funding for EOPS is like taking crutches away from a one-legged man.

The EOPS program is aimed at individuals affected by varied circumstances. Those new to the country, single parents with low incomes, people dealing with legal trouble, and individuals of low educational levels may all benefit from EOPS services.

The 2009-10 EOPS allocation was an estimated $70 million. While that may sound like a lot of money, it was stretched between 111 California community colleges, including some of the largest in the nation. Los Angeles alone has seven community college campuses with EOPS programs, whose allocations last year added up to just under $6.5 million.

EOPS provides counselors, tutors, child care programs, extra computer labs, assistance for academic planning and assistance buying books.
“It would be devastating,” City College EOPS Director Alvin Jenkins said. “We are not going to let it happen.”

There is no way to look past the obvious truth that almost everyone is in a bad way right now. From faculty to students, everyone is being affected by these harsh economic times. Over 350 classes were dropped from the spring 2010 semester and 2010 summer school is canceled. Few are unaffected.

City College itself is home to an excess of 100,000 credit and noncredit students, making the school one of the largest colleges in the United States. The City College EOPS budget was less than $1.1 million last year, which resulted in many students being turned away from receiving much-needed help.

“EOPS has allowed me to focus on my classes rather than worrying about the cost of books, which would prevent me from even attempting my academic goals,” said City College student Dave Holly, an EOPS success story majoring in education. He currently holds a 3.91 GPA.

These budget cuts debilitate the opportunities for those just trying get above water.

In the latest budget proposal, which was released on Jan. 8, the governor called California’s economic state a “fiscal emergency.” The EOPS hit was not even given proper respect in the barrage of budget cuts.

“I don’t know how we could continue to exist and still meet our mission,” Jenkins said. “The only option we would have would be to layoff staff.”

With no quick or easy solutions in sight there needs to be a better-prioritized list of what’s on the chopping block next for California. Educational programs in this state need a safe haven. California’s world renowned education system needs to be protected by something like diplomatic immunity. Give the education budget asylum. With poor educational resources there is no hope for improving one’s economic status.

“It is something I feel we can fight,” Jenkins said. “We can develop a strategy to do something about this.”

With many other programs going to be hit statewide, inside and outside the education bracket, now is the time to hold ground. Education programs should come first. Get the budget deficit off the backs of the students, or they won’t be the ones in the future, better armed with education, to help the state’s “fiscal emergency” become a thing of the past.

Cutting the EOPS budget and reducing the program to a shell of what it once was sends a strong message from the Governor. Whether he is not concerned with helping those who are struggling already or he just has no idea about the impact of his educational budget cuts, there needs to be an awakening of consciousness in the funding of our student support services.