In other news

The Shepherd Rams Football team has advanced to the Quarter finals. I was here Saturday for the game, and what a game it was. The Quarter finals will be hosted by Shepherd at Ram Stadium this Saturday. For anybody who cares, tickets are available at the Shepherd Bookstore.

Homecoming '06

Shepherd University's homecoming was this weekend. I wanted to post a few pictures Saturday night but Blogger was (apparently) down. So here are some pictures:

McMurran Hall stands as the pillar of tradition at Shepherd University. The oldest building on campus, McMurran hosts various administrative offices and was recently repainted. In front of McMurran, spectators are gathered and waiting for the start of the annual parade.

.The Shepherd Ram Band marches down German Street to the tune of Rob Thomas' Smooth from this year's show Viva Santana

Following the parade, Dining Services provided a delicious pig-roast. It was 'fun for all'--except the pig tee-hee.

The weather was perfect; sunny and 60. The stands were also packed; the fullest I've ever seen. And, Shepherd won the big game--42-0, an ass-whoopin' by all accounts.

Darfur v. Iraq

As some may remember, last year I wrote a bi-weekly column for The Picket, our campus newspaper, in an attempt by them to become "more balanced." They asked me to beging writing the column after I sent a long and heated letter-to-the-editor about how they had (in the middle of September) not had a single conservative writer.

With this year, as I discussed in the 'back to school' post, my bi-weekly column was done away with. Instead, they asked that all conservative writers (particularly who are associated with the Shepherd Republicans) to contribute to a weekly pool. This week was my turn.

Here is the essay promt: "The situation in Darfur: Have the U.S. and the U.N. done enough? What should the U.S. foreign policy be on international humanitarian crisis?" Last week they ran a piece on the situation which outline (in a relatively objective manner) the current state of things in Darfur, as well as a little history lesson.

Here now is my column (with a title provided by The Picket staff):

The world must step up to aid the atrocity

The Sudanese region of Darfur has been transformed from a once stable region of mostly peaceful villages to a war torn wasteland in the past three years. Beginning in 2003, a rebel group known as the Janjaweed has been armed by the Sudanese government in order to put down those not faithful to the current Sudanese government. In these three years, an estimated 45,000 to 500,000 have been murdered and 1.8 million have been forced out of their homes and into refugee camps in neighboring regions.

The situation, or rather the response, offers a strange sort of parallel to the situation the world faced just over three years ago as the Bush Administration led the effort to force the United Nations to enforce past resolutions against Iraq. In 2002, President Bush gave a speech making the case for a war with Iraq. In that speech, he said, “Failure to act [to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq] would embolden tyrants. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time.” This statement could easily be applied to the current situation in Darfur: the United Nations has failed yet again to act and thus is proving its irrelevancy.

Just as in the 2002 buildup for the Iraq war, the Bush administration is diligently working to alleviate the crisis and find a lasting, stable peace. The White House has outlined a two prong plan: firstly, Bush explains that the United States and other nations must act to prevent and ease the humanitarian crisis that has resulted in the region; and Bush has met this goal. Under the current administration, the US government has provided some $1.33 billion dollars in aid, accounting for 85% of the total amount given.

This spawns the question: how is the rest of the world helping? In short, they’re not and they must do more. The second component of the plan calls for Americans and others to increase security in Darfur. It is at this point that the plan seemingly falls apart.

Just as was the case prior to the Iraq war, Bush has repeatedly called on the United Nations to act. On August 31, 2006 the UN passed Resolution 1706 which calls for the placement of approximately 20,000 troops to act as peacekeepers. This, though, has been met with distain by the Sudanese government who says that such action will jeopardize Sudanese sovereignty. They have subsequently refused the entry of the peacekeeping force. Just as before the Iraq invasion, the United Nations has remained silent and refused to enforce its own resolution.

The true difference between the lead up to Iraq and the current situation in Iraq lies in the response to the United Nations’ silence. When they refused to act on Iraq, the Bush administration pressed on with war plans. These plans were met with protests from anti-war activists led by Hollywood liberals who labeled Bush as a power hungry war criminal. The silence this time, though, has been met with an uproar of publicity (again led by Hollywood liberals) calling for immediate action—even if it means unilateral action on the part of the United States.

Why the difference in reaction? How is stopping the killing of Africans in the Darfur region somehow a more noble cause than toppling a ruthless dictator? Are the lives of those slaughtered by the Janjaweed somehow more valuable than those murdered by the regime of Saddam Hussein? Does stopping the genocide in Darfur offer some benefit that was not to be found in Iraq? These questions must be answered, and those who have reacted so differently to the idea of unilateral action must be held accountable for their ighly varied reactions.

More importantly, though, than any debate about reaction to the UN’s lackluster performance, is the debate on how to move forward. Who should take the lead? What should be done? These questions are of more value, but are unfortunately not so easily answered.

The United States cannot act alone, but the United Nations is clearly not capable to, or perhaps simply not willing to, deal with the situation.

Some see UN reform as the answer, but this is not a timely response which would see results in Darfur. Still others, such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recommend that, “…we should be actively trying to create alternatative institutions that matter…[and] take virtually nothing to the [UN] Security Council.” This seems to be a more probable course of action, yet even this would be difficult to do in a timely manner.

Regardless of which course of action is taken, something must be done now. Citizens of the world—not simply the United States—must stand up and demand action from the United Nations. If they continue to fail to act, then we—citizens of all nations—must hold them accountable, even if that means completely dissolving the UN. Then and only then may we hope to finally find legitimacy in a world body.

Is it the most comprehensive coverage of the situation? Probably not, but given NO MORE than 800 words, it was difficult to keep this bad-puppy slim and I did indeed tip the scales at 834 words (which they let me squeek by with).

Joseph E. Onek: "Follies and Failures: Constitutional Checks and Balances after 9/11"

As promised, here's a review of the speech I attended last Thursday:
*********************************************************************************

Last week Shepherd University held the Second Annual Tom E. Moses Speech on the Constitution as part of their Constitution Day events. The series began last year with a speech by Senator Byrd (D-WV) and continued this year with a presentation by Joseph N. Onek titled “Follies and Failures: Constitutional Checks and Balances after 9/11.”

Onek began with a quick overview on the intent of the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution, pointing out that the ultimate goal was to prevent executive tyranny. He also pointed out that the legislature should, “compliment the executive with wisdom and responsibility.” In doing so, he said, the Congress would “prevent foolish actions.”

Then he began his lecture on the current state of checks and balances. “Some suggest,” he said, “that the current president is somehow an example of what the Founders hoped to prevent. It is hyperbolic, however, to say that we are facing a tyranny.”

To illustrate his case, Onek turned to the situation in GuantanamoBay, Cuba. “Guantanamo Bay has become a world wide rallying cry for Jihadists,” he explained. He then launched into the much over stated belief that the Bush administration has some how burned up the mythical surplus of support and love that the world had for the US in the aftermath of 9/11 in establishing the POW camp (if we are to call it that).

He did, though, admit that it was more humane than the alternative: simply to kill all the “bad guys.” “Guantanamo Bay is a negative symbol in three ways,” he said.

The first item Onek pointed to was that Bush used a military order to establish military commissions. He explained that Bush modeled the commissions on Franklin Roosevelt’s declaration in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Onek condemned the facility at Guantanamo Bay as being “contradictory to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” He pointed to the use of secret evidence, the use of “evidence obtained through coercion,” and the inability of the prisoners to appeal through our civilian court system as being the most negative aspects of using Guantanamo Bay.

He cited the selection of who should or should not be held as the second glaring mistake in the establishment of Guantanamo Bay. Onek pointed out that we used military tribunals on the actual battlefield during the Gulf War to decide who was/wasn’t an enemy. In this case, though, he stated that we just “took everybody” thus sweeping up “many innocents.” He also pointed out that Pakistan and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan turned over POW’s. He was somewhat cynical in believing that a majority of those turned over by these two groups were innocents. The Pakistanis, he said, were friendly to the Taliban regime and more than likely protected the true bad guys. The Northern Alliance, though, was at the opposite extreme: they, he suggested, probably turned over anyone who did not pledge allegiance to them, even if these individuals had no ties to the Taliban.

The final point Onek made was to say that the use of coersion in obtaining information is “simply unacceptable.” By denying the rights outline in the Geneva Convention, Onek believed that Bush established the conditions for the “gross prisoner abuse” which “has occurred at Guantanamo.”

The next portion of Onek’s presentation was by far his strongest. He posed a question that most Americans who disagree with Bush’s policies should have been asking for that last six years: “Where has Congress been during all this?” Congress should have been ‘checking’ Bush’s power all along, yet they have remained totally inactive. When Congress has spoken up, they have “simply sided with the president thereby weakening their own power and rubber stamping the President’s agenda.” This is arguable. Folks like Onek never consider the possibility that Congress has approved of the “Bush Agenda” (if such a thing really exists) because the “Bush Agenda” is right? Isn’t that at least partly possible?

So why has Congress essentially been “asleep at the wheel?” According to Onek, our legislators are to blame for not checking Bush because the Republicans are in control—and they have a united front. The democrats, he said, also have a united front. Both of these points are, again, arguable. John McCain and Senator Warner have both been critical of the President over prisoner rights and treatment of detainees (though I disagree with McCain and Warner). “We can only believe,” he then explained, “that republicans stay quiet because they need Bush as a fundraiser.” This, again, is a weak argument as many republicans are (foolishly?) trying to distance themselves from Bush.

Onek then launched into a speech on the “death of ‘Men of the Senate.’” He said, “Men like Robert C. Byrd don’t exist anymore. Those who run for senate typically see their seat as a springboard through which they can set themselves up for a run for the Presidency. Robert Byrd nobly set aside any chance of running for president and voted against the Civil Rights Act in order to reserve power for the Senate.” For me, this was an unbelievable statement. It was more noble for Byrd to act to protect his own power than it was for him to extend equal rights to minorities?

Onek blamed republicans for a majority of the problems, but then changed his tune and said, “We now have a republican administration in charge, but things would not be totally different with the democrats in charge.”

One would find it difficult to argue against many of the points Onek made. His case was not presented in an overly bias was which sought to place the majority of the blame on Bush. It was clear, though, the he was not a fan of our President. He did paint Bush as being politically incompetent as well as a power hungry leader. He did not, however, perpetuate the notion that Bush is somehow a tyrannical king.

One can, however, continue to argue whether there is even any validity in the illegality of the Guantanamo Bay situation. Most disturbing was the fact that he offered no alternative to the way Bush has carried out the War on Terror, even in the face of his own admission that seemingly the only alternative would be to kill all that are suspected of terrorist activity.

Following his speech, he led a question answer session. The first question right off the bat was, “Aren’t these offenses impeachable and when should we impeach him?” To his credit, Onek answered correctly. Firstly, he pointed out that there is no such thing as an “impeachable offense,” but rather that the House must make a case that he is worthy of impeachment for any particular reason. Secondly, he explained that he sees it as “most unlikely” that the democrats will win control of the Congress thereby enabling impeachment and that “impeachment would be a foolish case of bad judgment” on the part of the democrats.

The second question was, “well since we can’t impeach him, can’t he be tried for war crimes?” In response, Onek addressed Bush’s recent speech calling for protection of higher-ups from such charges. He also, again, said that it would be foolish for anyone to call for such charges, as it would open up opportunity for foreign nations to put out warrants for any number of things they see as “war crimes” or “war crime violations” and arrest, try and sentence a wide variety of leaders from a multitude of nations.

Someone then asked, “You keep saying POW, but these men can’t be POW’s can they? Congress hasn’t declared war?” At this point, Onek defended Bush. “In a very broad sense, they have declared war. Opponents of Bush can’t say that he hasn’t sought Congressional approval. If we seek to blame a specific group, we must blame Congress.”

The speech was informative and overall mostly unbiased. While he left many things unanswered, I can’t truly fault him for the case he attempted to make. Still, as we have seen so many times, it is so easy to outline the mistakes made in the aftermath of a decision, yet offer no alternatives. He truly could have been a spokesman for the entire political left’s biggest fault.