Obama and McCain Foreign Policy on Iran

On the issue of foreign affairs, Obama and McCain differ in several areas. Obama says that he will meet directly with leaders, while McCain did not really address meeting with leaders of Iran. They did agree on at least one point, which is the fact that use of the military is definitely still a major option.

Obama on Iran Foreign Affairs:
Plans to make the economic restrictions placed on Iran more strict. He says that he is not afraid and it is an option to use military force if needed. He says that he will institute direct diplomacy in the interactions between the U.S. and Iran. Obama says that he will meet with all leaders of Iran that are necessary after the U.S. diplomats have done their work.

Promises made by Obama for action in Iran:
A quote for Obama says, “I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. … Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up. … A serious, coordinated diplomatic effort will, if nothing else, change world opinion about our approach to Iran and will strengthen our ability should they choose not to stand down on the nuclear issue, for example, or to continue to engage in hostile activity even if directly inside Iraq.”
The promises listed in this are:
1)    He will meet directly with Iranian and Syrian leaders.
2)    He will engage in aggressive personal diplomacy.
3)    That Iran and Syria will change their behavior if they are given incentives.
4)    He will change the world’s opinion on how we are dealing with Iran.

McCain on Iran Foreign Affairs:
McCain plans to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran with the aid of several European nations. He says that he will not institute any form of unrestricted diplomacy. He also says that military action is still a possibility, but would only occur after consultation with congress.

Promises made by McCain for action in Iran:
A quote for McCain says, “What I would be concentrating my efforts on is trying to get a league of democracies outside of the U.N., because Russia and China are going to veto just about anything we want to act effectively against Iran, and those league of democracies should cut off any kind of loans, which are being extended as we speak by European banks; diplomatic, other sanctions to put real pressure on a rather fragile economy in Iran. I think that’s the way we should pursue this.”
The promises made here are:
1)    He will concentrate his efforts on forming a league outside of the U.N. that will cut off any kind of loans from European Banks.
2)    He says that he will not use unconditional diplomacy.

5th Amendment: All persons being arrested must be read their rights prior to interrogation

           The principle of being told your rights when arrested is a very important amendment. If I were to have been arrested and I didn’t know that I had the right to remain silent, I may just say what the man wants me to say in order to get him to refrain from beating and using cruel and unusual punishment on me.

 

The reason for the argument being set forth is as follows:

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”

• - http://www.essortment.com/all/mirandavsarizo_roui.htm

 

 

 

The ruling was that no admissions of guilt that where given before the reading of their rights cannot be used in a court case as evidence against the defendant. In the NY Times on June 13, 1968, it says, “Consequently, under the rulings, the prosecution cannot use in a trial any admissions or confessions made by the suspect while in custody unless it first proves that the police complied with a detailed list of safeguards to protect the right against self-incrimination.”(NY Times). In an excerpt from the full transcript of the case, it says, “The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.”

 

Sources:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0613.html#article

 

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-05/14-miranda-v-arizona.html

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436

The actual article as it was in the paper the morning after the ruling

Miranda being Arrested for kidnapping and rape

Miranda’ Mugshot

2nd Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms

            The second amendment is one of the most important amendments to me. This is because it protects the right for a citizen to bear firearms. I enjoy many outdoor activities, including hunting. Without the second amendment, I would not be able to enjoy this hobby which helps put food on the table the majority of the time. We will be looking at the District of Columbia v. Heller court case.

            Do the D.C. Codes 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 violate the 2^nd Amendment’s right for individuals not associated with military of any kind (U.S. military or state regulated military), but want to keep handguns and/or other firearms for private use in their homes?

            The verdict was that the D.C. Codes on gun restriction were unconstitutional. it was held that “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” This means that the supreme court found it to be unconstitutional for the District of Columbia to ban the citizens within D.C. to have a handgun in their private residency.

            I agree with this ruling because to take away a person’s mode of self-defense is to take away freedom and safety. The 2^nd amendment is the right to bear arms, not the right for military personnel to bear arms, just the right to bear arms. The ability to have a handgun is key to self defense. this was noted in the court case by a graphical representation which says that people who owned firearms and were robbed were 27% less likely to be injured during a robbery.

The District of Columbia v. Heller

Man expressing his right to bear arms

   

 

Sources:

www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.

http://lp.findlaw.com/

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller