S is for Syria

What is America's role in the international community?

What is the one thing they can do, that no other country can do?

In my opinion it is very simple, America fights to protect those that can't protect themselves. We can stand up to bullies and this makes the world a little safer.

Sometimes this works well. Like that time we:
-helped defeat Germany in World War I
-helped defeat Hitler in World War II
-stopped Japan
-took back Kuwait from Iraq in the Gulf War: Part I

Sometimes, admittedly, we stick our nose where it doesn't belong in the name of "standing up to bullies." Like that time we:
-entered the Vietnam war on false pretense in the name of fighting communism
-used the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government

and most recently

-invaded Iraq in the name of a "preemptive attack" to merely prevent the risk of chemical weapons (that turns out didn't exist) from being used.

That last one is in my mind one of the biggest black eyes on America in all of history. It went against everything we believe in. We don't attack, we aren't the aggressors, we are the protectors- at least we should be. But in taking over Iraq, whether we had bad intelligence or simply bad motives, we were wrong. Our soldiers fought bravely over there, they paid the ultimate sacrifice to do good and I will always respect them, their memory and their families who gave so much to let them fight. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake to invade a foreign country that wasn't attacking us or our allies.

Sometimes, we should do something, but we don't. Like that time:

-Clinton stood back and watched during the genocide in Rwanda. Somewhere between 500,000 and a 1,000,000 people were killed, most of them slaughtered with machetes. To this day Clinton sees his inaction as one of the biggest regrets of his presidency.

It should be noted, that Clinton was gun shy. We had recently been embarrassed in Somalia, where American soldiers were dragged through the streets for the camera as made famous by "Black Hawk Down," and we didn't want another international embarrasment on that same scale. That historical context is important to the situation we are faced with now.

Syria apparently has used chemical weapons, sarin gas to be specific. A neurotoxin that according to the CDC may result in: vomiting, convulsions, paralysis, and respiratory failure possibly leading to death. Over 1200 were killed, somewhere near 3,000 affected - most of whom were civilians including women and children. It appears that al-Assad has crossed the bright line drawn in the sand by Obama himself. He has bombed a highly populated civilian area.

So, what is our President going to do?

Ten years ago, there wouldn't have even been a question. Democrat or Republican, there would have been no other option but a fierce and immediate military response. We are the protectors, we are the only country with the power and the resolve to fight off the international bullies. But Obama is gun shy.

It isn't ten years ago though, Iraq happened. America will deal with the consequences of Iraq for years to come. But does that mean we ignore Syria? Work through diplomatic means? (Which is short-hand for slapping Syria on the wrist.)

A lot of Americans may think that after Iraq we have lost the moral high ground, that we can't behave like we used to. I just don't buy that. We are America and we will continue to be the protectors. Obama seems appears to be taking his time in deciding how to respond, making sure he has all the facts. John Kerry has said that Syria's us of chemical weapons is "undeniable," yet Obama sits and waits. And as he waits, innocent people continue to die.

Its your move, Mr. President.

Z is for Zimmerman

I've followed the Zimmerman trial, not that I had much choice. News about the trial has been everywhere, but now that the verdict has come out, it is suddenly very uncomfortable to discuss the trial unless your opinion is the following:

Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, and our system has failed an innocent boy letting a murderer go free.

I don't agree with this statement (there, I said it), I will agree however, that our country on a regular basis is failing the poor, failing minorities and failing to protect innocent people. In law school I saw this first hand working for a Judge dealing with criminal matters. The minorities that came through the system on average got longer sentences than the white people.

What is interesting is WHY they got longer sentences. Some of the minorities refused council, meaning they wouldn't allow their public defenders defend them, another tried to trick the judge and was caught in his fabrication. What they all had in common was that they couldn't afford counsel, and they didn't trust the system. So they paid for it with longer sentences. This is neither fair, nor just.

Why didn't they trust the system? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing its because in their experience, the justice system had always failed them, their friends and their families. They have every right to be untrusting and angry about this.

So why are they so angry about Zimmerman?

The Zimmerman trial is a stark example of inequality, but not in the way most people think.

It is unfair, not because Zimmerman walked free, it is unfair because if Zimmerman had been poor and black- the outcome would have likely been very different.

If Zimmerman were black and poor...
1. He would have likely been encouraged to plead guilty of manslaughter to avoid risking a murder sentence
2. He wouldn't have been able to afford anything beyond a public defender
3. The jury might not have believed his side of the story, partly because of his race and partly because of his economic status.
4. It wouldn't have been news, if Martin had committed the crime it would have been just another murder between two minorities (remember Zimmerman is half-latino.)

Am I sure this is how it would play out? No, but minorities (of which African-Americans seem to deal with the most inequality) have to deal with a system on a regular basis that far too often doesn't bring them the justice they deserve. This is totally unfair, but it doesn't change the facts of the Zimmerman case.

Look, Zimmerman was a jerk, Zimmerman was probably racially profiling Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was stupid to ignore the 9-11 dispatcher and get out of his car, and Zimmerman was stupid to have been carrying a gun. But these are not the crimes he was charged with.

After hearing all the facts, the jury got it right. Zimmerman is not a murderer. Looking at the evidence the jury had, they could not find Zimmerman guilty. Is it possible that the facts aren't at all like the neighbor witnessed, Zimmerman claimed, or the scientific evidence seem to suggest? Absolutely, it is possible that Zimmerman got out of the car, shot Martin in cold blood and then inflicted wounds to the back of his head and broke his nose on purpose to make it look like self-defense. That is possible, but there is zero evidence of those claims. So what other choice did the jury have?

Asking the jury to take a leap and imagine facts that were not in the record, would be just as unfair as the racial profiling that likely happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed. We need to fix the system, I've seen that and witnessed it first hand. But in my opinion, the jury got it right this time.