Legitimate Cause to Attack Libya?

I find it interesting that with current air strikes on Libyan soil, there has been no tagline or reasoning in terms of US interests for why we are attacking Libya given by the White House. In other words, by Afghanistan the rallying point was September 11^th and by Iraq it was the fear that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. With the current attacks on Libya, there seems to be no one within the government even claiming that there are US interests at stake that are causing us to launch attacks.

                The question then becomes why are we launching military attacks against Libya? President Obama stated his reasoning for why the US finds itself engaged with Libya militarily:

The "core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community also unanimously says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy, decides to turn his military on his own people, that we simply can't stand by with empty words, that we have to take some action (http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-coalition-attacks-intensify/story?id=13182261 ) .”

The problem with this reasoning is that there are other countries in the world, even on the continent, that are undergoing a “potential humanitarian crisis” and have leaders who have lost their legitimacy. If other countries are undergoing the same issues as Libya, why is Obama able to get away with circumventing congress and launching an attack against a country that posses almost zero threat to the US? Why hasn’t the media completely attacked this decision, like both times the US invaded Iraq?

                The reason that Obama has been able to get away with military action without having to come up with an official tagline or reason to satisfy the American people is, I believe, simply because the US is acting multilaterally. For the first time in a while, the US is going along with rest of the world; the US is not acting on its own accord in a military engagement. Because a UN resolution has been passed, many people feel that there must be legitimate cause for invasion in Libya, even when we have not been presented with a concrete reason of why we need to launch air strikes against Libya and not a whole bunch of other unstable countries.

A Rare Absence of Media Bias

“Frantic Effort at Plant as Japan Raises Warning Level”- New York Times

“Nuclear plant’s emergency level up”- Washington Post

“Devastation in Japan:A frantic effort to stem spread” – The Boston Globe

I think it’s interesting to note that with all the media bias in America, there have been no significant differences in the way the media and press has been reporting the tragic events in Japan. In other words, as opposed to the murder in Itamar, no one has been raving about the unfair way that the media is covering the story there, because as can be seen from the titles of the story from three major newspapers, they’re all basically reporting the story the same way. The York Times and the Boston Globe even used the same adjective, “frantic,” to describe the efforts of the Japanese.

            This has to do with the fact that a lot of media bias isn’t necessarily intentional, but just a consequence of the fact that usually the journalist has some interest in the story. When a journalist is writing for the New York Times about something that occurred in Israel, chances are they have feelings on the matter one way or another. This feeling that they have then comes out in the way they cover the story, as we discussed in class.

            Japanese nuclear power is not a hot topic in the US, and thus the top stories that are being published about it don’t differ significantly in the way the story is being framed. Presumably, the journalists all the believe that the Japanese citizens had the right to live where they were and agree that this is a tragedy, and thus they have no reason to add their own biases to the way the story is presented.

Basic agreement if you live in the US: You don't try to mess us over, and we'll let you decide when to wear clothes.

“Obama Defends Detention Conditions for Soldier Accused in WikiLeaks Case

By SCOTT SHANE

The president said he had been assured that measures such as forcing Pfc. Bradley Manning to sleep without clothing were justified and for his safety.” (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html)

            Whether or not you like Mr. Obama, I think the President deserves some props for this.

            Here’s why: Private First Class Bradley Manning decided for himself, over the better judgment of all his superiors and also of the United States Government, that certain information deserved to be seen by the world at large, and thus he took it into his own hands and leaked private information illegally. This information was not his to leak, it wasn’t about him, and it didn’t affect him. It was about, and affected, other people.

            Presumably, Private First Class Bradley wants to sleep in his clothes. Even if he didn’t, he would still want the right to decide for himself whether or not to sleep in them. Maybe he would want to start with them off and then put them back on when it gets cold. Using Private Manning’s own logic in illegally leaking information to Wikileaks, President Obama decided to take away Private Manning’s clothes at night.

            Is this a suitable punishment for leaking possibly vital government information to a foreign source? Of course not. It is, however, a clever way for Obama to stick it to a traitor. There are few things Obama can do to him before he is convicted under US law. Taking away his clothes at night is one of the few things he can do at this stage, and it’s fitting for someone who tried to mess over a lot of people to not get any mercy from the President. It’s always scary when someone outside yourself makes important decisions for you; but because Manning doesn’t seem to feel this way, it’s perfectly appropriate for Obama to decide the Private shouldn’t get to sleep with his clothes on, claiming it’s for Manning’s own safety.

            I also think this lends itself to a bigger debate about what’s more important, your supposed rights or the safety of other people. Private Manning decided that people have the “right” to see what is going on inside the American Govt. and thus he risked doing a lot of damage by leaking private information. The New York Times had the “right” to publish the information about the money-tracking system that was in use by banks to catch terrorists. However, in my opinion, the editors should’ve said to themselves that it’s more important for our government to keep on tracking these dangerous groups than it is for a random American citizen to know how they are tracked. There are things that are more important than the right of the citizens to know about information that don’t affect them.

           

Bill vs. Mr. President

One of President Clinton's main arguments why the American people should forgive him for his "inappropriate" relationship with Mrs. Lewinsky was that a president is entitled to a private life, and thus what he does with his interns is none of the concern of the general American public. Now, although I happen to agree with him, I just thought I would validate the other side for a moment.

What makes it wrong has nothing to do with the fact that he’s being two faced or whatever, because not cheating on your wife is not one of the platforms that presidents run for. In other words, I don’t think it’s hypocritical to be an amazing leader and then go home and cheat on your wife, because that doesn’t interfere with your leadership abilities. Plenty of people that I’ve never met cheat on their wives, and that doesn’t bother me in the slightest. So it doesn’t bother me if Bill Clinton cheats on his wife either.

A stronger claim that can be made against cheating on your wife while in office is the fact that being the president is a full time job. If there’s an emergency at three o’clock in the morning, we expect the President to get his tuchus out of bed and deal with it. In other words, our tax dollars are paying him to be on duty 24 hours a day every day for the duration of his term. So now, if you look at it that way, the President was engaging in an activity that he himself called inappropriate while we, the American people, were paying him with our tax dollars that we worked hard to make.

So from that perspective, I can understand why someone would care that the president cheated on his wife while in office- because essentially, we were paying him to commit a morally reprehensible act. We don’t care what the Bill Clinton does with whoever he wants to do it with; we do, however, care what President Clinton does while we are the ones paying him to do it.

The right to know everything?

Chapter 19 in The Press discusses the right of reporters to go into the field of battle with troops. The claim is that it’s unconstitutional to stop the media to see what’s going on in our country’s wars. Thus, they demand protection from the soldiers in battle.
I think in this case the media is acting entitled to something it’s not entitled to. While I agree that there could be constitutional issues with censoring material that comes back from wars, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the US army saying, “You can come, but we don’t have to protect you.” Having reporters embedded with soldiers in the field, I would imagine as clearly I’m not an expert on this, would be a big annoyance to soldiers fighting. You have to waste space on transports to take them to and from the front, waste uniforms on them, waste food on them. You have to worry about them getting in the way.
Now, if they were defending a constitutional right, then I would agree that it’s an annoyance that the army needs to learn how to cope with. However, when the framers of the constitution framed the constitution, they didn’t add any stipulations about the people’s right to know exactly what happens on the field of battle that America’s armed forces fight in. So I don’t think America should be allowed to stop reporters from finding their own way to get to the field of battle and risking their lives to get some footage. I just don’t think the army should have to have any obligation to go out of their way to keep them alive. 

Cops don’t have to be bothered by reporters following them around while they're on duty and having to worry about protecting them on sting operations; I don’t our armed forces should have to either.