Did anybody ever watch the USA's series JAG. Big fan! It's about the military justice system and the lawyers who take on the cases specifically for the U.S. Navy- the Judge Advocate General i.e. JAG. Really good series, if y'all are every bored or just wanna see a pretty good made for tv series- I'm telling you.... JAG.
FYI USA programming, you can send the check to my campus mailbox for that plug. LOL.
Back on topic- So my topic is going to be should "enemy combatants" i.e. terrorists be allowed to face trial in a civilian court of law or face military tribunals?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No, I never watch JAG, and you're the first person I've ever heard talk about it. I think the Nielsen ratings are screwed (reminiscent of "Man of the Year"). :)
What are you referring to that we talked about at the coffee shop? I think the "enemy combatants" topic is really solid...
Let's not turn this whole definition of a "social issue" into a huge debate. Different sociologists and scholars have defined it as a number of different things (as we learned in class). It doesn't have to apply to the majority of the population, only a "specific segment" or "a significant number of society's population" (i.e. students, families, financial institutions). But I understand why you see a social issue as one that only applies to the majority of the population, given your personal definition of one (noted in your "Against All" post). I also know that you value small government; however, federal student aid and loan rates don't apply to the majority of the population. It is a social issue that only affects a specific, substantial segment, and it is something worth addressing.
Its not so much I disagree with using government to resolve issues... I just have a problem with the definition of what a problem is. People for example being denyed say same-sex unions... I see that more of a social issue. Regulating healthcare and the economic welfare of its citizens, not an issue that government has the authority to address.
I'm not targeting you, roger rabbit, wink wink you will remain anonymous. But people should re-read (or even READ) the Constitution. The federal govt. has a very limited role.
I think I'm being flexible that given if a majority of a populace is being affected over a sustainable amount of time then the government should act to reduce the problem to the best of its ability.
As far as student aid, I feel that education is by far the best counter to welfare. Education is pivotal to succedding in life and the govt. should be a partner in addition with private organization along with parents to share the burden to pay for higher education. Though I will go out on a limb and say the most ghastly- I do not think everybody has the right to higher education. You must earn that right.
Trending backwards, you mentioned your topic that you nor I at the moment can think of... I was merely commenting on my frustration that neither one of us can remember what we discussed.
Post a Comment