Indeed, “just war” and peace. U.S. Commander-in-chief Obama targeted the Kingdom of Norway aboard his fleet, Air Force One, before indiscriminately firing over 4,200 words at a peace rally in Oslo yesterday. This half-hour engagement was due to the controverted Nobel Peace Prize awarded him back in October. Many are still in shock apparently.
I just finished watching, listening, and reading the President’s speech. It was both politically and diplomatically unusual. President Obama said the word “kill” more times in one half hour than his predecessors said in their lifetimes. I’m not kidding, I’ve looked. Just kidding. I really haven’t looked.
That fun “fact” aside, the President offered nothing less of an intellectual defense of war. He allegedly wrote the entire speech himself and only solicited speechwriters for tone and such.
The Lecture in a Nutshell
At the very outset, Obama’s speech carried an implicit call to action. Immediately after greeting his audience, for example, the President said the award “speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.” (emphasis supplied). This was everything except an introduction to pacifism. He went on to acknowledge the controversy surrounding his selection, admitting his relatively slight accomplishments and naming others perhaps ”far more deserving of this honor” than he.
“Some will kill, and some will be killed,” Obama bluntly remarked, referencing his decision to deploy troops to Afghanistan. He summarized the history of war and explored the concept of a “just war,” once applied before to defeat the Third Reich and the Axis powers. Obama further highlighted American leadership in “constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.” He cited the benefits of commerce and “ideals of liberty . . . self-determination, equality and the rule of law . . . [as] a legacy for which [the United States] is rightfully proud.”
Obama then addressed twenty-first century threats, namely terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Although fear of war between superpowers have waned, he reaffirmed the “risk of catastrohpy” remains in the context of proliferation. The President also mentioned the smaller conflicts and tragedies that presently cripple otherwise upstanding societies. But he forthrightly proffered no solutions. Instead, he described the attributes of a people prepared to meet the challenges confronting us today — “vision, hard work, and persistence” of the sort previously exhibited by generations past. The President recognized the task ”will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.”
While the President acknowledged Gandhi and Martin Luther King’s message of peace, as well as the “moral force of non-violence,” he made clear his special allegiance to America as her head of state, protector and defender. Obama expressed that he
face[s] the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
(emphasis added). He then reminded reflexive pacifists that treaties alone did not secure stability after WWII, and although mistakes were made, Obama explained that simply put, ”[t]he United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.” ”[T]he instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace,” he continued. And apart from self-defense, the President stated that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds as well, alluding to the notion of coercive intervention if necessary in other nations.
Obama also demanded that “all responsible nations . . . embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.” Attempting to solicit their support, Obama said to countries ambivalent about military action that ”[t]he belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice,” the President cautioned.
Obama made a slight turn at this point in his discourse and effectively delivered a veiled criticism of lax international rules governing sanctions of insubordinate regimes. Again, he called for enforcement. He called for the world to assertively stand as one essentially. Obama then observed that even in the absence of visible conflict peace cannot be had where egregious human rights violations, political turmoil, and suppression of dissenting speech remain, threatening violence.
Interestingly, Obama immediately directed his remarks at the social relativists, who staunchly believe in the cultural integrity of societies different from our own, justifying otherwise oppressive “cultural” practices. The President warned that “even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.” He then proceeded to stress the importance of political rights and the dangers of religious fanaticism before ending his message that we can ”understand . . . there will be war, and still strive for peace.”
Politics Unusual
I couldn’t help but recognize that Obama sounded like a Truman democrat and not like the reflexive pacifist that neo-conservatives expected. In fact, Republican leaders (and Sarah Palin) have reacted positively to the speech. I think this is an important point considering that people generally believe Republicans are stronger than Democrats on defense. Obama’s unapologetic mention of his recent deployment to Afghanistan certainly came as a surprise to all — and what a pleasant one for conservatives.
I say pleasant for two reasons. First, conservatives can rest easy that our president is not afraid to walk soft and swing the big stick. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly in my judgment, Obama may now have articulated the same message former President Bush kept butchering many times before. Obama’s engagement in Afghanistan is a ’bushism’ of sorts. Politically, I suppose then, Republicans contemplating a 2012 campaign can rest easy knowing that if the President continues upon this course, it will be difficult for Democrats to distance one from the other on the issue of defense.
Indeed, recent polls may be a sign. As of December 7, 2009, for instance, Obama’s approval ratings had slipped to 47 percent according to the most recent Gallup poll. (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Presidential+Job+Approval.aspx). On Afghanistan, moreover, his numbers were at 37 percent on December 1, 2009, and they have been at low 50s for some time prior to that. For a President who has made history a few times, it may well be that Obama has made history, yet again, with his 47 percent approval as the worst rating of any president during his first year. Somebody should check the accuracy of that statement — but the point is that his numbers are worse than low.
Of course I’m not questioning Obama’s competence to lead our country. I realize our President inherited much, if not all, of the current disasters we face today. I do submit, however, that his low numbers indeed reflect the sentiments of an electorate, which are replete with information of great political import. Republicans might seize on that.
It was definitely unsual to hear a modern Democrat speak to the international community with the authority Obama preached, especially in defense of war. Maybe this is partly the reason Obama’s numbers have slipped. I do not know.
By the way, President Obama said ”war” about 44 times during his discourse. He mentioned “peace” (including “peacemaking” and “peaceful”) about 32 times. He also said “force” about 10 times. And he said “kill” five times. I thought these were important to share because they contributed to the assertive tone with which Obama spoke.
CV
What a case – for Lexis and Westlaw that is. Google Scholar is currently offering gratuitous legal research services thus far dominated by the two legal research monsters. It’s true. Google issued a ‘slip opinion’ on the matter early Tuesday, November 17, on its official blog.
There has been an increasingly high number of domestic disputes resulting from careless text messaging. Some text messages, for example, reveal infidelity, resulting in divorce. Others implicate parenting skills and evidence abuse, prompting custody battles and restraining orders respectively. In any case, text messages have apparently become a smoking gun of sorts, according to the National Law Journal. See (
Incriminating text messages have especially favored aggrieved spouses during settlement negotiations, and have embarrassed public figures. In custody cases, text messages have shown children’s dissatisfaction with a custodial parent. A Florida case, for instance, involved text messages from a child to the noncustodial parent complaining about problems with the other parent. As regards abuse prevention (or restraining) orders, moreover, text messages may be sufficient proof of either abuse or imminent threat thereof. Articles written on the issue further suggest that while emails have become fairly standard proof in domestic matters, text messages are not very far behind. They are apparently widely accepted evidence in French courts. 
On April 28, 2009, Charles A. Joyce and James R. Voigt (“plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Pepsico (“Pepsi”) and distributors, Wis-Pak, Inc. (“WP”) and Carolina Canners, Inc. (“CC”) (collectively referred to as “defendants”) in Jefferson County Circuit Court, Wisconsin, alleging defendants misappropriated trade secrets. Specifically, plaintiffs say they entered into contractually binding confidential talks in 1981 with one Arnold E. Fobes, then Vice-President of WP and CC regarding bottled water as a product idea. That idea, plaintiffs contend, was improperly shared with Pepsi officials, who subsequently turned it into Aquafina.
The same secretary received notice of the judgment on October 5, which she promptly delivered to Pepsi’s legal department. Pepsi found out about the lawsuit and judgment the next day. Meanwhile, attorneys presumably labored overtime to draft a motion and accompanying memorandum seeking to vacate the judgment, finally appearing in court for the first time on October 13 to explain everything. The court will hear Pepsi on its motion to vacate this Friday, November 6, 2009. 
The confidential talks between Plaintiffs and officials from WP and CC regarding the bottled water idea occurred in 1981. According to Pepsi, Aquafina has been sold in Wisconsin since 1996. Accordingly, Pepsi argues that the 3-year limitations period began to run somewhere around 1996 as the Aquafina sales in the state should’ve alerted Plaintiffs to the alleged misappropriation. However, Plaintiffs counter that the period should be tolled — maybe. Nonetheless, the statute of limitations defense seems sufficiently meritorious to me.
The American Dream, national borders, undocumented aliens, and deportation — we’ve heard enough about them. Alien fathers, mothers, and families are mentioned. But alien children without them have been completely ignored. They are labeled “unaccompanied alien children.” Naturally, the Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”) organization, in partnership with national law firms and corporate counsel, has long offered them legal representation, and Soledad O’Brien’s CNN documentary, Latino in America, gave them a national voice last week. Still, children are denied appointment of counsel during a critical stage.
The very circumstances that motivate migration inside our borders also compel emigration outside of them. Most of us experience only the result. All unaccompanied alien children cannot be said to simply emigrate from their home countries, where most of them actually escape from them. The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) reported that approximately 7,200 children came to the U.S. completely unaccompanied in 2008, escaping abuse, violence, abandonment, and poverty, or looking to reunite with family members, or searching for jobs to support family back home. 
The ORR is an office “within the Department of Health and Human Services” whose director is “appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.” 8 U.S.C. § 1521(a). It is charged with the obligation to “fund and administer (directly or through arrangements with other Federal agencies), in consultation with the Secretary of State” federal government ‘immigration and nationality’ programs. 8 U.S.C. § 1521(b). Unaccompanied alien children are predominantly Latino. In FY08, for instance, the ORR housed between 500 to 1500 unaccompanied children, of which 30.8% were Honduran, 27% Guatemalan, 23.4% El Salvadoran, 10.6% Mexican, 3.2% Ecuadoran, 0.8% Nicaraguan, and 0.5% Brazilian. Furthermore, 78% of those children were male and 22% were female. 13% were 14 years old or younger. All face the prospect of deportation. 
The regulation above sets forth preliminary deportation procedures beginning with “examinations,” which are generally conducted by a non-arresting officer and mainly regard the manner of entry to the states. If the examining officer finds sufficient evidence of unlawful entry, he may refer the case to an immigration judge or consider expedited removal alternatives, including voluntary departures. There, the alien will be given reasons for the arrest and a list of organizations offering free legal services. Hiring private counsel is always an option. Absent voluntary departure, finally, a decision regarding deportation should be made in approximately 48 hours. 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a)-(d). 
If you didn’t get through, or even bother to read, either the legal-ease or the not-legal-ease sections of this note because it was simply boring, that’s okay — really. I intended for it to have precisely that effect on you to show the unrealistic expectations of our legal system. Mind you, the rules I referenced above are but a fraction of the entire body of immigration law that children are expected to understand if they wish to prevail in deportation proceedings — original hearing and subsequent appeal. 
The Constitution has been interpreted to require appointment of counsel to indigent criminal defendants facing possible jail time. Regarding juveniles, however, case law also makes it “unquestionably clear that juvenile court proceedings that affect a young person’s substantial rights must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment . . . in the same manner as must criminal proceedings affecting the substantial rights of adults.” Kemplen v. Maryland, 428 F.2d 169, 173 (4th Cir. 1970) (writing in the context of a juvenile jurisdiction waiver hearing). Courts have reaffirmed that “[i]n all cases children need advocates to speak for them and guard their interests, particularly when disposition decisions are made. It is the disposition stage . . . in which the danger inheres that the court’s coercive power will be applied without adequate knowledge of the circumstances.” Id. at 175 (same). 
I hope the facts of this case, while interesting, are not intimately familiar to you at all. In summary, Harris was driving his green Altima around town on New Year’s eve in 2005. Meanwhile, a police dispatcher received an anonymous call describing Harris, his vehicle, the area, a fraction of his plate numbers, and accusing him of drunk driving. An officer was promptly dispatched to the area mentioned. 
Once there, the officer pulled up behind the Altima and followed it. According to the officer, Harris was under the speed limit throughout this episode, activating his breaklights three times – the first time he slowed down at an intersection on which he had the right of way; the second time he slowed down 50 feet prior to a red traffic light; and the third time Harris finally pulled over to the side of the road on his own initiative. The officer also pulled over and activated his overhead lights signaling a traffic stop. The officer approached Harris’ vehicle and smelled alchohol, noticed Harris’ glossy eyes and slurred speech. He proceeded to arrest Harris for DWI. 
Chief Justice Roberts seems to have been persuaded to review the case because of the nature of the crime alleged — drunk driving. He writes that ”[t]he decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late.” Justice Roberts further notes that many jurisdictions do not consider it Constitutionally offensive to permit officers to stop suspected drunk drivers without signs of unsafe or dangerously erratic driving, while others find otherwise, warranting a clear answer from the Court. “The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ‘one free swerve’ before they can be legally pulled over by police,” said Justice Roberts. Finally, he concludes that “[i]t will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.” Justice Scalia joined his dissent.
