Blog 5 summary

In the first blog post Jenna spoke about her shock that Nassir could be taken into custody based on the belief that he may be involved with terrorist attacks simply because he has been in contact via email with an Islamic man. However, Jenna did agree with the restrictions on civil liberties that have been strictly put in place since 9/11. Jenna pointed out that although it does come across as unfair that we are obviously discriminating against certain cultures and people who have interest in or relations to certain culture, the restrictions put in place are for the safety of our country—which when you look at as the big picture is more important. Jenna ended by pointing out that she does think Nassir should have been released as soon as the mistake had been realized.

Cassandra made the point that “holding military detainees as suspects and not as criminals is a threat to civil liberties”. Cassandra does believe that the government, especially after 9/11, should have stricter enforcements even if it does mean detaining people who make threats against our country. She quoted the video when it said ‘”a threat is not simply intention, it is also accessibility to methods’”, and expanded on this thought by saying that there is no way to know if someone who makes a threat will or will not follow through with it. Cassandra also pointed out that detaining suspects is important because of the threat to the community if the suspect were released. She stated the fact that over 120 people have been indicted in federal court on terrorism charges over the past two years. She ends by saying that detaining these people who have made threats is all a part of making our country a safer place to live.

Blog 5

Another point in the video that was talked about is how holding military detainees as suspects and not as criminals is a threat to civil liberties. It is a controversial issue and some people will actually say that the United States has lowered their threshold of civil liberties to be able to get their hands on more suspected terrorists. I personally do think that especially after the 9/11 events, that the government should have stricter enforcements, and if it means detaining people who make threats against our country, so be it. Who’s to say that someone that makes a threat is just doing that and won’t actually act out their threat, even after being reprimanded. It is noted in the video that “a threat is not just simply intention, it is also accessibility to methods”, which I agree with completely. If someone makes a threat to do something, more times than not they have the methods to go through with their threat, or there are chances that they have accessibility to those methods through someone else. Also, another reason for detaining certain suspects regardless of civil liberties is because if they are released back into the community, they are apt to either commit the crime they threatened to do, or they will retry to commit the terrorist act that they attempted in the first place.
In the past two years there have been over 120 people indicted in federal court on terrorism charges, about 50 of those being United States citizens. I think that detaining those who make threats regardless of any criminal activity, is only helping our government and our nation as a whole become a better and safer place. Without our military and government taking a stand and detaining all of those who make threats, there could very well be even more terrorist attacks that are attempted against us

Blog # 5

In the video clip, “Presidential Power to Detain” they discussed an issue that shocked me. A sixth-generation Lebanese American man named Nassir took great interest in the Islamic culture, and spoke the language fluently. After being on vacation he returned home to just be detained by the police. When his plan landed Nassir was waiting in line when he was taken into custody, because they thought he might have to do something with a terrorists attack. Even being an American citizen they took him into custody and was told he may not have access to a legal counsel. They had suspicion on Nassir because he had been emailing another Islamic man. Even though these emails where harmless they took this into great consideration, especially after the act of 9/11 and other bombings after that. I agreed with everything that Viet D. Dinh discussed while being asked the question what he thinks about it.

I feel the restrictions on civil liberties that are discussed in these videos are somewhat reasonable. I feel this way because ever since the 9/11 attacks they have had to buckle down on exactly who is coming in and out of our country. Even though we try not to discriminate it is also hard not to at this moment, because we’ve already made a mistake even letting the terrorist bombers on our plans in the first place. I feel if they need to make necessary steps to secure out country I think they have every right too. On the other hand I feel that once they realized that Nassir has nothing to do with any terrorist attacks that they should release him.

blog # 4

This is not a piece or law or legislature; but rather something of a petition or rallying point. Hence the name "Declaration of Sentiments"; it merely stated how women felt at the time. It raises many good points, and I naturally fully believe in the rights of woman, but one thing I could not overlook was the line, "woman [have] too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her[.]" It raises the question that if women were satisfied with their lives, whose right was it to dictate what they should do? Although this is a call to action, it is still a calling of authority, to state that any woman who was content with her life should not be. That aside, the major point of this document, from my viewpoint, was, "and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind." I was surprised this line did not make it into the final "Declaration of Sentiments", because it is completely true. Disregarding the reference to faith, it is abundantly clear that men should not be the only gender free to choose a path in life. You should not compare the rights of woman at the current time, or in the past, when deciding on the rights of women, or anyone one for that matter, in the future.

Blog #4

In 1848 there was a Women's Rights Convention held at Seneca Falls. In the 1800's women never had rights, well at least rights that men had. It finally became a problem for the women and they came together and spoke up for themselves. In The Declaration of Sentiments, there is a quote that states, "That man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness." I feel that it shouldn't matter if you’re a man or a women, you deserve to pursue your own happiness. This is why they felt the need to change this rule and be equal as a whole and not just rule referring to the men. "The women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they -live, that they may no longer publish their degradation, by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want." I feel this quote is very strong by pointing out what laws they will live under. Men had always degraded women back then. I feel that since the Women's Rights Convention happened, any women, in any state, can pursue their live anyway they want. Whether it may be getting into the political aspect, or becoming a teacher and not being a house wife to 10 plus children. Women have dreams as any man might. They want to live their lives knowing there is no regulation, or laws as to what they can and can't do. And last but not least, "That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such." This is exactly what happened; both man and women became equal.

Blog 4

The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions Woman's Rights Convention was a convention held in 1848 in order to give woman equal rights with men.


One of the main points in the convention was that all men and women are created equally by GOD and they should be treated as such. The way that they were treated at that present time, and in the past before that, was anything less than equal, they were degraded and looked down upon purely just because they were not males. They stated in their speech that women should indeed have the same rights as men, and that they are more than fully capable of it.


Overall, I am overly thankful for this convention in the past, who knows where us women would be today without it, I probably wouldn't be sitting here doing this assignment, because I wouldn't be allowed to go to college for an education. It is weird to think back and hear that women and men didn't always have equal rights, especially since we always have since I was born. Personally though, there are times and situations where I feel that men may still have the upper hand, but people can't let it be known because of the equal rights movement --they could get into a lot of trouble. All I know is that I am thankful to be a woman, thankful for these equal rights, and thankful that I live in the present day instead of the past!

Week 4 Blog

The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions that was announced at the Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls was a declaration that women are to be treated equally with men all around the world. After the declaration was announced it was to be “binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times”. What was declared was, according to Blackstone, “Dictated by God himself”, and should be taken very seriously.

A main point of the declaration was that God created mankind to be equal. God is mentioned heavily throughout the reading in the sense that what they were speaking about had a strong religious undertone to it. In the Declaration of Sentiments it was said that, “When, in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course”. In other words, this declaration was to enforce the “laws of nature” that God himself intended, and to no obey the rules would be going against what God wanted.

Another main point was to acknowledge how women had been treated by men in history, so that they could move forward and treat women fairly and equally. The points that were mentioned, and along with the statement that “women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights” finished out the declaration by asking for women to have “immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens”.

Blog 3 Summary

This week was about Lyndon Johnson and his fight for the rights of blacks. The first poster started off the week with strong points that the discrimination problem our country faced was not one of one specific region, race or party, but a problem for every single American. It was also aptly put that the issue of bipartisanship has always been a problem in our country, since everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, and as well as being a problem back then, it is a problem right now. That we all need to come together, under one flag as we are, and stand united to protect people’s right, and protect the Constitution. This was expounded upon by the second poster of the week, who stated that not only is discrimination wrong and not what our country was founded on, but it is a hypocrisy to our soldiers, who have fought, and will continue to fight, to make sure that we are a free and just democracy. It was nicely stated that, “[I]t is one of the privileges of living in the United States that we have a democracy, and that what we say as citizens is valued. To take that right away, or to weaken that right, based on race, religion or whatever reason is not what being an American [is] about.” This was elegantly put because no man, nor woman for that matter, is better than any other, and what one gets, so should the others. No matter if the person is of another color, faith or anything else. Our rights are our most valuable possessions. The last post of the week added nicely and to the topic. The poster hit on key points, such as the extreme racial riot which broke out between blacks traveling to in hopes of voting, and police officers, charged with upholding the law, who did not see blacks as having the God given right to vote. During a speech, a week after the riot, Johnson, who was outraged that anyone should be denied rights set forth in the Constitution, brought to the public’s attention a bill he was submitting which would abolish voting restrictions, previously used to keep those the majority deemed undesirable from voting. And if local state officials refused to register anyone desiring to vote, the United States Government had the right to register anyone for local and national elections and polls. One of the most important points of the poster was, “You would think that if the entire nation saw that their president, a white man, was to stand up for the rights of African Americans, the rest of the nation would follow through with him in order to do their best to be [‘good citizens’].” This largely pointed out that Johnson wasn’t fighting for just one race, but for all races. Whether he liked or disliked blacks didn’t matter because they were American citizens, and he believed in standing up for the rights of all American citizens, regardless.