The United States has engaged in numerous invasive efforts all over the world in the past couple decades to quell foreign threats to the nation. None more influential and costly than the invasions of Middle Eastern nations in order to continue our efforts in combating terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Ever since September 11, 2001 the United States has been combating threats in different parts of the Middle East such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But there needs to be a certain amount of intelligence and information that needs to be gathered and when there are high profile targets being captured, its almost an unlimited amount of information that could be gleaned.
While this sounds like it's wonderful news, the fact that the United States has information to be used, it must be obtained in some form or fashion. This is where things start to get a little scary. Ever since United States forces entered foreign soil there has been the necessity for prisons and interrogation facilities for high profile terrorists; or at least that is what the public is told. The public has been told that Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or EIT's are what are used to obtain information about certain threats. The general public now knows these techniques fall under a different sort of criteria, this being torture. The history of torture tactics being used has been quite rich in the fact that it is very graphic and incredibly disturbing. Reports from the main interrogation sites including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have shown that inhumane conditions, procedures, and a multitude of other humane rights violations had been committed at least one hundred times over and this makes for one of the absolute most horrifying cases of human desecration in the history of mankind.
Now coming to the real issue at hand, why was there no evidence to be seen? Once the images that were released in 2004 were viewed by the public eye, general outrage was sparked and the United States government now had to scrutinize its staff closely in the Middle East and had to monitor more closely how their prisoners were being treated and handled. There were hundreds of hours of this torturing that was documented on tape and in pictures but the CIA interrogation tapes were all destroyed and no one seemed to know by whom. The order was given by a lead CIA operations officer by the name of Jose Rodriguez but the actual destruction of the tapes was never documented, they just "disappeared" never to be seen. The effect of the public seeing the tapes would have been far worse than the reaction to them hearing about the existence of these tapes. The situation is ongoing and there are still investigations occurring but the only action that can be taken is against those who were documented taking part in the events and contributing to the illicit activities. The documentation of these torture tactics continue to spark public outrage and most likely will continue to do so.
Again and again same sex marriage has had a way of working it's way into the spotlight of mainstream media as well as mainstream politics. Now it could become apart of our nation's mainstream social policy which is an incredibly big step in the positive direction for same-sex couples. In April the Supreme Court has allowed the hearing of landmark marriage cases regarding the ban of same-sex marriage that some states have set in place. The court will hear these cases to determine the constitutionality of these state bans.
Now starting at the arguments origin. Arising from the four states in the Sixth Appellate District there are two distinct issues. One being whether or not the 14th Amendment can be utilized for requiring states to recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry. But the last issue is a real kicker because it deals with whether or not a marriage conducted in one state is permitted to be recognized in another state that may or may not recognize gay marriage.
As the legal system sees it there are three options that available. One is that the Court will decide to add a new right to the Constitution via the Fourteenth Amendment. This could go over because the Court could find the states in violation of the privileges and immunity's clause. The only other time the court has ruled on a marriage issue since the ratification of the Constitution has been the 1967 Court ruling on interracial marriage. Traditionally the rules on marriage have been state controlled.
Another option is just to say no to both issues that are presented. If the justices are to do so they would be ruling on the idea that there is no constitutional right being violated. They would also be saying that the states have enough power and enough credit to take control and make decisions for themselves and be independent of federal government involvement.
A last option that is available to the court is to say yes to one option and no to the remaining options that have been presented to them. The Court would be stating that there is no constitutionally delegated right to same-sex marriage and that states have the power to regulate marriage laws. But in the same instance the Court would also be requiring states to uphold the full faith and credit clause of Article IV which mandates states to uphold every public act conducted by states including marriage.
The gay marriage debate has been a long and lengthy one but there could be a light at the end of this long tunnel. In my personal opinion either option one or three would be the best courses of action because if the court's rule out of favor with gay couples and gay rights supporters then this could lead to a nationwide uproar. The importance of this Supreme Court ruling has never been seen or felt since the fight for civil rights in the 20th century.
